It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mutually Exclusive Conspiracy Theories...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Reading through the boards recently, I'm noticing an increasingly large number of conspiracy theories that are directly contrary to another theory. Is anyone else noticing this? The problem is that each theory portends to rely on actual evidence... but if true, then another theory and its corresponding "evidence" must be false or fabricated...

In particular...

Theory number 1 -- Man never landed on the moon. What we say on TV was a hollywood production by Stanley Kubrick (or something along those lines).

Theory number 2 -- Man landed on the moon, was tracked by aliens, told to get OFF the moon, and we did.

They can't both be true, so that makes me wonder which one must be false, if not both of them. If one is true and one is false, are there any signs of overlap that would lead one to believe that one theory was a result of disinformation to discredit the other theory? For example, to allay the belief that we never landed on the moon, rumors are started that when we were on the moon we were warned off by aliens. That would make a more intriguing reason for not going back than revealing the truth that we had never been there in the first place, right?

So far, I'm only at the stage of looking at the widely publicized assertions in each theory. If anyone has anything that might draw any sort of connection between these theories, please let me know. Maybe that will prove to be the clue that is needed to figure out where to dig for the truth in these.

Centrist




posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
You forgot # 3, the truth. We went to the moon. We came back. No conspiracy at all.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I was always under the impression that it was simply the first lunar landing that was staged. Were there not two or three?



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Staged under Area-51. American's landed on the moon before Apollo 11. It was just the first televised landing on the moon.

Maybe I'm just crazy.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Centristone is true and one is false, are there any signs of overlap that would lead one to believe that one theory was a result of disinformation to discredit the other theory?

Yes, evidence. Evidence, in this case, indicates that neither are true.

In science, often, the evidence is 'ambivalent' tho. It can more or less support one or two theories. This requires information from related fields. its this 'interconnectiveness' that allows scientists to distinguish between equally 'valid' theories, along with some other concepts.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
I'm not disagreeing that there are other options. My opinion, fwiw, is that we did land on the moon in 1969. That, however, means that the theory that this landing was staged is false and the evidence of such a theory is either misapplied or simply fake. For example, some people suggest that Nasa had contact with Stanley Kubrick in the '60's and that this is evidence of the staged landing. It may be true that they had contact with him, but it may not have been for the purpose of staging a lunar landing on a terrestrial movie-set. In other words, this evidence would be characterized as misapplied, if this is in fact the case.

On the other hand, if the landing was staged, then the supposed evidence of ham radio operators intercepting censored portions of the Nasa transmissions with the astronauts is almost certainly fake/fabricated.

There are many possibilities for the truth, but what I'm trying to get at is this... there are two competing conspiracy theories that must be mutually exclusive. A lunar landing staged on earth could not have been met with watchful aliens... so, if I start with the assumption that the lunar landing took place, no aliens were there, and there was no hollywood production... are there any "pieces" to the greater puzzle that come from this story?

It could be that both stories are false and no conspiracy exists with regard to this event... and the contradiction of the two most prevolent conspiracy theories may shed some light on this. Given the relation of these theories, there may be some common, irrefutable thread that ties them together that would lead in the right direction.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Ah. If the evidence itself is ambivalent, and could support (or at least not refute) either the "Landing on a Soundstage" or the "Landed on the Moon and met with Aliens" , then, and only when 'all else is equal', one should pick the least comlex theory, the theory that requires the simplest explanation, iow, the simplest theory is the one that should be supported. This is "parsimony" or "Occam's Razor". Doesn't mean that we can absolutely say that one or the other is true, but it does allow us to pick between two otherwise equally supported theories.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
That's a very sensible analysis and truly applies here. What catches my eye about these supposed conspiracies is, perhaps, that they are mutually exclusive of one another. As with most theories flying around, most (if not all) of the evidence is purely anecdotal and, nevertheless, has given rise to a cottage industry of sub-theories.

I think this conspiracy catches my interest because I sense there are elements of truth on both sides that spiraled into two completely extrapolated stories.... the result being that the "official" and most boring story is probably the most accurate and truthful.



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   
great thread title. too bad it's turning into a moon thread.
what about holographic planes vs. missile pod. or thermite vs. mininuke vs. scalar weaponry.
what about the vatican vs. the illuminati? which side is 'good'? are they really 'against' each other?
will the antichrist really force everyone to lose christianity or lose their head? or will 'he' be posing as christ, and killing everyone who doesn't bow down?

the whole thing with conspiracy theory, is you're trying to uncover stuff that has been very well, and aggresively covered-up. usually, coming up with something concrete against uber-powerful conspirators gets you concrete shoes. ask hunter s. thompson what he has on 911. oh, wait. he's dead. suicided. or any one of FORTY microbiologists who died 'accidently' by such methods as accidentally putting a plastic sheet over they're head and wrapping a cord around they're neck several times.
so, little 'AMBIVALENT' facts are released, propogated, and allowed to mutate and morph. this makes it harder to find the trail of relevent facts. certainly, it's always that one or two little anomolies(or nine hundred and eleven, in that case) that tip off the conspiracy watchers. however, the theorists own religious, scientific, historical and logical biases all step in at that point, and that's where we end up with mutually exclusive conspiracy theories. just like 'they' want it.

there is SO much misinfo, disinfo and plain wrong info out there in TEXTBOOKS, nevermind the internet, that it is hard to fault the conspiracy theorist for wild theories. the world is clearly in chaos, but the new information economy and enviroment makes hiding things nearly impossible. hiding them in plain sight is the new strategy of the controllers. try seeing the tree in the middle of the forest. it's right over there.... see?........



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
My favorite is the entire 911 incident. Holographic images, pretaped videos sent to news stations, missles being launched from the citibank building, detinated implosions of the building...the list is endless. Each day there seems to be a new one with an even more outrageous claim. Considering I live in the immediate area, and saw the incident take place, I know with 100% certainty that is was nothing more than an airplane flying into the towers. No missles, no bombs, no holographic images, no pretaped news videos sent to CNN...just two planes destined to cause havoc in the financial district of NYC.

My second favorite is that Elvis is alive and in the witness protection program in Kalamazoo Michigan because he was a CIA operative working for the Nixon administration.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Are you telling me Kennedy wasn't shot by Amelia Earhart from her hovering cloaked UFO???

Now I am really bummed out!!




top topics



 
0

log in

join