It's a Conspiracy! - Page 2

Can I request a graphic of that please?

Nick

How very dare you! I resemble those remarks.....




Well, why not give it a go?

Look, there are 'facts and evidence' and there are 'facts and evidence'. Surely you cannot believe every 'expert' that crawls out of the woodwork?

We are talking about academics ffs - it's not about facts or evidence, it's about hoity-toity-high-table-who's-got the-biggest-brain-and-the-smallest-dick-I've-got-a-frozen-hamster-inserted-up-my-back-passage-women-can't-use-the-front-staircase-Oxbridge-Anglo-Saxon-private-school-buggering-the-first-formers-bare-buttocks-in-the-bursar's-basement-class-ridden-medieval-bollocks....

Surely you know that? It's fundamental.


"Proves' is a bit strong. Perhaps 'leaves room for belief' is better....


Strange how I have refuted them then...as have many others not afraid to stand out against the swelling torrents of conformity and blind obeisance.

But in a way you are right, questioning is more important. We all have our roles and strengths and it should be a team effort .....goalkeepers should not be blamed for lack of scoring goals.


No, you proved a man called William Shakespeare was an actor and that a man of this name had his name emblazoned on some theatrical publications.

I threw in the fact that some of these have been REALLY proved to be false attributions.


No, I'm not....


Unfortunately not...because there is no evidence forthcoming.


Err...right


You that's absolutely fine with me becasue I don;t want to be right.

If I see a sacred Cow I may fall under a compulsion t take an axe to it but you should not feel that this is because I want to replace it with a cow of my own. I HATE cows period. Especially sacred ones....I am down on them and will not stop till I do get buckled (btw; that's a reference to another famous conspiracy that I am even more obsessive about than this one).


Ok, right......20,000 made up words.....not bad for a bumpkin who was so low down the social scale he was an actor and money-lender when not threatening people with GBH and writing the world's greatest literature in between acts.


Yeah...was a bit iffy.


Yes, it is silly. I am not saying I believe it, just quoting the research. Btw though, the method was statistical and on usage of 2/3/4/5 letter words in conjunction with each other rather than stylistic. Still nonsense though. Imo.


Well, there you go - I am quoting the 'experts' - I told you they did not know what they are talking about.


Ummm...not sure....did you have anyone specific in mind? Are we conspiring?

Care to name a few?

On MY short list would be some of the following;

Structural engineers (PE's) who are members of ASCE, ASME, ASTM, academia, and other formal professional engineering bodies NOT associated with the US government.

In regard to the US government some orginizations would be the FAA, NIST, FEMA, and the US Army COE (where I work).

And to address the original poster, yes to all being true.

PS - addabox, as usual good post!

I have a question; since Shakespeare seemed to have a good insight into human nature, did he describe himself in any of his plays? How about in the Merchant of Venice?

i read/ heard rather than an "assasination" diana driver was blinded by flash held by a photographer on the back end of a motorcycle, thus could have been a terrible tragedy accident rather than planned

White Fiat Uno.

Tony Blair: War Criminal?

I disagree completely.

This is the best thread of the year.

Hassan & Segovius: Congratulations to you both.

V/R,

Aries 1B

To decide whether something is true or not in the case of physical phenomena (such as a car crash or building collape), one needs access to source data.
In many cases, such as JFK, 9/11, Kursk I can't bring myself to believe any story, be it conspiracy or not, because very little relevant source data was presented. If somebody wants to convince me, I have a list of data that I need for me to be convinced one way or the other.

For there to be a conspiracy, there must first be some manner of gain; gain to some one or a group. Who benefits if the works of a variety of authors are published under the name of one man?

If the original handwritten manuscripts no longer exist, is that unusual? How many manuscripts of a like nature from that time period still exist?

Could Shakespeare have 'purchased the rights' (for lack of a better term and if that kind of transaction existed back then) and then 'legally' have published them under his name regardless of the original author? Could he, in fact, have employed Johnson, Bacon, etc?

500 years from now will the posters of AppleInsider2507AD.com argue that Steve Jobs couldn't possibly have invented the Macintosh, Newton, OS X, Apple TV, iPhone, iBrowser, AntiGravity, The Portable Reality Distortion Field (Fool Your Friends!), AT&T and Microsoft and that he must have had help?

