Originally Posted by sudohnim

Hi Guys

I'm new to the board so forgive me for just jumping in and going right ahead. Bear with me. I'm having a lot of difficulty with this at the moment.

A few months ago, I started reading about this phrase 'globalisation' because like everyone else, I was worried about the state of the economy and how it would affect me. Then I came across a few speeches by politicians (Obama, Brown, Bush Sr etc) where they cited a 'new world order' and basically a global state imposed upon the earth, so I googled that phrase too.

As you can imagine, I felt pretty secure knowing that all the conspiracy theories were all tripe. David Icke and his green men, secret societies, weird symbols, illuminati, the masons etc. I was convinced it was all fiction. Why was I convinced of this...? Because quite frankly it sounded too much like a Dan Brown book. He might be a good story-teller, but he's not my favourite.

Additionally, I also fell into the trap of thinking 'well, actually what would be wrong with a one world government or a one world currency...? Wouldn't that make life easier in these economic times...?' Then I asked myself... in my naive, blind mind, 'who exactly would it make it easier for...?' After asking myself that question, I began to feel a little uneasy because I work in a large organisation and in my own mind, the analogy of a recent employment restructure transferred to a global human scale - made me realise that little old me wouldn't mean a damn thing in the grand scheme of things.

So eventually I was brought to a point of information overload and I stopped reading. Then I noticed that things started happening. Some websites I had read which pre-dated the economic situation today, almost presciently described the financial meltdown as it is occurring now. I also read a book by Joel Rosenberg and almost word for word, he described the recent Palestinian/Israel warring and how it would possibly be along the path of WW3. I then began to look at things a lot more critically. I began to watch the news with a more discerning eye. I saw alot of people posting on forums like this one, asking what we can do about the 'elite' ruling class...? I had and still have, no idea. It worries me now that I'm 'awake' to this kind of thing and I can do nothing about it. I kinda feel like Cypher in The Matrix and wish I could go back to the Matrix and sleep and not know... and eat steak and enjoy my life. The saying 'ignorance is bliss' is indeed very true. But I can't go back and un-know what I have seen.

One thing which didn't sway me completely to the whole thing was I saw all over the place, the name 'Illuminati' and nowhere could I find real concrete evidence that they even existed or do exist, despite the spontaneous unsupported ramblings of a few conspiracy theory authors (like Icke) and I definitely was not convinced and am still not convinced about the bloody green men thing. I couldn't find hard evidence that the Illuminati are there or do we wish they were to blame them for all the faults we see in the world...? I don't know.

But I saw a story this morning... which didn't sit right with me. It made me think "what if the Illuminati" aren't actually called that anymore....?" The BBC web site (UKs national state TV) published [this story] on their main page at around 01:30 in the morning. By mid evening, it is still on the site, but it is definitely not on the main page and you have to search for it. Weird.

What I couldn't understand is why...? Why even bring this up now....? Why did this even come up as a story to follow....? One thing though 'Common Purpose' are a little strange with where their history and future lies. Then it occurred to me... maybe the 'Illuminati' have finally come out in their modern day guise...? Maybe. I don't know. All I know is that this secret society exists now in the public consciousness and there was no need for it to do so... so in order to make us 'accept them' they're in full open view... albeit being a bit secretive about it.

Scary stuff

If you're really worried about the world's order, i.e. the IMF and similar organisations that are indeed going to be subject to restructures following this economic charade (I think you'll find that's what they're referring to when they speak of new world orders), you should get active in politics.

Why not join a pressure group that supports your aims and intentions? there are plenty out there. For instance, I think GDP is not as important as wellbeing or the environment, and therefore I joined the NEF, which campaigns for accounts of wellbeing instead of GDP. I also think all main political parties fail miserably to pay attention to child welfare, so I have written to my local MP to ask what the government is going to do about the issue. I am also going to vote for one of the lesser parties at the general election in protest at the failures of the three main parties.

This is effective political activism. It would be far more effective if more people did the same.

What makes political activism ineffective, and makes our entire political system ineffective - and gives rise to this kind of concern over conspiratorial organisations - is that not enough people engage meaningfully with the political system.

Of course, the politicians themselves are in part responsible for this as they engage in spin, Google Page Ranking exercises and short-termism which inevitably turns the electorate off politics entirely. However, the public are also guilty of complacency - when things are going a bit better for them economically they stop voting altogether, assuming that there's no need for them to turn out.

People are also often less than politically literate and end up filling their heads with the media mogul's simple digest rather than the looking at the more complicated and more accurate portrayals of news and events. See the amount of people reading the Sun and the Mail compared to the Guardian and the Independent (or indeed the Telegraph if you're more inclined to the right).

