SA Footy

As someone who has no trust in the Official Line on some cases, it is easy to be labelled a conspiracy theory nut.
However, whilst some theories of conspiracy are just that- theories (and clasping at straws), others do throw up some debate about how what was presented as fact, may not be as it seems.

Some notable examples-

Elvis isn't dead- wishful thinking by his fans who couldn't accept that he was dead.
Princess Dianna- cover up? Anyone with any great power or influence over the Queen/King generally doesn't live to see the next day. History repeats itself again and again and again- the monarchy have disposed of people before.
Moon Landing- another up for debate, naturally, Moscow would have been keen to discredit the US beating them to the prize.
President Kennedy- this seems to be a cover up of an organised assassination- by whom, who would know
9/11- Probably the most hotly debated of recent time, and one where opinion is divided- anyone disagreeing with the official story is discredited as a conspiracy theorist nut, but I think there are more questions than answers on this one.

are there any stories/theories that are debated?

they had the story on Martin Bryant and how that was a cover up so Johnny could get his gun reform laws in...

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm

On the moon landings I read an interesting article about the conspiracy theories:

- apparently there are now photos of the moon taken from earth that can be verified that show the moon landing sites intact as they were. There is no wind or atmosphere up there so everything stays as it was. The conspiracy theorists continue to deny they are legitimate and so I guess they think it is yet another step in the most elaborate cover up in history.

- a US professor did a study and estimated that in order for the cover-up to last this long, taking account of all the people that were involved in the Space Program at the time, over 200,000 people (it may have even be 400,000) would have to be knowingly in on the secret by now and held their tongue. The Professor estimated that the cost to the US Government of the cover up since then right up to the present day would have been greater than actually just sending the astronauts to the moon in the first place.

I suspect for some people they would have have to be forcibly taken up to the moon to view the landing sites but even then they would claim the sites were replicas built sometime since 1969 to continue the hoax forever.

Footy Chick wrote:they had the story on Martin Bryant and how that was a cover up so Johnny could get his gun reform laws in...

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/port_arthur.htm

yeah, this one is another, whereby the facts presented struggle to hold up to more intense scrutiny...

although, if you scroll to the bottom of that link, it says this:

On the very day Martin Bryant was being sentenced in Hobart,

President Clinton was addressing the Australian Parliament in Canberra. Was he there to make sure poor Martin copped the blame for the massacre and that nothing went wrong with the gun confiscation scheme, which of course was the reason for the Port Arthur Massacre?

Why would an American president do that, given that no American president to date (bar Obama) has rallied for gun control in a country whose politicians rely on money from the NRA?

I have read a lot of conspiracy theories like the Bryant ones. Honestly I find that to believe the conspiracy theory you have to suspend belief to a larger degree than the conspiracy theorists think is needed for their theory to be false, if that makes sense.

In other words, it's often harder to believe the conspiracy theory than it is to believe the offical Government line.

Hondo wrote:I have read a lot of conspiracy theories like the Bryant ones. Honestly I find that to believe the conspiracy theory you have to suspend belief to a larger degree than the conspiracy theorists think is needed for their theory to be false, if that makes sense.

In other words, it's often harder to believe the conspiracy theory than it is to believe the offical Government line.

Regarding the Bryant case- I find it hard to believe that his shooting skills are equivalent to that of a sniper

Punk Rooster wrote:President Kennedy- this seems to be a cover up of an organised assassination- by whom, who would know

Yet almost 50 years on nothing has emerged to substantiate the conspiracy theories. I used to be hot on this one but as each year passes and nothing comes out I lean back to the official party line. Lincoln, Robert Kennedy and Reagan were shot by lone gunmen with their own private agenda yet with JFK the majority feel this could not have been the case.

Surely by now something should have come out to counter to the official line. Where is the bombshell admission or revelation? I want to believe in the JFK conspiracy but I find it harder and harder the more time passes.

Punk Rooster wrote:Regarding the Bryant case- I find it hard to believe that his shooting skills are equivalent to that of a sniper

Who says he needed to have sniper skills? Did he shoot all those people from hundreds of meters away in a cherry picker?

He used a semi-automatic rifle and a handgun spraying bullets at close to point blank range into groups of people trying to hide. He wounded almost as many as he killed (23 v 35).