Do the printed materials claiming the authorship of Shakespeare date to a time before WS's death? Wouldn't the original authors, having been ripped off, raised a stink that would last to the current day?

And why hasn't Midwinter (as far as I've seen) chimed in on this thead???

V/R,

Aries 1B

Gee, Smithers, I think we have them all *fooooled*



PS- the Bilderbergs are just playing checkers at their meetings. Never you mind, you tinfoil hat wearing 'wingers!

'Who benefits' is one question - a good one usually these days when things are measured in 'profit' - but another good question is 'what is the purpose?'.

In this case we don't know. We do know that there were a group of noblemen in the Elizabethan Royal Court who were playwrights and poets and that these published works anonymously. We have a contemporary document that states this.

The purpose may have been political or promotion (and concealment) of Catholic sensibilities. Or it just may have been 'fun' - they may have enjoyed seeing their plays performed, taken their art seriously but not needed or wanted to be associated with the plays for personal reasons.


It is not unusual.

What IS unusual - more than unusual, suspicious even - is that they do not seem to have even existed at the time.

They were not mentioned in Shakespeare's Will - nor were any other books or written material. This is very strange...not only would one expect Shakespeare to have a massive library - and books were very valuable items - but also where were his drafts and manuscripts?

And what of the actual rights to the plays? These could have provided an ongoing income for his wife.

None of these were mentioned; drafts, notes, letters, manuscripts, books of any sort....none mentioned and none have ever been reported or found.


In Shakespeare's time possession of a manuscript - ie by purchasing it or otherwise - conferred the right of publication.

He could have sued if someone published a play under his name that he did not write....and guess what? We know for a fact this happened.

'The London Prodigal' and 'A Yorkshire Tragedy' as well as several others were published under Shakespeare's name yet no-one today accepts they are written by Shakespeare.

But he did not sure. And this is someone - the 'Actor Shakespeare' - who we know would sue for the tiniest amount at the drop of a hat, who was a usurer whose main source of income was lending money at exorbitant rates and who threatened people with violence if they did not pay.

We all know this because of court records - the same records also show he was a serial tax defaulter and non-payer of debts.

Not quite the high-minded bard.

One other thing: many of the plays of Shakespeare were in fact first published anonymously - we know this because we have the anonymous editions, they still exist.

It is later editions of these same works that bear the Shakespeare name. So even if he really was the author, he was in fact publishing some of the plays anonymously himself before he claimed ownership.


They may not have been ripped off. They may have done it willingly.

This is my scenario:

A group of writers at the Royal Court wanted for whatever reason to publish some works. At first they did this anonymously (the anonymous Shakespeare plays referred to above) but as this raised interest in their authorship they felt they needed a front man.

They went looking for a man who was not quite kosher, someone perhaps with underworld or criminal connections and someone who had connections to the theatre.

They found the actor William Shakespeare.

They paid this man to publish their output over a series of years and also re-issued their previous anonymous efforts under his new name.

Certain other writers and poets who knew Shakespeare the actor noticed the disparity between the writer of the works and their friend and perhaps came to believe he was plagiarizing other people's work. Some, such as Jonson and Greene hinted at this but overall they were not surprised - Shakespeare the actor had always been known as a rogue.

Over time Shakespeare the actor became rich, he gained financial interests in the Globe Theatre and of course he knew to ask no questions as to the source of his material.

When members of the writing group died and production halted Shakespeare the actor retired to Stratford.

No-one there saw him as a writer, no-one saw him as a poet. They knew what he was...a fat porkish money-lender who got lucky. Very, very lucky.

The truth is that Shakespeare the actor was the Ringo Starr of English Literature.

I meant to address this Hamnet and Hamlet issue before but forgot. Let's do it now.

Hamnet was born in 1585.

Hamlet is generally accepted as being written in 1601/02.

Ok...so far so orthdox. Unfortunately there is compelling evidence that another play called by scholars the ur-Hamlet existed some considerable time before this and it is highly doubtful this play was written by Shakespeare - either the actor or the writer.