Everyone should vote. Everyone should engage with politics and take those in power to task. Indulging in fantastical stories of conspiratorial powers only helps those in power as it distracts people from meaningul and effective action.

http://www.earthstation1.com/EsotericaFiles/Pics/Masonic/The_Work_of_the_Freemasons_jk.jpg

I only read the first few paragraphs.

Watch any or all of the following. ring of power (empire of the state), zeitgeist, zeigeist adenndum, the endgame, or watch/read of Jordon Maxwell, Alan Watts.

Originally Posted by newspresenter

I only read the first few paragraphs.

Watch any or all of the following. ring of power (empire of the state), zeitgeist, zeigeist adenndum, the endgame, or watch/read of Jordon Maxwell, Alan Watts.

I'd rather not to be honest as I think I can find more constructive ways to spend my time. Sounds a bit harsh and I'm not denigrating you're interest in the topic - if you feel it is more constructive for you then that is entirely your prerogative.

I've generally found that subscribers to these conspiracy theories lack a discerning attitude.

They tend (emphasis on tend here - I'm not drawing an all encompassing net here), to question the current system - often in my experience because they have some bitterness towards the system on a very personal level - but they don't question the plausibility of the evidence which they choose to support their arguments.

For instance, the people who subsribe to the 'man didn't land on the moon' conspiracy theory have probably done very little research into the origins of that particular theory, and the subsequent contradicting evidence that was produced. Anyone who did that would know that the conspiracy theory about the moon landing is utter crap. Unfortunately not many bother to question their own views in this respect.

Hi Keiran
I'd be inclined to agree with your point. Except that I don't have any bitterness on a personal level with the current system. It's just there have been and continue to be so many problems. I guess it's like the chicken and the egg theory. Which came first, the conspiracy to fit the event, or the event due to the conspiracy. I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by sudohnim

Hi Keiran
I'd be inclined to agree with your point. Except that I don't have any bitterness on a personal level with the current system. It's just there have been and continue to be so many problems. I guess it's like the chicken and the egg theory. Which came first, the conspiracy to fit the event, or the event due to the conspiracy. I'm not sure.

Hi,

Fair enough - my experience of people with bitterness which goes hand in hand with their resentment towards the system and inclination towards conspiracies was something from my general encounters with such individuals. I can't deny that individuals may exist who do not have this bitterness, though I don't know you so can only take you on your word.

It's interesting that you link 'so many problems' with conspiracy theory though.

Do you not think that it's possible that the human race just is that fallible? that problems occur by chance and specific individuals will perpetrate evil things without an overarching network/theory behind them?

In my experience conspiracy theories tend to form following an event. I can't say that I know of conspiracy theories that were in the pipeline before an event occurred, and then the event occurred which demonstrated the conspiracy theory as reality? - in my experience conspiracy theorists tend to twist the argument in a highly defensive manner to suit their ends.

For example, it's often difficult to argue with someone who believes everything is run by the Illuminati, as any evidence you propose which contradicts the existence of the Illuminati they will argue was put there by the Illuminati to cover it's existence up!

In reference to this specific article that you highlighted, I'd say that's very far removed from the dark and mysterious allegations around the manner in which the Illuminati supposedly worked. It's one thing speaking about a training centre which specializes in training people with skills to lead and putting people into contact with one another, and quite another arguing that there is a secretic group of highly intelligent individuals that make decisions on how the world is run for their own benefit.

In the instance in the article, they're supposedly teaching people the skills needed to become electable and forming alliances with influential people - a very believable and likely thing to occur in our society - been happening for centuries and someone would have to be an idiot to deny it exists. That said, I think Cambridge and Oxford University do the same thing, and nobody seems to have a problem with that!! As do the small clubs within those organisations, which are in some respects secretive, but it's still not the same as the Illuminati which is an all out conspiracy theory of the highest order.

The suggestion about the Illuminati is that they are an unelected, very small group of individuals, who got where they are purely by association, and that they take all the key decisions about things that go on in the world with a significant effect. E.g. they would for example have decided that 9/11 needed to happen, and would have put in place the machinery to bring about it's realisation.

Originally Posted by KeiranMac

For instance, the people who subsribe to the 'man didn't land on the moon' conspiracy theory have probably done very little research into the origins of that particular theory, and the subsequent contradicting evidence that was produced. Anyone who did that would know that the conspiracy theory about the moon landing is utter crap. Unfortunately not many bother to question their own views in this respect.

So, so, so, but I can't resist. As someone who has researched the moon landings, I cannot honestly say I'm convinced. Without question, the USA heavily doctored the photgraphs from the Apollo 11 landings. Its a practice that happens all the time today, but back then people were a little more naive. I'm not suggesting man did not go there, but the story presented in the photographs is not consistent with the one we are told. There is also a compelling argument regarding film not being able to survive the process of re-entry into our atmosphere, due to the electromagnetic field that surrounds the earth.

