Monday, July 20, 2009
A Dark Age is when you can't remember what used to be possible, not juts when you lack the capability to do it. We are not there yet & so long as not all nations are under the control of the eco-fascist crusaders I don't think humanity, as a whole, ever will be.
Some people claim the moon landings are a massive conspiracy organised and maintained by NASA and The US authorities. You must surely be aware of this; many people on the internet claim the moon walks were faked and that no human has ever landed on the moon.
1) What is your opinion of these people?
2) How do YOU know their claims are not correct?
3) How do you think they are able to maintain their outlandish conspiracy theories/beliefs in spite of all the sensible evidence to prove that the moon landings took place?
2) Too many ways to answer now but here is one I made earlier http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/letters/7135/
The simplest is that the Russians would have had to be in on it too.
3) I think we have had a pretty thorough demonstration over the last few days of how many, even nominally inteligent, people there are who are incapable, not only of participating in rational discussion, but of even letting it near their prejudices.
What is your opinion of people, as individuals, who believe in 'The Moon Landing Hoax' is a conspiracy?
This link is to a website of a person who has devoted 10+ years to his obsessive belief that there is a vast conspiracy involving 1000s of people
What is your opinion of this man and his website?
Quote 1 : "A rule of thumb is that conspiracies cannot get too big without everybody knowing..." -Neil Craig
So you can accept and insist that other peoples' conspiracy theories are ludicrous because they are much too big and complicated to keep secret. People would find out, you say. So why did you write this (and many other claims of massive BBC/Media cover ups)
Quote 2: "It is simply a statement of fact that the BNP are thousands of times less supportive of fascism & nazism than all 3 Parliamentary parties & than every single BBC, ITN & popular press journalist. The BBC cannot dispute this but from experience they can censor the facts." - Neil Craig
These two statements are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive. Surely? If you can see the 'loony factor' in the moon-hoax conspiracy, how can you justify your own large, improbable conspiracy theory about the Media?
I'm a scientist, and most of my friends are scientists, and all of them are both liberal and intelligent. It's not just limited to me:
Without us whacked out lefty-liberals, all of whom are seemingly in bed with the BBC, those moon-landings could never have taken place!
This is not a 'have you stopped beating your wife' situation, because that is used as an example of a sly semantic trap to ensnare people who are completely uninvolved. My question regarded C.T.s, both yours and others. Your blog is dedicated to several grand C.T.s. So my question about why your C.T.s should deserve more respect than other C.T.s is completely relevant. It is NOT a 'have you stopped beating you wife' question. And you citing that as a get-out-of-jail free card is probably exactly the sort of thing the Moon Hoax website guy would do. You ARE a conspiracy theorist, Neil. Do you deny that even???
and also, I notice you have chosen not to print a couple of rather apposite posts which stressed quite strongly the parallel between your claims of a green C.T. (and a media C.T.) with other peoples' claims of a Moon C.T.. They were in no way rude, threatening or obnoxious, so you have censored them for political reasons because they were threatening to your position. You have become the thing you hate, Neil, within less than a week of receiving some negative press from a few bored netheads, you are burying my perfectly acceptable questions to protect your position.
You are a politician with your own political party. You must answer the public's questions if you want to participate in politics, even the very difficult ones. Will you print my other posts? Or will you become like the BBC (in your C.T.) and abuse your position of trust and power (as the only person with control of this forum) to squash the evidence that risks making you look wrong. Will you spin a slanted view of reality in which you look better and your opponents worse, even though the truth is lost in the process?
Because this is the very heart of your 'big mission', isn't it? Upholding freedom of speech and allowing people to have a forum for uncomfortable topics? Will you really bury those posts?
If you sincerely believe that any politician will answer any question (experience suggests the opposite) you will have already asked Nazi Ashdown why he supported Nazism & genocide in Yugoslavia & how it is possible for his evidence in the Milosevic "trial" not to be perjured.
Of course it is possible you are lying.
This is getting a bit 'same-y', isn't it? And if you are only going to publish the comments you feel you can handle, then it is not really worth it.
BTW... my mum went to see Paddy Ashdown speak at the Buxton Festival last week. She, and all her reasonably sharp 3rd-age friends, reckoned the guy was a straight talking, decent, honest, intelligent, erudite man with massive experience of The Balkan situation.
He couldn't be less like you. Byeeee
Anyway I'm sure your mum thinks you are a passable attempt at a human being so what does she know?
I was just wondering why my perfectly reasonable comment has been censored, but you think it's OK to imply that anonymous above is subhuman.
Scratch that, maybe a better word would be untermensch.
Ben and "anonymous": you two bozos would have to rank as two of the dumbest, most arrogant liars on the face of this earth.
Of course most Germans in the 1930's though that Hitler was a "decent", "honest" man so I am not surprised that "anonymous" [probably Norman Fraser, an obvious fan of former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown] would write what you did above.
It has already been well established that Paddy Ashdown perjured himself in the US/NATO government & corporate funded kangaroo-court set up by pathological Serb-hater Meddlin' Halfbright and serial-rapist William Jefferson Clinton.
Norman, are you going to use your "get out of jail free" card by denying the above and claiming it's a "conspiracy theory" like every other irrefutable, established fact you find uncomfortable?
the evidence that Ashdown perhured himself was gone over in detail & ended with Norman, at least, not seeking to defend the position that he was not a perjurer.
What exactly have I done to elicit such a reaction?