<body>
Hip and Thigh: Smiting Theological Philistines with a Great Slaughter. Judges 15:8

Monday, August 21, 2006

Tin-foil Hat Theology [pt 1]:

How conspiracy theories are detrimental to a Christian's spiritual health

Do not say, "a conspiracy," concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, nor be afraid of their threats or be troubled. (Isaiah 8:12)


As I travel over the Internet super-highway I will drive by websites dedicated to the promotion of some elaborate conspiracy theory. Just like the attractions along the side of the road promising to show those willing to stop such glorious curiosities as the world's largest gum ball or genuine jackalope skeletons, these conspiracy websites promise that if you are willing to open your eyes, read all the facts, and connect all the dots, you too will be awakened to the truth of reality.

Now, before I go on, it may be helpful to define what I mean by a conspiracy theory. A "conspiracy" is simply defined as a "planning together to do something." Additionally, the conspirators - the group of individual conspiring together - do so in secret or with a limited knowledge of what is going on by others outside the group.

Generally, the word "conspiracy" has a stigma attached to it because it is assumed that the conspirators are attempting to perpetrate something illegal or harmful. Normally, that may be the case when we speak of a conspiracy, but a conspiracy and those conspiring together need not be thought of as being harmful or acting illegally. The Manhattan Project, for example, was a massive conspiracy designed to develop the atomic bomb. It was necessary for the entire project to remain a conspiracy - top secret - for the purposes of national security. Even the Normandy Invasion of June 6, 1944 was a large scale conspiracy which also necessitated absolute secrecy. I myself once participated in a "conspiracy" when I was invited to attend a private get together with a well-known pastor that was limited to the number of folks who could attend. I was told the gathering was impromptu and I was to keep it secret because there was no way to accommodate a large group of people.

Those type of conspiracies are not bad.

However, the conspiracies that occupy the minds of conspiracy theorists are of the harmful, illegal type and they cover a broad spectrum of subjects and scenarios. For instance:

- Zionists and Jews attempting to take over the world.

- International bankers trying to take over the world.

- The Illuminati, or other clandestine groups, attempting to take over the world.

- NASA and the government covering over the truth about UFOs.

- NASA and the government covering over the truth about cities on Mars and the moon.

- NASA and the government covering over the truth that the Apollo missions were hoaxed.

- The government covering over the assassination of high profile government officials like JFK or Ron Brown.

- And the most recent: the government covering over their involvement orchestrating the events of September, 11th with remote control planes, cruise missiles, and controlled demolitions.

Now, it is one thing to have a disturbed individual who lives in a one room apartment with 3 cats named after the Harry Potter children and lectures on a part-time basis at the local community college claim that the government, in conjunction with the Reptilian Guard from the planet Zinar, staged 9-11 so Bush could steal all the oil in the Middle East. I, as a Bible believing Christian, expect these kind of conclusions from men whose minds are darkened in sin and are thus easily susceptible to be snared by these fantasies. However, it is quite another thing to find men and women who name Christ as their Lord and Savior advocating conspiracy theories. These folks go beyond being disturbing to grieving my heart.

Before the Internet, there were pastors and Bible teachers who preached about massive conspiracy theories that were going to usher in the anti-Christ, or establish the new age, or force people to get a barcode burned onto their head, or the U.N. rounding up Christians and locking them in concentration camps. For some reason, the cranks who promoted these theories were fundamentalists, King James onlyists. I am not sure what that means exactly, but suffice it to say, their publications were contained to a small, marginalized fan base and didn't get much air time in the real world.

But now, with the advent of the world wide web, these same Christian conspiracy hunters have the ability to spread their paranoid delusions to the four corners of the earth and sadly, many other less discerning believers are becoming tossed to and fro by these reckless ideas. And this is something we should consider alarming, because conspiracy theory theology, or what I call "tin-foil hat" theology, not only causes problems for pastors shepherding a Church whose members are exposed to these websites, but this tin-foil hat theology will wreck havoc on the spiritual well-being of a Christian believer.

With this post, and a future second post on this subject, let me outline what I believe are at least six key ways conspiracy theory theology can be detrimental to a Christian's spiritual health. I will begin with the first three:

1) Produces an inordinate fear that should not be a mark of a Christian

An unhealthy interest in conspiracy theories can produce fear in the heart of the person entertaining them. A lowgrade paranoia that drives the way the person evaluates people and events he or she may come in contact with and experience.

Just like the by-line from the X-files, No one is to be trusted. Everyone in any position of authority could be lying or covering something up to conceal the truth. The person becomes suspicious of every person and everything. Some folks may think I am exaggerating the feeling of fear on the part of these people, but I have known individuals recently and from my past who were marked by a spirit of fear because they allowed conspiracy theory scenarios govern their hearts. I can recall one gal who claimed she would never use a computer, because the Anti-Christ would use computers and the Internet to form the one world government in the end-times.

The Bible tells us that Christians are not to be marked with fearfulness of heart. Paul wrote, For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). Note how the idea of a "sound mind" is connected with not being fearful. That means the person who is thinking straight about reality will not be full of fear. A sound mind is a person who has been saved, whose mind is no longer darkened by sin and is now soberminded; not given over to being victimized by the prince of this world who delights in holding men in bondage to their fears.

Moreover, the Apostle John writes that, perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). We should no longer be afraid of God, for the wrath against our sin has been appeased by Christ, but also, because Christians live in perfect love, any fear about our life and world will be cast out. It is unnatural for a believer to live in fear of conspiracies ruling the world.