Back on topic, for a non-sensationalist version of themes of global conspiracy, I would recommend Who Really Runs the Word? by Thom Burnett (a special forces vet writing under a pseudonym) and Alex Graves ( writer for The Financial Times and former associate media editor of the Evening Standard). It outlines certain theries and looks at them through a political and economical bent. Worth a look if you're into that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

So, so, so, but I can't resist. As someone who has researched the moon landings, I cannot honestly say I'm convinced. Without question, the USA heavily doctored the photgraphs from the Apollo 11 landings. Its a practice that happens all the time today, but back then people were a little more naive. I'm not suggesting man did not go there, but the story presented in the photographs is not consistent with the one we are told. There is also a compelling argument regarding film not being able to survive the process of re-entry into our atmosphere, due to the electromagnetic field that surrounds the earth.

Back on topic, for a non-sensationalist version of themes of global conspiracy, I would recommend Who Really Runs the Word? by Thom Burnett (a special forces vet writing under a pseudonym) and Alex Graves ( writer for The Financial Times and former associate media editor of the Evening Standard). It outlines certain theries and looks at them through a political and economical bent. Worth a look if you're into that sort of thing.

Well, I've not researched the moon landings much, but I just researched the electromagnetic field issue you brought up, and my conclusion is thus;

1. Electromagnetic energy cannot damage film.

2. Did you question the argument put forward that electromagnetic energy can damage film? As I can't find any evidence anywhere on the net that it actually does... just a few moon landing conspiracy websites saying 'the electromagnetic energy would destroy the film', which from what I can gather is patently not true.

3. what makes you think they doctored them? specific examples if you want me to go and find evidence to the contrary... but it's pretty easy if you take the time to question it yourself!

Originally Posted by KeiranMac

For instance, the people who subsribe to the 'man didn't land on the moon' conspiracy theory have probably done very little research into the origins of that particular theory, and the subsequent contradicting evidence that was produced. Anyone who did that would know that the conspiracy theory about the moon landing is utter crap. Unfortunately not many bother to question their own views in this respect.

Reminds me of the 1978 film "Capricorn One" which starred James Brolin, Telly Savalas and O J Simpson. For those who've never heard of it, NASA have planned a manned flight to Mars, but for a whole host of reasons didn't go ahead with it, instead forcing the astronauts to act out the mission in a remote desert film studio. They of course cottoned on and refused to co-operate, so NASA decided that the end of the mission was to end in a fatal accident.

The astronauts tried to escape to make the public aware of what was happening, but were hunted down in the desert by the US military to prevent the deception coming to light. But of course, as in all good endings, one of them did manage to reach civilisation and turned up under the full view of national television at his own supposed funeral. I've seen a lot worse films!

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

So, so, so, but I can't resist. As someone who has researched the moon landings, I cannot honestly say I'm convinced. Without question, the USA heavily doctored the photgraphs from the Apollo 11 landings. Its a practice that happens all the time today, but back then people were a little more naive. I'm not suggesting man did not go there, but the story presented in the photographs is not consistent with the one we are told. There is also a compelling argument regarding film not being able to survive the process of re-entry into our atmosphere, due to the electromagnetic field that surrounds the earth.

Yeah but is an interesting topic. I saw this idea 'debunked' by a documentary in the UK (forget what channel now). Ironically It was thins 'debunking that made me question the 1969 moon landing.

I asked myself, 1. Why so keen to debunk the conspiracy theory?

But the main issue was the program wanted to present a dichotomy that either you think a) Man has NEVER landed on the moon or b) we landed on th moon in 1969. This is what got me interested as they did not want/ could not address the people that think we HAVE landed on the moon but did not do this until at least the 70s or 80s. Now why would go to so much trouble to debunk a conspiracy theory and yet so obviously make a straw man of the case, unless there is some agenda there?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Yeah but is an interesting topic. I saw this idea 'debunked' by a documentary in the UK (forget what channel now). Ironically It was thins 'debunking that made me question the 1969 moon landing.

I asked myself, 1. Why so keen to debunk the conspiracy theory?

But the main issue was the program wanted to present a dichotomy that either you think a) Man has NEVER landed on the moon or b) we landed on th moon in 1969. This is what got me interested as they did not want/ could not address the people that think we HAVE landed on the moon but did not do this until at least the 70s or 80s. Now why would go to so much trouble to debunk a conspiracy theory and yet so obviously make a straw man of the case, unless there is some agenda there?

It is an odd one. The photographs are amazing really. I know Kieran Mac wants me to actually post some of the obvious examples of doctoring but to be honest I can't be bothered. They're all out on the internet if anyone wants to look.