As is clear in that link, Thomas Nashe mentions the play in 1589 and there are records of its performance in 1594.

Despite the authorship problems this ur-Hamlet raises re the Stratford candidate, this pushes the 'window' for a Hamnet/Hamlet connection to only 4 years between Hamnet's birth and the play's earliest known performance.

But there's more. It seems that there is an even earlier play that this ur-Hamlet is based on.

This play is a German version and can be reasonably dated to the year 1585 - the year Hamnet was born.

If anything it seems that the Stratford actor may have named his son after the play's central character not the other way round - or else it is just a coincidence.

In any event, we have actual proof accepted by orthodox scholars - though they keep very quiet about it which is why these facts are not widely known - that there were earlier Hamlet plays than than the one claimed for Shakespeare and that these plays were not written by him.

Edit: For what I think is the last word on this Hamnet issue I can heartily recommend an article by the brilliant Joe Sobran - actually his anti-war and anti-Neocon rants are a real hoot too! Re Hamlet he has these brilliant points to make:

I haven't read EVERY word written in this thread, however, from what I have read, I see the following;

1) As usual, it is best to place certainty of events into a probabilistic framework, so from my POV ordered chronologically/technologically/informationally;

Willie wrote works, p > 0.5
JFK single shooter (my add), p > 0.9
Moon landings, p > 0.999999 (at least 6 sigma)
Drunk driver did Di, p > 0.9999999
911 caused by terrorists, p > 0.999999999

2) Available "objective" data and when events occurred (i. e. no living witnesses or those who were born subsequent to the actual event(s)), seems important here. More "objective" data here does not mean more certainty to those who are unwilling to accept the "standard" story, if anything it means less to them, but in either case the "objective" data will always be << infinity (see (3) below).

3) Also important is that the facts can never be established unequivocally, we are not all knowing, can't replay events from all spatial/temporal POV's (infinite = impossible), the real world can't be preserved/replayed from any position/angle like some kind of CGI physics based computer game. This also gets us into probabilistic versus deterministic views of our existence (clearly it's probabilistic in my POV, but we will probably never be able to model large scale temporal/spatial events (turbulence closure models come to mind here) in a "true" probabilistic sense).

4) Because of (3) above we all have belief(s) or Belief(s). What set of "facts" are we willing to accept/reject depends to varying degrees on our temporal/spatial understanding of the physical universe, and how much "objective" data exists to support our belief(s) or Belief(s), and if we believe the existing "objective" data is "real." My own POV accepts that if a large amount of (time tested) "objective" data exists, then it appears that the commonly accepted "chain of events as told to us" are correct (as understood) to a significantly high probability.

5) Apply the above "logic" to any "explanation of events as told to us by the gatekeepers," whether the event in question is your flavor of god and/or evolution, AGW and/or natural climatic rates of change, or GWB & Co. and/or terrorists did 911.

6) Interesting discussion!

Semantics:
You need to stop using the capital C if you just mean conservative in general as opposed to a specific "Conservative Party."

It's ok....it's multifunctional and applies to anyone I disagree with at any particular moment so I need the flexibility.

I did this before (but in a different thread) and I shall do it again:

Conspiracy:
"a plan or agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act".

Theory: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact".

When the 'conspiracy theory' bullet is fired, it is usually aimed to discredit the notion of crime being committed by officials in high places.. such as in government, corporate, military, law enforcement etc, namely those in positions of authority. It seldom happens the other way around. It is usually those of a conservative mindset (either politically or socially) who invoke the "discredit via C.T. accusation" tactic; conservatives tend to hold "authority" in higher esteem than "non-conservatives" and those who try to discredit authority are defiling conservatives' most hallowed ground. Woe betide....