2) Generates an obsessive fixation on the uncertain

All the folks I have encountered who name Christ, yet involve themselves in pursuing conspiracy theories, are more fixated on the promotion of the pet conspiracy, than they are on the promotion of Christ. They don't live the Christian life at all in some instances, but anytime there is opportunity to preach the "truth" about the conspiracy, they will do so from the house tops. The reality, however, is that the conspiracy is based upon things that are subjective and totally uncertain to the conspiracy theory aficionado even though he will claim to "know the truth." It is sad when some issue becomes so obsessive to a Christian that people know the person for their conspiratorial views rather than the fact he or she is a Christian. I have encountered a fellow a handful of times on my blog and on others who believes acknowledgment of the reality that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone when assassinating President Kennedy. Why is the JFK assassination important to the Christian's spirituality? Yet, anyone who denies his assertions is dismissed as being out of touch and not desiring to know the truth.

That leads me to a third key area conspiracy theories are spiritually unhealthy,

3) Promotes Gnostic tendencies

By "Gnostic tendencies" I mean the aspect of old, pagan Gnosticism that relegated knowledge of the truth to a handful of people who then dish out the "special" secret knowledge to those willing to learn the truth from them. I encounter this mentality all the time from tin-foil hat theologians who sneer at me as someone not "willing to hear the truth" of the matter. I live in a fantasy world, according to these folks, and I am foolishly allowing myself to be duped into believing a lie about such and such a conspiracy. But I would think that because Christians have the spirit of discernment to know truth, that any obvious conspiracy would be evident, yet, I am required to go and learn from the one alleged "expert" on the particular conspiracy. Why should I have to do that?

Let me stop there. I have three more areas where the pursuit of conspiracy theories are damaging to a Christian's spirituality that I will address later this week or this weekend, the Lord willing.

Labels:

35 Comments:

Blogger Nathan said...

I predict surfer boy will arrive soon. Now I'll leave you to your blog, and not stir up unnecessary fights.

But if I'm right, I get ice cream.

3:05 PM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger junior said...

Whoa!
I just posted on Conspiracy Theories...what do you think it means?!

7:49 PM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger Peter D. Nelson said...

Gee Whiz Fred now I've got to give back my secret decoder ring that will translate the personals in the New York Times into the CIA messages to the One World Government leader.

All jocularity aside my friend have you ever noticed that there are more "dispensationalists" that are into these conspiracy theories than the "reformed"? This is a totally biased observation from a former dispie.

I look forward to more on this.

8:13 PM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Yes, Peter, it seems as though tin-foil hat theology is born out of dispensational, king james only, independent fundamentalist ideaology. I am sure there is a connection there somewhere.

Fred

9:09 PM, August 21, 2006  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

This example made me laugh. A lot.

This is a good corrective, at least I think it is.

4:23 AM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Fred,
Please allow me to make a few points.
The verse you quoted at the beginning is from Isaiah 8:12 and not 8:14. You cite this verse because it warns God's people not to fear talk of a conspiracy between the 10 tribes and the Assyrians. This is a warning against sinful fear and the distrust of God. The KJV, God's true word, says "confederacy" instead of conspiracy which is really what this threatened union with the Assyrians was. As you may know, in order to obtain a copyright, modern Bible translators had to change or alter God's word by a certain amount and it is by no small amount either. This is why the word confederacy was altered to conspiracy. But let me get on with the blog topic.

Regarding conspiracies allow me to make several points in response to you.
1. Though you accurately state that there have been many conspiracies (Manhattan project,etc.), you then seem to broadbrush the "harmful, illegal" conspiracies that occupy the minds of theorists as being "fantasies." You seem to say that there are no "harmful,illegal" conspiracies. Or are you saying that conspiracies acknowledged by the conspirators are true (like d-day or the Manhattan project), but conspiracies denied by the conspirators through the media must be fantasies?
2. You then seem to say that only those whose minds are "darkened in sin" "can be snared by these fantasies" [conspiracies]. You seem to believe that a Bible-believing Christian can't believe them. Both Christians and non-Christians can and do believe in true conspiracies and false conspiracies.
3. You say it grieves your heart to see people who name Christ as advocating conspiracy. Why, if what they advocate is the truth? Again, you assume all "negative" conspiracies are false.
4. You say, "before the internet, there were pastors and Bible teachers who preached about massive conspiracies that were going to usher in the anti-christ, or establish the new age, or force people to get a barcode, or the UN rounding up Christians and locking them in concentration camps." Then you call those Christians who promoted those theories as "cranks" and "KJV onlyists." All those "cranks" as you call them were speaking the truth. There is a vast conspiracy afoot to usher in antichrist as well as to usher in a new age--people will be forced to use something like the mark (the technology is already here), and Christians will go to concentration camps. Then you further insult these Christians by stating that they have "paranoid delusions" and are in need of "tin foil hats."
5. In your first point you say that "conspiracies produce fear." Is this the real reason why you won't accept them? Because the thought of them produces too much fear in you? A true Christian will not fear the truth or anything that man can do. A true Christian will only fear God. You then say, "The person who is thinking straight about reality will not be full of fear." Fear comes from the Devil and it drives this world and all who are in it. Only faith in God, and not "straight thinking" can drive away fear. You then say, "We should no longer be afraid of God, for the wrath against our sin has been appeased by Christ." Is this true? Although Christ has taken God's wrath due us, we are still commanded to fear God. In fact, it is only the fear of God that can free us from the fear of man. Then you say, "It is unnatural for a believer to live in fear of conspiracies ruling the world." A believer should not live in fear of any conspiracy, but that doesn't mean that a believer is not aware of true conspiracies. Nor does that mean that the true Christian lives with his head in the sand. Remember, a true Christian is commanded to be "be not ignorant of his devices" (Satan's).
6. In part 2 you say, some Christians are "more fixated on promoting conspiracy than promoting Christ." This could be a valid point, but Christians have different callings. I know Christians that only expose the evils of the PDC, which is a conspiracy that is destroying Christian faith. A Christian is also commanded to "reprove the unfruitful works of darkness." You then say, "The reality, however, is that the conspiracy is based upon things that are subjective and totally uncertain to the conspiracy theorist even though he will claim to know the truth." Many conspiracy theorists have done much research and have uncovered most, if not all, of the truth and they can claim to know the truth. Remember that God has called some of these very conspirators who have first-hand knowledge of the conspiracy. It's true that some theorists will claim to know truth while being subjective and uncertain. They don't know what they're talking about. Then you say, "Why is the JFK assassination important to Christian spirituality." "Yet anyone who denies his assertion (that there was a conspiracy in the killing) is dismissed as being out of touch and not desiring to know the truth." Can one be a Christian and deny 2+2=4? Of course not. Fred, there is evidence you could stack from here to the moon which will prove that JFK was killed in a conspiracy. I am tempted to ask myself, how can anyone possessing "the Spirit of Truth" or just common sense deny this evidence? I am tempted to believe that you don't want to know the truth, but I guess it's possible that you are a sincere man that really does believe in the incredible--that Oswald acted alone.
You may have to learn about a particular conspiracy from an expert because God gives all Christians different degrees of discernment and different degrees of knowledge. Though all Christians have the Spirit of Truth, obviously, all Christians haven't had truths revealed to them equally.
Fred, I would like to ask the following questions of Christians reading this, yourself included: Would you be willing to learn and proclaim a truth if it resulted in you losing your job, your friends, your church fellowship, or even your life? Or are your job, friends, and church membership more important to you than learning and proclaiming truth? Are you controlled by what others think and feel about you? If you are, then you can't be a witness for Christ. Can you take a stand for the truth that goes against your your church elders? Would you proclaim an unpopular truth at the risk of being called divisive and hateful by your so-called brethren? Do you fear man more than you fear God? If so, then you must repent.

