Historical events and mysteries that seem fishy
Posted: April 16th, 2008, 6:41 pm
Here are some historical facts and events that seem fishy to me. Could it be that everything we've been taught is false, as conspiracy theorists claim?
- I know that those who think the moon landings were faked are considered quacks and nuts, but something does seem fishy to me about the whole moon landing thing. For example, why did they land on the moon a few times in 1969 and then we haven't been back in over 30 years. In fact, it's not even talked about, as though it never existed. Some say you can see the flag the astronauts put on the moon with a powerful telescope. But doesn't the fact that no one has gone to the moon in over 30 years or even talked about it, smell fishy?
- How can the assassination of JFK be shrouded in such mystery with so many unanswered questions? The event happened in the 20th Century, so there should be plenty of hard verifiable evidence to draw a conclusion once and for all, shouldn't it?
I've read arguments on both sides and they both seem to have valid points. On the one hand, for there to have been a conspiracy there would have had to have been successful collusion and silence between hundreds of people at different levels of government, which is extremely improbable. But on the other hand, it also doesn't make sense that a lone nut (Lee Harvey Oswald) shot JFK just cause he wanted to be somebody and was a communist sympathizer and was willing to give up his life to do so. And then that a club owner named Jack Ruby would silence Oswald by killing him just to prove that "Jews have guts" and to spare Mrs. Kennedy the trouble of going to court. That explanation makes no sense either and seems awfully imcomplete and fishy. It's too easy to just write people off as being "nuts".
What do you think?
Also, one side says that no one can duplicate Oswald's feat under controlled conditions, and the other side said that any average marksman can duplicate it, as tests revealed. How can such a simple fact be disputed? Either it can be duplicated or it can't.
- I know that those who think the moon landings were faked are considered quacks and nuts, but something does seem fishy to me about the whole moon landing thing. For example, why did they land on the moon a few times in 1969 and then we haven't been back in over 30 years. In fact, it's not even talked about, as though it never existed. Some say you can see the flag the astronauts put on the moon with a powerful telescope. But doesn't the fact that no one has gone to the moon in over 30 years or even talked about it, smell fishy?
- How can the assassination of JFK be shrouded in such mystery with so many unanswered questions? The event happened in the 20th Century, so there should be plenty of hard verifiable evidence to draw a conclusion once and for all, shouldn't it?
I've read arguments on both sides and they both seem to have valid points. On the one hand, for there to have been a conspiracy there would have had to have been successful collusion and silence between hundreds of people at different levels of government, which is extremely improbable. But on the other hand, it also doesn't make sense that a lone nut (Lee Harvey Oswald) shot JFK just cause he wanted to be somebody and was a communist sympathizer and was willing to give up his life to do so. And then that a club owner named Jack Ruby would silence Oswald by killing him just to prove that "Jews have guts" and to spare Mrs. Kennedy the trouble of going to court. That explanation makes no sense either and seems awfully imcomplete and fishy. It's too easy to just write people off as being "nuts".
What do you think?
Also, one side says that no one can duplicate Oswald's feat under controlled conditions, and the other side said that any average marksman can duplicate it, as tests revealed. How can such a simple fact be disputed? Either it can be duplicated or it can't.