Judging by the way some folk attack "alternative explanations" of (controversial) events with such extreme rage and anger, one would think that they believe that people who get into positions of authority are incapable of putting a foot wrong, committing a crime, or doing anything unlawful, immoral or unethical. Why is it that so many are obsessed with the idea that authority figures always, by default, behave in a lilywhite, halo-shrouded 100% unimpeachable fashion, as if they have some weird element of divinity about them? It is far more likely that people who arrive at positions of power within society will exploit the "basement" aspects of human nature, and band together to commit criminal acts, especially knowing that the well-connected and wealthy in authority are far more likely to "get away with it", purely on the fact that they are "well-connected and wealthy"! Once in positions of power, the temptation to commit criminal acts with ones' peers is constantly present, far more so than for "ordinarily connected folk", especially if such acts enrich the perpetrators politically and materially, and the risk of being prosecuted is less than it is for "ordinarily connected" folk. There IS a lot of reality to the notion that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Millennia of human history shows this to be the case time and time again. To deny "conspiracy" by people in authority is to deny the very part of human nature that allows people to submit to the temptations to easily enrich oneself with a minimum of effort, and with a minimum chance of being caught.


.

Same here. Theres is precious little (read virtually zero) evidence that the Moon landings were faked. One of the people who "popularized" this little item of wackiness was one Eric Hufschmid. Mr. Hufschmid was, without his immediate knowledge, set up as a pawn to discredit alternate explantions of the 9/11 attacks, by material association with notions that are totally ridiculous and easily debunkable, including 'holocaust denial. This made him a prime target for spreading deliberately non-believable disinformation about the 9/11 attacks, most especially the idea that 'no plane hit the Pentagon".


I do also, but to believe that Bacon (or another) wrote those works is not ascribing to a "conspiracy theory", since there is no criminal intent, and only one person is involved.


There are problems with the official story. I think we all know what they are, and as of yet, there has *not* been a satisfactory resolution to Diana's death. You can either digest the BBC, or do the research.


When something of such magnitude happens, like the 9/11 attacks for example, then the inquiry into how it happened should be absolute, thorough, no expenses spared, no punches pulled, and completely transparent and open. This has happened re. all national tragedies in the past with promptness, for example the inquiry into the death of JFK, and the two Space Shuttle accidents. Inexplicably and sadly, we broke with tradition re. 9/11. The report we finally got was a sick joke, a vicious insult towards those who were murdered. The Bush administration flatly refused to conduct *any* form of inquiry or investigation into the attacks for 411 days afterwards, (!!!!!!) and when they finally, reluctantly quit sidestepping, and grudgingly gave the go ahead to the request for an investigation (to avoid much potentially damagingly bad PR had the balking continued for much longer), the resulting inquiry was starved of both funding, staff and time. Then Bush insulted the American peoples' intelligence by appointing Henry Kissinger (!!!!!) to head the inquiry... even he had the savvy to bow out of that one. The final executive director, former White House adviser and arch NeoCon Philip Zelikow could not have been any less impartial... and all the material (10s of thousands of pages of evidence) that contradicted the obviously preordained conclusion of the "Commission" was summarily excluded from the Commission's final report. Even vital testimony on the radio from firefighters in the WTC Towers just before the collapses, were disallowed. When Bush was summoned to testify, he invoked "executive privilege": he literally sat on Cheney's lap, his testimony was in closed session, the media were not allowed in, no transcripts of the procedings were permitted and the questions were all pre-screened. Much of the Commission's final Report has been widely criticized as being inaccurate or improbable, or riddled with half truths, lies and misrepresentations, for example the text re. the internal structure of the Twin Towers themselves. Then theres the issue of tampering of both sites (Pentagon and WTC) where evidence was removed wholesale from crime scenes and rapidly disposed of.... it goes on and on.

Clearly, the conduct of the powers that be has not been "thorough and scientific" when it came to the much delayed "investigation" into the 9/11 attacks. Who needs "the other stuff" (such as explosives in the Twin Towers, alive hijackers, disappearing planes, conflicting FDR data etc etc etc), when the conduct of the people running the investigation into the worst crime ever committed on American soil is so damned suspect, cagey and...... ? When it comes to raising red flags, we don't even need to invoke the "other stuff"!

I get the impression that many people are happier to just 'let this one go', on the grounds that the "possibility that a few people within hallowed institutions" could have either "allowed the attacks to happen" or "worse", is too disturbing for many people to bear. It is definitely easier for many just to "believe and have faith" in the authorities, rather than "upturning rocks", for fear of finding ugliness lurking beneath. And in general, the more conservative the mindset, the harder it is to publicly acknowledge that "problems exist" with the official story (not just 9/11, but most other controversial incidents which havent been adequately explained by government or authority. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's frothing-at-the-mouth rantings and ravings towards anyone who expresses any element of doubt or suspicion re. what the Bush Administration (etc) told us about 9/11. His recent ad hominem attacks on Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Kevin Barrett (for example) are quite the eye opener, and probably do more to discredit the "official story" than had his response been "measured and factual". [quote]

***

The depressing aspect of the current landscape of "conspiracy theory" (mongering), is that the "powers-that-be" and the mainstream media own the term, as well as mischaracterizing it of course, and use it to "discredit amongst the masses" anything that portrays the "powers that be" in a less than favorable (or criminal) light. To illustrate: the term "conspiracy theory" (when using dictionary definitions), can be just as easily applied to the "official explanation" of 9/11, the theory being that 19 Arabs conspired to slam 4 hijacked planes into US landmarks and kill lots of people. QED. But that isn't an acceptable or valid use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", as it is exclusively employed to make non-authority parties appear the crazies, not the authorities! And since the authorities/powers-that-be tend to own the lines of communication to the public, they are in a virtually invincible position.

We're all doomed! :P

No Kidding.. I had to scroll down this topic page for days it seems in order to post a reply to something I deemed an interesting statement..

I for one believe Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll, Oswald was a patsy. A UFO did crash at Roswell and we have reversed engineered most of its tech for our personal use..Some UFO's are ET's and some are not. My 2 cents.

What have UFOs gotta do with "conspiracy theory"?

Yikes....

The idea is that the Government is not telling the truth about the phenomena - as if such a thing were possible

I saw a UFO once a few years back - 2 in fact - and took a photo of them which I still possess. They were over the city in Paris and executing some highly unfeasible aerial maneuvers.

Something is definitely going on up there but I do not believe personally we are being visited by ETs or that the Government knows what the phenomena is - although it certainly seems interested enough.

Nor is there any evidence for the alleged crashes; Roswell has been pretty much discredited and so have the rumoured Sirocco and Aurora incidents. Perhaps the only 'contact' case that has any merit is the UK Rendlesham Forest incident which has some very anomalous aspects; not least that the witnesses were high ranking US Air Force personnel at the USAF base there.

Still, I do not believe these are ETs but something quite different.

We must see photo.

I also saw a UFO when I was a young lad (way before my drug daze) and have believed since. The only conspiracy link would be if the US government has captured UFOs, the technology and will not share or disclose them.

If anyone's interested, here is the video link to The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 National Press Club Conference. Long and boring, but it was the launch of a whole new investigation on UFOs. Ironically(?), I think another conspiracy a few months later eclipsed them.

Here is the photo...the first one is normal, the second zoomed in a bit - the original is much larger res so if anyone knows of any tools to enhance them it might be cool to see them magnified.





The thing about these lights was the 'acrobatics' - I watched them for about half an hour. They would shoot upwards or at a diagonal path very quickly and then stop for ten minutes or so. There they would fade to disappear and fade in again and shoot in another direction before stopping.

Eventually they faded out again but just did not come back.

In the first pic I have just noticed something I never saw before not at the time....two dark elements above and to the right at the top - don't know what these are, could be birds maybe.

I'm not gonna burst your bubble. Could this have been caused by atmospheric changes? It looks like you shot then at sunrise or sunset. Something with the sun and clouds? I no expert so your photos still stand. They look to me like solid objects.

The UFO I saw was with a friend of mine. I had binoculars and had climbed up our tallest hill in the neighborhood to view the landscape. The object we saw was about 10-15 feet in diameter, mirror smooth and a little flatter than an M&M. What was so exciting was that it was only about 100 feet from the ground and about 10 miles away. Totally silent and moving very slowly. When I looked at it with the binoculars it had a strange reflective quality. Somehow I think it was able to reverse reflection so that anyone looking above would only see sky. We were both freaked out. After a few minutes it started ascending at a faster rate and then whoosh...it was gone.

Whoa dude...you are indeed misinformed on the matter of Roswell and UFO's then...I subject to you the hundreads of trace case landing studies and their effect on ground soil, the thousands of eye witness testimonies worldwide along with video and still photos, on top of that you have numerous credible high ranking former military and gov't officials coming out stating that the govt has been lying to us about for over 50 yrs now about UFO's and the crash at Roswell.

Also the scientific study conducted by the USAF on UFO's and the possible threat of them in the 1950's called project BlueBook. If UFO's didnt exist the govt would not have looked into them...

Why is it that there are many witnesses, yet astronomers in the same area searching the sky see nothing out of the ordinary? Also, if UFOs were a menace, we would be past history by now, right? There are many unanswered questions, and most books either hype UFOs, or try to explain them away.

Where can someone find a really unbiased evaluation of the evidence? I tend to think UFOs have more to do with human nature than extraterrestrials, but I haven't read anything I feel is unbiased yet.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/ look through this site, it is a great reference of material. It may answer some questions you may have.

As far as your main question.... UFO sightings are as random as anything in nature, you never know when or where they'll show up, or the 'why' as well.

Only a criminal intent/element to (Government) keeping the existence of UFOs secret would qualify as "conspiracy".

And re. "theory"... that hardly qualifies also. Numerous governments all over the world, including successive ones in the US and UK) have admitted in their own releases that some cases and studies must remain secret due to "national security considerations".


In UFO cases, a rough average of 95% can be easily explained in mundane everyday terms. That leaves 5% as "unknowns". So UFOs as such do exist, the controversy being "are they from, or not from Earth"? I feel that the people who have the best insight are those who have had an "encounter".

I've never seen anything that I haven't been able to explain in normal terms. As for "outer space" or "alien" origin I remain skeptical, mostly because of the distances involved and the enormous time span and energy consumption it would take to propel a physical object (space vehicle) from a "nearby" (!) planetary system with technologically advanced life to any physical object in the Universe. And why Earth? (if I were an alien in command of a spacecraft, I would steer well clear)


Why the big fuss about Roswell? I bet the biggest motive was to promote the tourist trade, and it has worked really well! I went through Roswell a few summers back and the many of the downtown stores have some "UFO" or "alien" element. One downtown furniture dealer even had a couch and two armchair set with a family of silver suited "aliens" with big black wrapround eyes staring out at passers by. The most suspicious aspect of the Roswell case was the fact that the USAF explained it on 4 different occasions, giving a different answer each time! That doesn't exactly instil confidence that the government is being honest and forthright with its employers, we the people. Such inadequacies, obfuscation and cageyness only promotes suspicion and starts "conspiracy theory" allegations in the first place. Let me make the comparison with Flight 77 here (only to illustrate, lets not go off on a tangest).. but if the Government' story. re. 77, is wholly unimpeachable and correct, then let the public see those 80 seqestered security camera videotapes. They could squash the alternative, or "no plane" theories at a stroke. A similar attitude seems to exist within government departments re. controversial incidents, especially the military, and that is "we're the bosses, and screw the people, they don't have the right to know, national security considerations or otherwise; just tell them any old story and they'll shut up , believe and comply". You know, the thing about men with small dicks who get off on wielding lots and lots of power.


.

Those cases happened so long ago that details get fuzzy, paperwork disappears, and witnesses die. But that Rendelsham Forest episode was weird in the utmost.





I would love to see a real alien spacecraft (UFO) land in the middle of the Superbowl, or on the White House Lawn, or somewhere extremely public. But even if it were "genuine", how would we ever prove it wasnt an extremely elaborate hoax.... unless they started getting violent towards us... and that is a pretty moot point anyway: any aliens with the technological knowhow to come here and communicate with us would have to be far more "advance" than the human race. For them to so something of such extreme pointlessness or stupidity, such as preemptive war, or an attack for no reason, that would discount any notion of "intelligent" or "advanced".

I guess we have no choice but to look at these things in an anthropocentric fashion...we are all humans (including me, notwithstanding the opinions of some on this board). Is is reasonable to expect to expect "aliens" to have some element of humanity about them, "physically" and "mentally"? Or would they be truly "alien".. with characteristics that we just dont have words for?

I hate to resurrect this but......

Actor's question Bard's authorship