It looks like you owe NWC an ice-cream.

4:27 AM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Well Nate, I owe you some ice cream. =-)


Please allow me to make a few points.
The verse you quoted at the beginning is from Isaiah 8:12 and not 8:14.


Thanks for the correction. The post has been amended I appreciate it when dutiful readers point out my mistakes.

You cite this verse because it warns God's people not to fear talk of a conspiracy between the 10 tribes and the Assyrians. This is a warning against sinful fear and the distrust of God. The KJV, God's true word, says "confederacy" instead of conspiracy which is really what this threatened union with the Assyrians was. As you may know, in order to obtain a copyright, modern Bible translators had to change or alter God's word by a certain amount and it is by no small amount either. This is why the word confederacy was altered to conspiracy. But let me get on with the blog topic.

(Fred) A couple of things:

1) Actually, the word for conspiracy or confederacy is qesher which means "treason" or "unlawful alliance." A confederacy is the old English word for conspiracy, so it is inaccurate to argue that a modern version, in this case, the New King James, is changing around the text to hide something.

2) The folks in Israel to whom Isaiah was preaching consider him, along with other pre-exilic prophets like Jeremiah, to be servants of the enemy when they told the people to trust the Lord and not a foreign power. My citation of this passage is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I believe there is some comparison to those individuals, perhaps like yourself, who insist that I have been duped into believing lies regarding conspiracies. This passage is also a good corrective to those individuals I have blogged about in recent months accusing my Church of being infiltrated by church growth philosophy.

1. Though you accurately state that there have been many conspiracies (Manhattan project,etc.), you then seem to broadbrush the "harmful, illegal" conspiracies that occupy the minds of theorists as being "fantasies." You seem to say that there are no "harmful,illegal" conspiracies. Or are you saying that conspiracies acknowledged by the conspirators are true (like d-day or the Manhattan project), but conspiracies denied by the conspirators through the media must be fantasies?

(Fred) I plan to address this point in more detail with my forth coming post, so stay tuned. But for now, yes, I do believe there are harmful conspiracies, but those conspiracies, as harmful as they may be, get found out. The Watergate scandal was a harmful conspiracy, but the culprits were all found out. Even the D-Day invasion, a conspiracy of massive proportions, was constantly in danger of being found out by the Germans, and in point of fact, the Allies believed the Germans may had known their plans and in order to throw them off, had General Patton stage a "fake" invasion way north of the Normandy beach.

What you wish to suggest is that these harmful conspiracies remain a conspiracy and no one ever finds out the exact truth. Everyone involved refuses to talk or they are rubbed out by the higher ups to keep from talking. It gets to the point that there is so much implausibility with the conspiracy that it becomes fantasy. Take the moon landing for example. If you sincerely believe it was staged, then you are saying that the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the Apollo program were either faked out or duplicit with the hoax. Moreover, there were two Bible believing Christian astronauts involved with the Apollo program, Jim Irwin being one of them, which means these two men had to violate the ethics of their faith to be involved with the hoax. Furthermore, the Russians were in a race with the US to be the first to land on the moon. The Russians were on the look out for these sort of antics. If it were true the US faked the moon landing (6 times, mind you!), then the Russians would have gleefully said so.

2. You then seem to say that only those whose minds are "darkened in sin" "can be snared by these fantasies" [conspiracies]. You seem to believe that a Bible-believing Christian can't believe them. Both Christians and non-Christians can and do believe in true conspiracies and false conspiracies.

(Fred) No. If you read carefully what I wrote, I said that I expected minds darkened in sin to be easy prey for belief in conspiracy theories, because sinners are always looking for some way to excuse way reality so as not to have to deal with God and their guilt before him. They don't think rationally, but act according to their sin nature. My shock is that Christians, who ought to know better, are tricked into believing conspiracy theories. The sinners has something of an excuse - they're sinners. Believers have no excuse.

3. You say it grieves your heart to see people who name Christ as advocating conspiracy. Why, if what they advocate is the truth? Again, you assume all "negative" conspiracies are false.

(Fred) But the truth these believers advocate are foolish things. There was no moon landing? The government orchestrated 9-11?

4. You say, "before the internet, there were pastors and Bible teachers who preached about massive conspiracies that were going to usher in the anti-christ, or establish the new age, or force people to get a barcode, or the UN rounding up Christians and locking them in concentration camps." Then you call those Christians who promoted those theories as "cranks" and "KJV onlyists." All those "cranks" as you call them were speaking the truth. There is a vast conspiracy afoot to usher in antichrist as well as to usher in a new age--people will be forced to use something like the mark (the technology is already here), and Christians will go to concentration camps. Then you further insult these Christians by stating that they have "paranoid delusions" and are in need of "tin foil hats."

(Fred) Yes, that is what I did. My desire is that the followers of these conspiracy theories will come to their senses, repent of this mindset, and experience the true joy of their relationship with Christ. It is not to be found in being consumed and advocating conspiracy theories.

I don't have much time, so let me answer your remaining points with some one liners:

With number 5, you make my point for me.

Number 6, again, what relevance is the JFK assassination to Christian morality and a biblical worldview? How is saying that Oswald acted alone a denial of the truth? You equate having some knowledge about secular conspiracy theories with being a spirit filled believer.

You ask:

Would you be willing to learn and proclaim a truth if it resulted in you losing your job, your friends, your church fellowship, or even your life?

(Fred) Yes. In fact I have had this happen in my life early on in my Christian walk.

Or are your job, friends, and church membership more important to you than learning and proclaiming truth?

(Fred) No, but the truth in mind here is not who killed JFK or 9-11 conspiracies, but more serious, real world truths like the person and work of Jesus and the authority of scripture. These things have no relevance to believing the moon landings were hoaxed.

Are you controlled by what others think and feel about you?

(Fred) Yes. Because I want to model Christ for others. If a person visits with me and does not walk away with an understanding that I love God, I believe I have done the Christian faith a disservice.

If you are, then you can't be a witness for Christ.

(Fred) Why?

Can you take a stand for the truth that goes against your your church elders?

(Fred) Seeing that my Church elders and I agree on the core tenets of the Christian faith, this question is irrelevant to me.

Would you proclaim an unpopular truth at the risk of being called divisive and hateful by your so-called brethren?

(Fred) Yes, and I have done it in the past. BUT, a couple of warnings:

Make sure it is the truth of scripture for which you are being divisive. Not who hoaxed the moon landing, or who brought down the WTC, or who shot JFK.

Secondly, make sure it is the truth of scripture that is being divisive and not your attitude. It is one thing if the so-called brethren believe you are homophobic because you believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin and thus they refuse to have fellowship with you. It is quite another if you have fallen into believing the elders are allowing church growth philosophy to rule the congregation because the individual home Bible studies have small discipleship groups and that apparently is an indicator that they are imbibing Hegelian-Marxist philosophy. If they elders disagree with you and believe you haven't convincingly demonstrated your objections, and conclude you are adhering to a view of church growth that is unique and they see no evidence of this church growth methodology having any negative impact on home Bible studies and the fellowship groups on Sunday, then it may be wise for you to obey the scriptures and submit to your elders' conclusions in the matter, or quietly move on to another Church where you believe they hold to your convictions in this matter. You don't stand outside the Church and protest, or cause further division by speaking wickedly against the pastors.

Fred

6:43 AM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Fred,
You are living in your own fantasy world. You don't have a clue what is really going on.
Satan is the master conspirator in this world and we are commanded to not be ignorant of his devices. We are also commanded to expose the works of darkness.
I find it absolutely incredible that you would mock Christians that correctly state that a conspiracy exists to usher in anti-christ and his one-world government (the new age). There IS a barcode on every item purchased in the world and it has the number 666 on it. You mock Christians who state that there are concentration camps being readied for Christians? You are living in a fantasy world and you don't have a clue.
If you don't possess enough discernment or honesty to acknowledge that JFK was killed in a conspiracy- which is obvious to all, then I can see why you can't discern conspiracies that are less obvious. If you can't understand the 101 course, then you can't understand the 501 course.
I never thought I'd encounter a professing Christian who doesn't believe there is a conspiracy to bring in the anti-christ and his one-world government.
Not long ago, You were told to read Dr. Klenck's papers on the church-growth movement so that you could better understand the infiltration at Grace. You were told that he was the foremost authority on this matter. After reading his papers, you stated that it was "conspiratorial nonsense." Did you come to this conclusion after checking his work with the facts? No, you came to this conclusion because of your own dishonesty and fear. Dr. Klenck has correctly stated that the CGM is at Grace. And so rather than look at his work with honesty and an open mind, you dismiss it as nonsense because you don't have the guts to look honestly at his facts. If you looked honestly, then you would have to conclude that your own church is being subverted and that truth is too much for you to handle. Is Dr. Klenck also a "tin foil hat theologian?" I've been studying the CGM for 2 years and I may know one tenth of what he knows. You read his papers for an hour and you dismiss it as nonsense. That is because of your ignorance, dishonesty and fear. You don't want to believe the truth and therefore, you don't.

3:01 PM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger Impacted Wisdom Truth said...

We need a movie about all this conspiracy stuff.

Russell Crowe, call your agent.

7:48 PM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger pilgrim said...

In general I distrust conspiracy theories--it doesn't mean ther aren't real ones--but based on examples such as you give I am skeptical.
Part of this is because as a Christian I am to use discernment--so I don't believe everything I hear-or see.

Most conspiracy theories have a stack of evidence that crumbles when investigated in context.

Of course the theorists themselves rarely see that or admit it.

7:50 PM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Take a look at the picture Fred put up of the lunar rover on the "moon." Notice that there are no stars in the sky. With no atmosphere, there would be far more stars visible in the lunar sky than are visible from earth. But incredibly, NO stars are visible. Why? Because this picture was taken from a stage set underground in Nevada. The hill in the distance is also faked. That hill was pasted on the picture.
Do you know that 2 astroNOTS couldn't even fit in the LEM with their backpacks on?
Have you seen the pictures of the LEM standing there on the "moon?" Did you notice that there was no dust at all on the LEM? The LEM descending to the moon would make a dust cloud so large that one could see it from earth with a telescope, yet there was not even a hole in the ground under the LEM. It LEM looked like it had
been cleaned with lemon pledge. There is no doubt that NASA "mooned" America. By the way, who was the first head of America's "Space Agency?" Werner Von Braun, Hitler's top rocket scientist.

9:03 PM, August 22, 2006  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

A few random musings:
Werner Von Braun, by then had converted to Christianity.

My Tutor at Aberystwyth did acres of research on the JFK Assassination and concluded Oswald acted alone. Was he lying?

I'm afraid that when I read Surfer Boy's stuff, I initially thought it was parody. I apologise for this.

On dismissal, it tends to depend on whether one has a mind inclined to look for conspiracy theories or not. Me, as a historian, I see far too much happening almost by accident.

3:46 AM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger The Green Man said...

The Green Man knows the truth. All conspiracy theories are the product of one Monty Bristow, alias The Disturber, in his quest for revenge on all Mankind.

For evidence, see these reports.

3:49 AM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger thomas4881 said...

yeah it's fascinating fred spoke about Psalms 83. I hear that's a prophetic psalm about the situation in the middle east. Even more amazing is that a 1200 year old book was found in an Irish bog with the book open to Psalm 83 on July 20, the same day as the Israel invasion into lebanon - http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/26/news/irish.php

4:54 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Werner Von Braun was not a Christian at that time and your tutor was definitely deceived and lying.
Do you understand that the official position of the US government is that JFK was killed in a conspiracy? Do you know that over 100 people were killed to coverup the truth of this killing? Oswald had NOTHING to do with this killing!
You say you see too much happening by accident. Do you think it was an accident that when the government reopened the case in 1978, 8 of the witnesses called to testify were murdered?
Anyone who, after looking at the evidence, concludes that Oswald was the lone assassin, is either incredibly stupid or a liar.

5:41 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Impacted Wisdom Truth said...

Surfer Boy

I have to admit you had me going right up until the post about the moon shot. After that, I am convinced you cannot be for real and are snickering at the thought of someone answering you as if you are serious.

I will not insult you by suggesting you actually believe what you are writing here.

6:50 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Ransom said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:59 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Ransom said...

I have trouble believing "surfer boy" isn't some sort of troll; nonetheless, I'm going to take the bait:

Notice that there are no stars in the sky. With no atmosphere, there would be far more stars visible in the lunar sky than are visible from earth.

Says who? The reason there are no stars in the moon pictures is that the cameras were set to take pictures of the moon, not the stars. The moon is much brighter than the stars, and hence the film was underexposed with respect to the sky. If they had set the camera to take pictures of stars, then they wouldn't have had any good pictures of the moon, because they would have been overexposed.

For the same reason, there are no stars in space pictures taken from the shuttle, either. The earth is too bright; for that matter, anything in direct sunlight is too bright. You also can't see many stars (if any) at night in a brightly lit stadium, or standing on a street corner in the city, because of all the light pollution.

Do you know that 2 astroNOTS couldn't even fit in the LEM with their backpacks on?

This isn't even an argument. If it's true (which I doubt), they wouldn't have fit in the LEM on a sound stage in Nevada, either. The moon doesn't magically make spaceships bigger or smaller.

Have you seen the pictures of the LEM standing there on the "moon?" Did you notice that there was no dust at all on the LEM?

On my desk, there's a thin film of dust. But there's no dust on my water glass. Why? Because it has only been there two hours.

The LEM stood on the surface of the moon for only a few hours, not the thousands if not millions of years that it took for the lunar surface to accumulate several inches of dust.

The LEM descending to the moon would make a dust cloud so large that one could see it from earth with a telescope,

There wouldn't be a dust cloud at all, because there's no air for the dust to be suspended in. It would just fall back to the surface as quickly as anything else.

In other words, the absence of a dust cloud is actually proof that we did go to the moon.

yet there was not even a hole in the ground under the LEM.

A rocket engine in space doesn't shoot a tightly focused blast of flame in space like a giant blowtorch. The lack of air lets the rocket exhaust spread out once it leaves the nozzles.

In any case, in some pictures there is obviously a small blast crater and scorched area underneath the LEM's descent engine.

Incidentally, moon-hoax moonbats irk me almost as much as 9/11-hoax moonbats. The webs of plots within plots that the conspiracy theorists weave are usually so byzantine that it would have been easier and cheaper for the government to just send men to the moon, or secretly hire some Arabic thugs to steal airplanes and fly them into buildings.

10:11 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger Impacted Wisdom Truth said...

Surfer Boy

Wow. Impressive list. I will think carefully about that.

Okay, I have thought carefully about it.

11:42 PM, August 23, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Ransom,
Allow me to respond.
1. Remember, there is no atmosphere on the moon and therefore, I think that regardless of the exposure or focus, stars would show up. But isn't it very strange that there are no pictures of any stars in all the "moon" photos? We have all seen photos of stars from earth, why no star photos from the "moon". Certainly they could adjust the focus? Do you know why there were no photos of stars besides for the fact that they never went to the moon? Because they didn't have sophisticated computers in the 1960's that could fake the star formations. I'm sure that they could doctor a star-lit sky from the moon with todays computer programs however.
2. Did you know that there is one and only one photo of the earth from the surface of the "moon?" The earth-rise. There's only one big problem with it. They made the size of the earth from the "moon" the same size as the moon as seen from the earth. The earth in the "earth-rise" should have been 4 times the size of the moon, but it was the same size. This proves the "earth-rise" photo was a hoax.
So of all the photos from the "moon", there were no stars (because that couldn't be faked) and only one photo of the earth which was obviously faked.
3. My understanding is that the door of the LEM swung in and 2 astroNOTS could fit in there like 2 people in a phone booth. But here's the important proof: the hole in the LEM that docked with the orbiter, was so small that an astroNOT could not get through it unless possibly naked and greased like a pig. I have read that the the Smithsonian no longer allows this hole to be measured because researchers have exposed this. An astroNOT in his gear simply couldn't get through the hole.
4. When I say there was no dust on the LEM, I mean from the dust created by the LEM descending to the moon. Surely this would cause dust on the Lem and it would most definitely blow a hole in the moon's surface, yet the "moon" photos show absolutely no diturbance of any kind under the LEM. It looks pristine. This is clearly impossible. You do make a good point, however, that with no atmosphere, a cloud may not be created--but a hole in the surface would!
5. That brings me to another point. If you look at the "moon" photos, then in some of them you can see streaks of light--like light going through a dust-filled house. This also can not occur because there is no atmosphere through which the light streaks can be seen. These streaks in the photos prove the existence of an atmosphere which proves the photos were taken from the earth.
6. If you look at all the moon photos, then you will see no horizon. The "moon" surface just goes out about 200 feet and drops. Why is there no horizon?
7. There are all sorts of shadow anomolies in the "moon" photos showing more than one source of light (a face mask lit up while the shadows are cast in front of the astrNOT). How can light be coming from the front and the rear? Unless it's artificial.
8. Since there is no water on the moon, could a clear and distinct footprint be made? Think about it!
9. Did you read Aldrin's first book? He talks all about the "unreality of it all" and he said that he couldn't believe that his wife even believed it. Then he suffered a mental breakdown and if I recall, he was placed in an institution.
10. Why does Neil Armstrong stay a virtual recluse? He should be the worlds greatest hero, yet if he went into a starbucks, no one would recognize him. Why? To reduce public scrutiny. Do you know what these astroNOTS do today? They sit on the boards of fortune 500 companys drawing a hefty salary for doing nothing but keeping their mouths shut.

12:27 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger Ransom said...

Remember, there is no atmosphere on the moon

Irrelevant.

and therefore, I think that regardless of the exposure or focus, stars would show up.

Put another way: according to you, stars would show up regardless of the fact that cameras don't work the way you wish they did.

But isn't it very strange that there are no pictures of any stars in all the "moon" photos?

No.

We have all seen photos of stars from earth, why no star photos from the "moon".

Because they weren't taking pictures of the stars, they were taking pictures of the moon.

Certainly they could adjust the focus?

It has nothing to do with focus, it has to do with the amount of light that the film is exposed to.

Do you know why there were no photos of stars besides for the fact that they never went to the moon?

Yes, for about the fifth time: they wanted good pictures of the moon, and so the cameras were set to take pictures of the moon, not the sky.

Because they didn't have sophisticated computers in the 1960's that could fake the star formations.

Stanley Kubrick didn't seem to have any trouble with a starfield in 1968.

And that's all the time I have for your brand of pig-ignorance.

12:38 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Ransom,
That's so typical. You can't argue the facts so you resort to ad hominem attack.
Hollywood actually did a movie on how much of the moon landing was faked. It was called Capricorn One.
Just the fact that the only photo of the earth from the "moon" is 1/4 the size it should be proves my point.

3:11 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Kaysing had high praise for the recent video produced by seasoned investigator James Collier: "Was It Only A Paper Moon?" The video recounts numerous lingering questions about the moon program, including:

* The apparent physical impossibility of two astronauts, fully loaded with gear,to enter and exit the lunar module.

* Analysis of the shadows supposedly cast on the moon by the astronauts and their equipment, shadows that many believe do not correspond with the configuration of the sun and moon during the landings.

* The fact that NASA never took pictures of the earth from the moon, which skeptics say would have proven the landings as well as provided earthlings with startling, inspiring footage.

Skeptics also charge that the photographs that were taken show no stars. * The apparent inclusion of "sky-blue"footage taken by astronauts in deep space.

3:48 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

In reading the following, keep in mind that Bill Kaysing worked for Rocketdyne during the Apollo project.
-----------------------------------
Did America really go to the Moon. . .or were
taxpayers just taken for a ride?

This 2-hour report by James Collier, author of "VOTESCAM: The Stealing of America" includes new evidence videod in the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- and questions whether NASA was guilty of spending billions of taxpayer money -- to stage the greatest theatrical hoax of all time.

This video demands answers from the U.S. Government before we go to Mars.

1) Was the hatch between the Command Module & the Lunar
Module too small for the space-suited astronauts to pass
through no matter what contortions they could go through to try?

2) Did the front hatch of the Lunar Module open inward
making it impossible for the astronauts to exit the cramped LM?

3) Was there actually no NASA manual instructing the astronauts how to get out of the LM, leaving it up to each individual to figure that out for himself? (As told on camera to Collier by Frank Hughes, Chief of Astronaut Training at NASA)

4) Was the 10-foot Rover too long to fit into the 5-foot side of the LM?

Collier challenges NASA to disprove the above in a public demonstration to American taxpayers! This investigation and that of others, including investigator Bill Kaysing, who is now suing Astronaut James Lovell for slander (jury trial, Santa Cruz, Ca., Oct. 7th), cannot be ignored.







ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE AUGUST, 1997
INVESTIGATOR CHALLENGING NASA
By James M. Collier

IN 1994, Victoria House Press in New York received a manuscript titled 'A Funny Thing Happened On Our Way to the Moon.'" Its author, Ralph Rene, a brilliant lay physicist who had studied Bill Kaysing's thesis (see July issue) that NASA faked seven Apollo moon shots, wanted it published.

Since I had written the investigative report "Votescam: The Stealing of America," (Victoria House Press) they asked me to investigate Rene and his manuscript to determine the credibility of both.
"I read Kaysing's book 'We Never Went to the Moon'", Rene told me, "and although it was compelling, it lacked technical details, a grounding in physics that would convince scientists, beyond a doubt, that America never went to the moon."

Rene was positive that NASA had pulled off the hoax of the century.
"NASA didn't have the technical problems solved by l969 when they launched the first moon shot," he insisted, "but I believe they couldn't admit it or they'd lose thirty billion dollars in taxpayer-money."

I read Rene's manuscript and although I understood basic physics, I couldn't immediately assure the publisher that Rene's assertions were scientifically accurate. Least of all, I couldn't assure them that we didn't go to the moon. I needed time.

So what began as simple research turned into months at the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress in Washington and the United States Archives. Surpisingly, precious little had been written about the Apollo missions except standard "puff" pieces in the New York Times
and the Washington Post.

Then my research turned to Grumman Aircraft in Beth Page, New York. Grumman built the Lunar Module (LM), that unwieldy looking craft that never flew on Earth but supposedly landed safely on the moon six times. I asked for blueprints detailing the scientific thought behind its design. Did it run by computer? If so, who built the computer? What made Grumman engineers think it could fly?

Grumman told me that all the paperwork was destroyed. I was stunned. The LM historical paperwork was destroyed!? Why!? They had no answers. I turned to Boeing Aircraft in Seattle. They built the Lunar Rover, the little car that NASA claims traversed the moon on Apollo missions15-16-17. NASA claims it was transported to the moon in a five-foot high by six-foot wide, triangular corner section of the LM.
(The LM's bottom section was basically a tic-tac-toe design with nine sections. Five sections were squares with the four corners being triangles).

But my research indicated that the Rover was at least six feet too long to fit into that corner compartment, thus making it impossible to ever get to the moon.

Next was the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and the Johnson Space Center in Houston where I video taped an actual LM. Here research indicated that the crew compartment and hatches were too small for the astronauts to actually enter and exit. After taking the video footage I challenged NASA to prove that two six-foot astronauts, in
ballooned-out pressure suits (4-psi in a vacuum) could either get in or get out of a LM.

Trying to understand how the moon aquired a ten-foot layer of top soil without wind, rain or water to erode the volcanic-crystaline surface, I spoke to a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston.

Much of my time was spent just trying to mentally picture the physics of light and shadows, jet propulsion and solar radiation, because most of what NASA was claiming about the moon shots -- and what was supposedly discovered on the moon -- appeared to be diametrically opposed to present text book physics.

* * *

Anyway, I was knee-deep in all this research, when Rene became impatient and decided to self-publish his book. He changed the title to "NASA Mooned America". I, however, had been hooked.
But now there wasn't a book to research. I was left hanging,
questions plaguing my mind. Questions that neither Kaysing nor Rene entertained.
Their research had led me into a scientific wonderland, filled with possibilities. What was I going to do? I had been thrown out of a great movie and I'd never know how it ended.
I decided to continue the research. I proposed a book to the publisher titled "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" and I promised it by 1998.

* * *

I started with the technical problems NASA faced in outer space. In fact, I discovered there are two separate zones out there, an inner space and anouter space, and that fact eventually became very significant in my research.
It appears that humans are most likely operating in inner space (the space lab) but outer space, beyond the Van Allen radiation belt, the magnetosphere, 560 miles up, may be too deadly to enter due to solar radiation. If that data proves to be true, Earthmen could not have gone to the moon and returned without some signs of radiation poisoning, cell damage and DNA alteration, and most likely, death from cancer.

* * *

The first concern I faced when I started to write the book was my own public credibility. After all, I was the person who told the country (Votescam) that their votes were being rigged by a cartel of powerful elite, including the owners of major media in America.

Now I found myself investigating the possibility that we didn't go to the moon. "You've got to be nuts," said my friends. "First you told them the vote is rigged and now you question whether we went to the moon!? They'll hang you Times Square!"

So I decided to test the waters with several talk-radio shows in the midwest. Most of the callers said they never believed we went to the moon in the first place. Others protested that I was doing the station and myself a disservice for even bringing up the subject. They argued that I shouldn't malign "those great American heroes, the astronauts."
What could I say to these people? I wanted to explain that I not only sympathized with their point of view, but that at one time I had shared it.

It wasn't easy being the Cassandra of the airwaves, telling people what they definitely didn't want to hear. Half of me wanted to be proven wrong, but the other half had both hands on the tail of something that sure looked like a duck and quacked like a duck. The last time that happened, the duck turned out to be an expose of computer vote rigging in the United States. As an investigative reporter, I just couldn't let go of that damn duck.

In the final analysis, I had tested the waters by doing radio and
found that although they were hot, they wouldn't burn me alive. There were still scores of calls from listeners who encouraged me to continue the investigation.

* * *

Then, a funny thing happened on my way to writing that book. I was trying to use words to describe the strange visual phenomena that I saw in NASA photos and videos. Those provocative images are the first evidence that people investigating NASA use to draw you into the fray.
"You won't believe this NASA picture," they say, and the tantilizing hunt for clues is forever on.

It was then I realized you had to see it to believe it.

Those NASA pictures were supposedly taken on the moon's surface, but the lighting from the only available sources, the sun and reflected Earth-light, seems all wrong. It is too soft, appearing more like a Disney studio photo; soft pastels and diffused light.

How could there be diffused light on the moon?

Earth's atmosphere takes light and bends it, spreading it around
objects. Light reflects off air molecules and lights up the dark sides of objects. It is atmosphere, bending the sun's light, that makes the sky appear to be blue. However, on the moon there is no prism of atmosphere to diffuse or bend light so the sky is totally black.

On the moon, the sun's light should be blinding. In fact, the
astronauts wear gold tinted face plates on their helmets to cut down 95-percent of the light from the sun.