Port Arthur conspiracy theory still upsets Tasmanians PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
The World Today Archive - Thursday, 22 February , 2001
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s250296.htm

Hondo wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:President Kennedy- this seems to be a cover up of an organised assassination- by whom, who would know

Yet almost 50 years on nothing has emerged to substantiate the conspiracy theories. I used to be hot on this one but as each year passes and nothing comes out I lean back to the official party line. Lincoln, Robert Kennedy and Reagan were shot by lone gunmen with their own private agenda yet with JFK the majority feel this could not have been the case.

Surely by now something should have come out to counter to the official line. Where is the bombshell admission or revelation? I want to believe in the JFK conspiracy but I find it harder and harder the more time passes.

The problem with this one is the conspiracy theorists claim he was shot from the front. But the video shows the front of his head blowing forward, meaning the bullet entered through the back of his head and exited the front.

This video shows the photos taken of the moon landing sites that I referred to:

HH3 wrote: The problem with this one is the conspiracy theorists claim he was shot from the front. But the video shows the front of his head blowing forward, meaning the bullet entered through the back of his head and exited the front.

Not entirely convincing.
While the impact from the front should have pushed a head back first, it would be followed a tiny fraction of a second later by the the explosion of a bullet and brain and bone tissue from the back of the head.
This expulsion would then push the head forward in reaction. Both could have occurred and only been revealed by a very fast multiframe video shot.

Heres another theory about the WTC...

http://iamisatthedoors.wordpress.com/20 ... ing-tower/

You can tell the buildings in the foreground

Punk Rooster wrote:

Hondo wrote:I have read a lot of conspiracy theories like the Bryant ones. Honestly I find that to believe the conspiracy theory you have to suspend belief to a larger degree than the conspiracy theorists think is needed for their theory to be false, if that makes sense.

In other words, it's often harder to believe the conspiracy theory than it is to believe the offical Government line.

Regarding the Bryant case- I find it hard to believe that his shooting skills are equivalent to that of a sniper

LOL. Better read up some more.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:

Punk Rooster wrote:

Hondo wrote:I have read a lot of conspiracy theories like the Bryant ones. Honestly I find that to believe the conspiracy theory you have to suspend belief to a larger degree than the conspiracy theorists think is needed for their theory to be false, if that makes sense.

In other words, it's often harder to believe the conspiracy theory than it is to believe the offical Government line.

Regarding the Bryant case- I find it hard to believe that his shooting skills are equivalent to that of a sniper

LOL. Better read up some more.

the guy was an idiot- as in drooling and window-licking.
I think he could barely brush his teeth, yet was the master-mind of a massacre?
Btw, I'm not ferrit or aginnit, but reading an alternate view point (beside the official one), certainly throws up some doubt.

I'm sure the Germans believed Hitler's lies as truths

How smart do you have to be to shoot people Punky?

About as smart as you'd have to be to not care about witnesses and get caught at the scene.

I wouldn't call mass murderers "masterminds".

Hondo wrote:How smart do you have to be to shoot people Punky?

About as smart as you'd have to be to not care about witnesses and get caught at the scene.

I wouldn't call mass murderers "masterminds".

point is Hondo, shooting at a moving target is no easy feat- even most criminals that carry guns couldn't hit a semi-trailer moving slowly

Punk Rooster wrote:

Hondo wrote:How smart do you have to be to shoot people Punky?
About as smart as you'd have to be to not care about witnesses and get caught at the scene.
I wouldn't call mass murderers "masterminds".

point is Hondo, shooting at a moving target is no easy feat- even most criminals that carry guns couldn't hit a semi-trailer moving slowly

That's a surprising suggestion.
I managed to hit a moving target on the head with half a brick when I was a pre-schooler, from a fair distance.
(Mind you he had thrown it at me first and missed - it fell short and I ducked the bounce.)

I'm not bad with a bow and arrow or a gun either...

Punky, re-read how the 35 victims died. Most of not all (I didn't want to analyse it too much ) were stationery and shot at close range. Most of his shots at longer range at moving targets missed.

Punk Rooster wrote:

Hondo wrote:How smart do you have to be to shoot people Punky?

About as smart as you'd have to be to not care about witnesses and get caught at the scene.

I wouldn't call mass murderers "masterminds".

point is Hondo, shooting at a moving target is no easy feat- even most criminals that carry guns couldn't hit a semi-trailer moving slowly

Bryant didn't hit any moving targets.