Abtigiis Posted January 2, 2011 I am allergic to consipracy theories, to the extent I consider myself naive. Hollywood is doing business and produce what sells. But I also don't agree with Prometheus on this one; he is using false analogies. The matter at hand is about religion and politics not pure science and there is room for foul play. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5 Posted January 2, 2011 Prometheus;684923 wrote: that the moon-landing was a hoax (filmed in a Hollywood studio, no less) The popular conspiracy theory seems to be that Stanley Kubrick shot the landing in a studio in England! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jibreel Posted January 2, 2011 I don't see a conspiracy theory in here and i fail to understand why the gentlemen in the above discussion(those who refute North's stance) have not given one single source , a mere fact , to support their otherwise irrational notion. Jibreel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N.O.R.F Posted January 3, 2011 5, I think you're being a bit harsh on the author there. His piece is pretty much confirmed by Oliver Stone and Michael Moore (Academy Award winners ) in the AJE video I posted. Will contribute more when time permits. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpha Blondy Posted January 3, 2011 conspiracies are one thing but we can already see their physical manifestations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpha Blondy Posted January 3, 2011 in the first alien movie, the alien bled green - this is the colour of islam. this is no coincidence, Hollywood has been indoctrinating people, no doubt because of a potent mix of popular culture and politics. this has normalised muslim deaths and shaped the discourse. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
N.O.R.F Posted January 3, 2011 LoooL@Alien's green blood. Thats going a bit too far saxib. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpha Blondy Posted January 3, 2011 saxibka, Sigourney Weaver was a modern day crusader. what these deniers of true don't seem to recognise is that the battle for hearts and minds, as it were, are now been fought out in cultural arena. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted January 3, 2011 Abtigiis;684926 wrote: I am allergic to consipracy theories, to the extent I consider myself naive. Hollywood is doing business and produce what sells. But I also don't agree with Prometheus on this one; he is using false analogies. The matter at hand is about religion and politics not pure science and there is room for foul play. To say that there is room for foul play is not to present much of an argument, saaxib. Does this "room for foul play" mean that Holloywood has an agenda or does it not. Norf is saying it does. I am saying prove it. Simples (as the famous Meerkat says; then again, there is some brain washing going on there about Roman Abramovish and his toying with Chelsea....or something). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jibreel Posted January 3, 2011 Ngonge, what sort of proof are you seeking? Jibreel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Prometheus Posted January 4, 2011 NG, unhinged conspiracy-mongers who blithely exclaim that 9/11 was an inside job, or that Paramount is conspiring with the Pentagon erroneously assume that mere speculation and allegation are a good substitute for evidence and serious scholarship. Conspiracy theories are discredited and derided in intellectual circles for a reason. Populist narratives are invariably unfalsifiable and unparsimonious, informed by all sorts of bigotries and fears. Never mind the leaps in logic, the confirmation bias, and the historical relativism that is required to sustain such delusions. There's a difference between real conspiracies (Watergate, Siyaad Barre's coup) and imaginary conspiracies (evil Jewish cabal, Hollywood-Military collusion). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpha Blondy Posted January 4, 2011 NGONGE;685218 wrote: To say that there is room for foul play is not to present much of an argument, saaxib. Does this "room for foul play" mean that Holloywood has an agenda or does it not. Norf is saying it does. I am saying prove it. Simples (as the famous Meerkat says; then again, there is some brain washing going on there about Roman Abramovish and his toying with Chelsea....or something). Ngonge - saxib, please act your age. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NGONGE Posted January 4, 2011 Alpha Blondy;685311 wrote: Ngonge - saxib, please act your age. I promise to do so the minute you start acting your age too, Mr Green blood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpha Blondy Posted January 4, 2011 green with envy are we now . saxib, learn to let go. middle age mediocrity is perfectly acceptable. Have you ever seen grumpy old men on BBC2. Its awersome. on the topic itself. did you see the vid i posted. its very interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites