logo Sign In

Myths

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Here is a list of (everchanging) myths, or possible myths. Some may count as conspiracy theories:

  • ADD and/or ADHD exist.

  • Marijuana is a non-dangerous drug.

  • Apollo 11 landed on the moon. We are expected to believe this despite many glaring contradicting facts, for instance: NASA faked the first space walk, NASA faked an un-manned moon probe (Gemmi 8?), years after the apollo missions, the van allen radiation belts were discovered to be much thicker than previously thought, and the crew of a space shuttle which to-date is the manned space-craft to have ventured furthest into space (except the apollo moon mission) reported being able to see the radiation with their eyes closed (why didn't any of the apollo crews notice this?)

  • Evolution. There is overwhelming evidence against evolution, for instance all lifeforms alive today that were also living "millions of years ago" have not evolved. Darwin's survival of the fittest theory is completely disproved by animals that help each other, like birds that warn the rest of the flock when an incoming crow is spotted. While it is better for the group to have that behaviour, individually it is not. That is to say the bird with the selfish gene will outlive the rest because it can still benefit from the other's warnings - but never puts itself in risk by calling out warnings. The theory of Evolution changes more rapidly than I change my socks.

  • Princess Diana's driver was drunk. Eyewitness accounts and video evidence contradicts so-called forensic evidence.

  • "Jack the Ripper" killed five prostitutes.

  • Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons' "cold fusion" experiment was a hoax. They had a $40,000 experiment and discovered that under certain conditions it seemed the energy they put in increased - or that is - that they got more energy out than was put in. They said cold fusion was one possible explanation. Researchers have, and continue to reproduce the proven results.

  • Mentally handicapped Martin Bryant with an IQ of 66, a terrible shot at hunting and no proven experience shooting from the hip, or shooting weapons of such calibre - shot and killed 35 people, crippled two cars and wounded an additional 22 people in the Port Arthur massacre. Bryant killed 12 people all from single headshots, wounded 10 and remained in control, in 15 seconds flat firing just 17 bullets? I do not think so! For one thing, while he may have had rather close targets, shooting people in an enclosed space is something only the best professionals could do so professionally. When you shoot people, they tend to fall, and block other people - and those other people are screaming and running around. Even if no one moved, and no falling bodies blocked other bodies - Bryant would still have had an incredibly hard time shooting 12 people in the head (or neck) in 15 seconds flat. He wasn't even very good at hunting - he was a terrible shot. Bryant - even if he had experience with such weapons, we should expect to be spraying the bullets everywhere in a fit of loonity. However the killer clearly knew exactly what he was doing. Several eyewitness accounts that contradicted the official line of events were discounted.

    For instance, in the official version of events bryant stayed at the broad arrow cafe for less than a minute before moving out of it and continuing his killing spree. This is an important fact, because mentally-handicapped people who live in their own world tend to like to move on to other things very quickly. However, there are verifiable witness statements that have the killer waiting (at least) 4 minutes before leaving the cafe. This important because a professional would know that to remain in control he should wait while people outside evacuate, as to eliminate witnesses. There was no incriminating forensic evidence found against Bryant. Well, no forensic evidence at all, unless you count the firearms apparently not planted, but found in pristine condition at his burning house. There is no evidence he owned them, used them or practised with them.

    Now there are some tings people will use to incriminate him, like the fact that he was laughing and seemed to be enjoying himself during the trial and while the charges were made against him. However this was not uncharacteristic, for instance his father killed himself by drowning himself in the pond (and had done a lot of paperwork like changing bank accounts to just her name and not his ahead of time to make it easier for her). Now when the police asked Bryant to help search for the body (there was also a suicide note), he was laughing and enjoying himself.

    Anyhow to continue discussing any of these in this post would bring but hours of reading for you, so I will go and allow others to comment on these - and other Myths.
    • Author
    Time
    Post link
    Are there people who actually still believe that the moon missions were faked?

    I thought that conspiracy theory had been put to rest.

    4

    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Quote
    Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
    Are there people who actually still believe that the moon missions were faked?

    I thought that conspiracy theory had been put to rest.


    I don't want to believe that the moon missions were faked and I don't walk around espousing that belief; but the evidence is pretty impressive and nobody has disproven the theories. Not even NASA.
    "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
    --Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
    -------------------------
    Kevin A
    Webmaster/Primary Cynic
    kapgar.typepad.com
    kapgar.com
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Yeah, that's one thing I only heard about recently, but was surprised. I don't know what to think about it. I don't want to think they were faked, and in general I don't, but I just don't know what to think about it.

    And as a pet peeve of mine, the word Myth is tragically misused these days. It is supposed to stand for a story or account where the facts are false but they point to an even greater truth. A myth is the only way to convey truths in their pure form that don't exist perfectly in the world. For instance, the myth of Perseus never happened, and maybe there was never a Perseus at all. But the story illustrates things like courage better than any real story could.

    These days myth is often used to mean "falsehood" or "lie", which is a shame because a) we already have those words, we don't need another, and b) when people encounter a real "myth", they approach it differently because of the word's new connotation.

    Anyway, back to the subject at hand; I don't know of any good conspiracies. Milli Vanilli was lip-synching.
    If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    And, IMHO, there was a second, if not even a third, gunman who killed JFK.
    "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
    --Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
    -------------------------
    Kevin A
    Webmaster/Primary Cynic
    kapgar.typepad.com
    kapgar.com
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    I think these are conspiracies and plain lies, not myths.
    I definitely agree about cold fusion experiments and Martin Bryant. The government conceals things from the general public all the time.
    I've never seen evidence either way for the Moon landing. We were in the middle of a cold war when it happened, so I can definitely see why Kennedy and company would have faked it. If they did fake, it is kind of pathetic that we've never gotten as far as the moon.
    Don't care about Princess Diana.
    Prostitutes were killed. The police, with a lack of suspects, blamed it on one person which they named as 'Jack the Ripper'.
    I would say that Oswald was involved in JFK's assassination, but there definitely was a conspiracy that involved him.
    I have a new conspiracy theory involving Lucas and his reasons behind the Special Editions. I believe he is changing the movie enough so that he will eventually be able to justify changing the credits. Specifically, he wants to change the Editor credit.
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Here's one that's on my mind recently because Time magazine is pissing me off.

    Darwin, in his "origin of the species", stated his theory of evolution. As for macro-evolution, he pretty much disproved it in his book. His reasoning is that if species evolved from other species by a series of mutations, there should be species halfway between other species everywhere. They should exist in the world today, but even if not, the fossil record should be FULL of these "transitional species."

    In truth, there isn't a single one, anywhere in existence or in the fossil record. The closest they got was a half dinosaur/half bird that turned out to be the product of two skeletons and some glue. Now Time is justifying it by saying that dinosaurs had feathers and slept in the same position as birds, which is terribly interesting but doesn't solve the problem of transitional species. Time states it as fact.

    So, the conspiracy, or lie, is that not only does scientific evidence not support evolution, it actually points toward disproving the theory. Meanwhile it is being taught as a law around the world.

    I think the motivation is that it gives a scientific basis for discrediting creationism.
    If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    That is a good point about evolution. Scientists have found fossils that they started calling the Hobbit because it was supposed to be a small proto-human. Now, they only found one of these. Why haven't they found more? How do we know it is an ancestor of humans and not just a short human? There are plenty of smaller stature people around now. Is this an evolution into a new species?
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Quote
    Originally posted by: Bossk
    And, IMHO, there was a second, if not even a third, gunman who killed JFK.


    I belive JFK killed himself. You can clearly see him pointing a gun to his head, with both hands, before his head blows up, at the Zapruder film. But hey, I love Kevin Costner's final speech in JFK, it's one of my favorite movie scenes... "Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left. Back... and to the left."

    But I agree with GlopOfGrease, these are not myths at all, these are theories. The conspiracy kind. Has anyone seen Discovery Channel's Mythbusters?
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Regarding the moon:
    I was once told my my high school physics teacher that there is a way to prove we landed on the moon.
    One of the Apollo missions left a large mirror (or mirrored paper or something like that) on the moon.
    If you point a powerful enough laser at the moon at the proper coordinates, you'll have the beam reflected back to you.
    Real story or not?? I don't know, but something definitely worth looking into.

    Starboy,
    Are you serious??
    Paleontology was, until I was about 12 years old, going to be my profession. Now it is only a hobby.
    What 1 skeleton are you talking about?? Because what I've read indicates that at least 6 genus of dinosaurs had rudimentary feathers, another 1 was discovered with more developed feathers.
    Then there are 4 more classified as birds (including the Archeopteryx).

    People haven't found the definitive missing link between man and ape either.

    JFK:
    I do not know what to believe, except to say that I've seen those specials on TV where they trace the route of the bullet (assuming there was only 1), and there is no way on Earth that there was only Oswald. This bullet would have had to make almost 90 degree turns at a couple times during its trip to hit everyone where the coroner/autopsy reports say.

    And since you bring up this topic, let me throw some more wood on the fire:

    1. Is Elvis really dead? (Or is he living in a retirement home in Texas under the name Sebastian Huff?)

    2. How did Marilyn Monroe really go?

    3. Do you buy the story the USAF gave concerning Roswell?
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    The one I'm talking about was published in National Geographic about 10 years ago. It was a dinosaur skeleton with a bird's tail glued on. Nat Geo retracted everything later. edit: do a quick search for Archaeoraptor. You'll see the fervor and then retraction by Nat Geo.

    I'll admit I'm not an expert on the subject, so please do keep me accountable. I'm relating information from sources who know more than I do, who I do trust. While I know about the archeopteryx, I don't know about the others. I know they couldn't fly. I believe they don't constitute a link between the two species.

    If I got the details wrong, forgive me. The point is, evolution states that everything has evolved from something else. With the plethora of species today and all of the fossil record that has been uncovered, not a single transition of one species to another can be documented. That silence speaks pretty loudly.

    Add to that the nature of just the human body. We have something like 3,000 enzymes, all essential to survival. Did we evolve a new enzyme and keep it around for a couple thousand years and then develop the need for it? Or did we develop the need for the enzyme and fortunately evolve the enzyme in the same body at the same time? The latter scenario doesn't work. For the former scenario, the human body would have to be full of useless enzymes right now. Med students correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told that we have no superfluity of useless enzymes.
    If you're going to take forever, then I'm having a hotdog!
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Quote
    Originally posted by: Bossk
    but the evidence is pretty impressive and nobody has disproven the theories. Not even NASA.


    What evidence is there? A feather and hammer don't fall at the same speed on Earth.

    4

    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Well, the radiation belt for one. Considering how thin the walls of the Apollo lander were, it would not even come close to protecting the astronauts from the levels of radiation that are known to be in there. Then there is the footage of the landing that was shot. When sped up by one speed, it moves at the same rate as if it were filmed right here on earth. There is other stuff, too. Damn I wish I had a copy of that documentary I saw. Not that I necessarily believe it. But it's a strong argument against the lunar landing and it's just plain fun to watch.
    "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders, the most famous of which is 'Never get involved in a land war in Asia'."
    --Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), The Princess Bride
    -------------------------
    Kevin A
    Webmaster/Primary Cynic
    kapgar.typepad.com
    kapgar.com
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Sorry, I forgot to put evolution in there in the beginning. As for the moon landing, some more contradicting facts (I didn't hear anyone say) are:

    Apollo 11 shows the decent blowing away all the dust on the surface. Yet Armstrong (who now suffers from a mental illness), who at the time weighed 30kg including his pack (yes, okay that was his moon-weight, he weighed significantly more on Earth), managed to make deep, distinct footprints? In some photos you can see footprints all around the landing pod! The other thing I find funny is just how close the horizon appears. In latter missions (I think it was 15 or 16+), they added hills to the backgrounds, which added much more depth (and once there were hills in the photos they never went back). Some people argue this is just because they were on a different part (a hilly part) of the moon.

    Jack the Ripper and Cold Fusion I don't think count as conspiracy theories. The Ripper killed (probably) 4 prostitutes, not 5.
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Do you seriously think that if we didn't really land on the moon the russians would have let us get away with it, I mean, they had technology like telescopes and stuff that they would be able to see if there were in fact people on the moon.
    "I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    i have but one argument to prove that the USA was on the moon.

    it happened in the late 60's, it was the height of the cold war, and russia was USA's big enemy. i find it odd that no prominent russian ever denied the fact that NASA went to the moon if it really was a hoax. they would be the first to say it out loud...
    "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
    Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Actually there is no telescope on earth powerful enough to see that kind of detail. You could try and get NASA to point their Hubble Space Telescope at it (if it even is powerful enough), but good luck!
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Are you serious, this was in the 1960s. Of course they had telescopes to see that far.

    Hell, Galileo discovered 4 of Jupiter's moons with his telescope before 1630!
    "I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Quote
    Originally posted by: motti_soL
    i have but one argument to prove that the USA was on the moon.

    it happened in the late 60's, it was the height of the cold war, and russia was USA's big enemy. i find it odd that no prominent russian ever denied the fact that NASA went to the moon if it really was a hoax. they would be the first to say it out loud...


    Exactly.
    "I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    hey man, in the correct light conditions you can see a moon of jupiter with a relatively good pair of binoculars.

    you can see venus, mars, jupiter with the naked eye with no trouble at all.
    "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
    Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    That does not count because some people can see Jupiter moons with their bare eyes (you need something like 80/20 vision, and to have lived away from artificial light your entire life). Can anyone see the remnants of the apollo missions with their bare eyes?
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    i can see the hills outlining the terminator on the moon with my binoculars from the middle of the city.
    "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
    Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    Yes, but just don't point those at the sun, or you'll melt your eyes out.
    “Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    i wanted to do that when i was about 3 years old, and i first got to hold a pair of binoculars in my hands on the beach with my dad.

    "dad, i want to see what the sun looks up real close!"

    "no you dont!!" and he took them away from me before i had the chance. im grateful he did, and i never did again.
    "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent."
    Qui-Gon Jinn (R.I.P.)
    Author
    Time
    Post link
    That may not have been the best example, but you get my point.
    "I don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them during the long winter evenings."