Comments for Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes

Comment on Government Conspiracy Theories by seacet

seacet — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:36:41 +0000

the goverment made 911 becase the day 9-11 when the twin tower were melted the goverment new it wounld it would hapen they weared us with 911 no one new how to crak the code thoe but no we know

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on Bible Conspiracy Theory by shhark

shhark — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 13:55:23 +0000

If god is so real and thinks we are all equal, then why can’t I be a priest? Oh yeah because i’m a girl.
If god is so fucking great, then he should have gotten up off his ass and fixed us when we weren’t too broken.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 1 (-1)

Comment on 9/11 Conspiracy Theory by Casper

Casper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:03:20 +0000

the reason they are called theories, is because none of the evidence supports them, 911myths.com, jod911.com, start there people.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Could Terrorists Hi-Jack a Plane? by Casper

Casper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:54:12 +0000

here, 9/11myths.com, you have obviously read the conspiracy side, now read the real quotes, the real science and decide for yourselves, this is the most complete site and very easy to navigate, for more in depth questions, try jod911.com, I recommend the paper by bret blanchard, and ryan mackey, then you can read mark roberts paper on the loose change bunch and expose their lies….

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Could Terrorists Hi-Jack a Plane? by Casper

Casper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:49:13 +0000

sure, no problem go see it for yourself, 911myths.com/pentagon, all the debris you want.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Could Terrorists Hi-Jack a Plane? by Casper

Casper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:47:29 +0000

no,it really does not all the evidence supports the official story, that flight 77 hit the pentagon and the towers collapsed from structural failure, here, do the research for yourself, www.jod911.com or 911myths.com, sorry but all of the loose change movies are lies, and distortions, check out mark roberts loose change viewers guide.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Could Terrorists Hi-Jack a Plane? by Casper

Casper — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:42:06 +0000

if we wanted to go to war with iraq so bad, and were setting up this massive conspiracy to do so, then please explain to me why wouldn’t make the hijackers iraqis?????? who blew this assignment in this “conspiracy”? we made most of the hijackers saudi arabians for crying out loud, come on people think for yourselves, this is basic….

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on Apollo 11 Conspiracy Theories by Mark

Mark — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:05:44 +0000

People who don’t believe in the moon landing wouldn’t believe in a fish with which you slapped them across the face. Apollo 11 had a lot more to it than images, video and photographs. Thousands of people saw the rocket take off, in person, with their own eyes. Hundreds also witnessed the splashdown. Many people watched with telescopes as the vehicle left orbit, and watched it return. We have all of the hardware that returned to Earth, and it’s irrefutable that the rocket left the Earth.

It’s really scary what ignorant people choose to believe (and how many of them exist).

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing? by Ben

Ben — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:34:47 +0000

God I hate conspiracy theorists

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 0 (0)

Comment on Bible Conspiracy Theory by Guinefort

Guinefort — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:12:02 +0000

argumentum ex silentio :
An argument which in many cases falsely derives from the “silence” or the lack of sources that something or someone didnt exist; or to frame it in more simple terms the claim that “because something can’t be proven it didnt exist”.
It is a fallacy as long as the historian doesn’t take into account which reasons there might be that there is no evidence or direct proof for something.
One has to put into consideration that :

- the transmission of sources is dependant from many factors : wars, catastrophes, disinterest, disadvantageous climatic conditions and vandalism destroy sources over the centuries and what is left to us are just traces from the past. Some sources are only fragmentary.

- So called traditional sources (written sources with the intention to transmit historical events to ensuing ages) are subjective and selective.
An author only mentions in them what he knows of, what he is interested in, and what is relevant to him regarding the intention of the text he is creating. He might also deliberately surpress information.

What people who claim Jesus didnt exist because his existence can’t be proven always forget is that

1. they would need to invent a theory which explains plausibly where the oral tradition in the NT is derived from. Why would people with the intent to rule the world and gain money invent a person like Jesus and put words into his mouth against the accumulation of wealth and against social hierachies ?

2. “Jesus didnt exist because he can’t be proven” (an argumentum ex silentio) is a stupid argument for any historian.
“Josephus Flavius can’t be considered proof because he isn’t an eye witness” sounds stupid in the ears of any historian as well, because a secondary source can indeed transmit valuable information on the past.
3. When Jesus didn’t exist because there are no eye witness accounts of him does that mean that Herode the great and his tetrach sons also didn’t exist because there are no eye witness acounts of them but only Josephus writing about them decades later ? Did Josphus just invent all of that people and events he describes ?

4. Why aren’t there any eye witness accounts of Herode, John the Baptist and Pontius Pilate ? We know about them only through JF and Philo of Alexandria who are no eye witnesses. One should think Herode the great being an important ruler should have evoced more texts concering him.

5. Why do supporters of the “Jesus myth theory” plainly ignore the Jewish wars and the destruction of the temple at 70 AD ?
Isn’t that up to the fact they never read a reputable publication on the historical Jesus and the time he lived in ?
Would’t a desastrous war like the fight against the Romsns explain why we a lot of sources have been destroyed at that time and therefore could’t have been transmitted to us ?
Didn’t the scripts of Qumran only survive because they got hidden before the Romans could destroy the parish of the Qumran people ?

This is the reasoning a historian will do considering the state of things.
The arguments the myth theorists come up with are plainly pseudoscientific and show their lack of knowledge regarding historical research methods.

Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment: 0 1 (-1)