Some of the more blatent 'red flags' are

• some shots clearly depict 2 light sources where NASA have claimed light was only coming from the Sun. The second light source illuminates the American flag at opportune moments.
• the angle of the shots is incorrect considering the cameras were attached to the astronauts' chest.
• there is an example of a crosshair in one photo disappearing behind an object in the frame.

These are just some of the ones I can remember off the top of my head. But whenever you bring up stories of faked landings or conspriracy theory its hard to not sound like a nutter. Marxist or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

It is an odd one. The photographs are amazing really. I know Kieran Mac wants me to actually post some of the obvious examples of doctoring but to be honest I can't be bothered. They're all out on the internet if anyone wants to look.

Some of the more blatent 'red flags' are

• some shots clearly depict 2 light sources where NASA have claimed light was only coming from the Sun. The second light source illuminates the American flag at opportune moments.
• the angle of the shots is incorrect considering the cameras were attached to the astronauts' chest.
• there is an example of a crosshair in one photo disappearing behind an object in the frame.

These are just some of the ones I can remember off the top of my head. But whenever you bring up stories of faked landings or conspriracy theory its hard to not sound like a nutter. Marxist or otherwise.

For me it is not the doctoring of photos but their very existence that makes me wonder. Now in 1969, I m not sure that cosmic radiation was very well understood, in fact I'm fairly sure it wasn't. Yes we knew it was there but not its effects on film (please correct me if I'm wrong here) Now unless the film was specifically protected against cosmic radiation it seems unlikely that any let alone ALL the film footage would survive. Also if astronauts were not protected against cosmic radiation one wonders why Neil Armstrong shows no signs of exposure to radiation?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

For me it is not the doctoring of photos but their very existence that makes me wonder. Now in 1969, I m not sure that cosmic radiation was very well understood, in fact I'm fairly sure it wasn't. Yes we knew it was there but not its effects on film (please correct me if I'm wrong here) Now unless the film was specifically protected against cosmic radiation it seems unlikely that any let alone ALL the film footage would survive. Also if astronauts were not protected against cosmic radiation one wonders why Neil Armstrong shows no signs of exposure to radiation?

I'm not 100% sure of this, but unless specific precautions were taken, cosmic radiation can indeed have an effect on photographic film in much the same way that radiation on earth affects film-badge dosimeters; in other words it gradually fogs the film. You'd really need to know exactly how much protection, intentional or not, each film was given to be able to quantify the results from any moon mission though.

I believe that several astronauts have indeed suffered from gross cellular and dna abnormalities due to radiation exposure whilst on space missions. None have been life-threatening as far as I know, but the damage is certainly there. One of the early indications was several astronauts reporting white flashes of light in their closed eyes; this has subsequently been attributed to cosmic radiation passing into the eye and stimulating the retina.

Regarding Dr The Evidence's comments, I think it was either 'Discovery' or 'Discovery Science' which produced the documentary on the moon landings. There's also been another documentary, and I've got a feeling it might have been a special episode of 'Myth Busters', which carried out some trials to debunk some of the conspiracy theories. I can't recall them all, but it included things such as tapping a flag held out horizontally when it was in a vacuum chamber inside an aircraft which was in a zero-G parabolic flight to see it if waved - it did, and seeing how fine dust behaved when trodden on in a vacuum - it left a very clear print whereas when at normal atmospheric pressure it didn't.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm not 100% sure of this, but unless specific precautions were taken, cosmic radiation can indeed have an effect on photographic film in much the same way that radiation on earth affects film-badge dosimeters; in other words it gradually fogs the film. You'd really need to know exactly how much protection, intentional or not, each film was given to be able to quantify the results from any moon mission though

Indeed I too would like to know if such data exists

I believe that several astronauts have indeed suffered from gross cellular and dna abnormalities due to radiation exposure whilst on space missions. None have been life-threatening as far as I know, but the damage is certainly there. One of the early indications was several astronauts reporting white flashes of light in their closed eyes; this has subsequently been attributed to cosmic radiation passing into the eye and stimulating the retina.

Yes but not neil or buzz, that makes it even more suspect, perhaps

Regarding Dr The Evidence's comments, I think it was either 'Discovery' or 'Discovery Science' which produced the documentary on the moon landings. There's also been another documentary, and I've got a feeling it might have been a special episode of 'Myth Busters', which carried out some trials to debunk some of the conspiracy theories. I can't recall them all, but it included things such as tapping a flag held out horizontally when it was in a vacuum chamber inside an aircraft which was in a zero-G parabolic flight to see it if waved - it did, and seeing how fine dust behaved when trodden on in a vacuum - it left a very clear print whereas when at normal atmospheric pressure it didn't.

Sorry Midas I think that was me not Doc. I think it was myth busters that seemed to assume either u thin k we have never landed on the moon or all the moon landings were real, which made me ask, 'hey...what about if I';m just sceptical about the '69 landing??'