The dark side of objects in NASA photos should be pitch black, while the lit side should be hellishly bright. Yet, all NASA photos from the moon are softly lit, and they appear to be taken in Earth's atmosphere. Why?

If NASA film footage was actually taken on the moon, then it would be a tremendous scientific story. One would expect new physics books trumpeting an incredibly new physical reality: atmosphere has nothing to do with diffusing light! Therefore, and forever thereafter, a new scientific principle would be taught in schools: where there is no atmosphere, light will react exactly the same as light in atmosphere.

What was wrong in the world of science? Why were the scientists silent about such an important discovery? Why was the major media mute on the subject?

I called Kodak, in Rochester, N.Y., the company that supplied the film for the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts used on the moon. "At what temperature does film melt?" I asked.

"One hundred and fifty degrees."

But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees.

"The film, in the uncooled cameras would melt," Kodak said.
So the duck was quacking.

* * *

When I realized that everything I was trying to describe with words was strongly visual, I decided to commit the research to a video tape instead of a book.

"Was it Only a Paper Moon" video was released in Spring of this year. It contains a 90-minute unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that, if not refuted by NASA, proves we could not have gone to the moon.
I feel this evidence demands Congressional hearings.

In following articles I will describe in detail all the astonishing
evidence that is still seeking an answer: Did NASA indeed pull the hoax of the century? For the rest of the text,

4:00 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

Surfing one:

My former tutor, Prof. W. D. Rubinstein is certainly no liar, nor is he a man easily deceived. That is an insult to the man's professional inegrity.

I recommend that you watch the excellent recent BBC documentary on the Kennedy Assassination. This examined the 1978 hearings and concluded that this was a case of people allowing themselves to be deceived by their own imaginings.

On Oswald, I note that the man was an expert marksman (Marine classification 'Sharpshooter') and apparently a lone nut who fancied himself a political assassin. Rather like the chaps who killed Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley, then.

I have a hard time believing there was a conbspiracy because conspircies generally do not succeed. Spencer Perceval, the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated, for instance, was killed by a lone, deranged gunman.

Conspiracies, like the Rye House Plot, the Cato Street Conspiracy and the Gunpowder plot have a tendency to be discovered, because of the need to bring in large numbers of people.

Or maybe Perceval, Garfield, Mc Kinley and the Empress of Austria were all victims of conspiracies, too?

4:28 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger Fred Butler said...

Or maybe Perceval, Garfield, Mc Kinley and the Empress of Austria were all victims of conspiracies, too?

(Fred) I don't know? Was "Catcher in the Rye" written yet?

Conpsiracy students will pick up the joke. =-)

Fred

5:45 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger Ransom said...

surfer boy tries again, against all reason:

That's so typical. You can't argue the facts so you resort to ad hominem attack.

No, I did argue the facts. The stars in the sky are too dim to show up in a photograph taken with a camera set for taking daylight pictures of the moon.

You said that the stars would have showed up anyway, "regardless of exposure or focus." In other words, in your mind, wishful thinking trumps the truth about how cameras actually work.

Do you believe that NASA's cameras operated by magic? Why do you ignore reality? Did you at least talk to a photographer before displaying your ignorance in public? I doubt it.

At some point, I have to acknowledge that further debate on the point would be casting pearls before swine. Pathological stubbornness on your part does not constitute inability on mine.

Hollywood actually did a movie on how much of the moon landing was faked. It was called Capricorn One.

Hollywood made a movie out of the Chronicles of Narnia last year. Does that mean I can find magical lands filled with talking animals in the back of my closet?

Just the fact that the only photo of the earth from the "moon" is 1/4 the size it should be proves my point.

There is no way of telling how big the earth looks from the moon in that photo.

7:24 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger The Green Man said...

The Green Man knows the truth.

8:31 AM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger Stephen A Morse said...

Surfer boy...
You seem to have every answer! You can even give answers for what you don't have answers for. I have been looking for someone like you to ask this question of:

Can African Swallows carry coconuts? If so.. how far and what exactly is the volume to mass ratio required to keep them in the air for the duration of the flight?

BTW... the movie: "Conspiracy Theory" is one of my favorites!

1:45 PM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Hiraeth,
The BBC is establishment. They are not going to tell the truth. The carbine that Oswald is accused of using could not shoot as many rounds as were heard quickly enough. They want us to believe that Oswald was behind JFK in the book deository building, if that's the case, then how comw so many witnesses, some of whom have been murdered, said they heard shots coming from in front of JFK at the grassy knoll. Also, the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK's head being violently snapped backward. Why would his head snap backward if Oswald was shot from behind. There is overwhelming evidence that JFK was killed in a triangulation of fire. How could Oswald be in 3 places at once?
You guys are completely out of touch with reality and some of you like IWT are just foolish mockers.

2:34 PM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Ransom,
The simple fact is there WERE NO STARS EVER PHOTOGRAPHED! Why? Because they weren't on the moon! The photo of the earth is too small. There are numerous shadow anomolies, astroNOTS couldn't fit in the LEM or crawl out of it, the moon has no horizon, streaks of light can be seen where there should be no atmosphere, footprints can be seen where there should be no water, Van Allen has stated publicly that astroNOTS would be fried crispy on their way to the moon, the rover couldn't even fit on the LEM!!!,some deep space photos have a BLUE SKY, Aldren suffers a mental collapse and pretty much admits it was a hoax in his first book, not to mention all the problems with extreme temperature changes that they couldn't handle on the moon going from extreme heat to extreme cold by just walking in a shadow.

But you don't want to look at the totality of the evidence, all you do is make another ad-hominem attack.

If you guys can't discern something that is fairly obvious, then how can you discern other less obvious conspiracies?

2:52 PM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger surfer boy said...

Morse,
Am i expected to apologize for the knowledge I possess?
Fred,
JD Salinger was an intelligence operative. MD Chapman was mind controlled at the World Vision center in Beirut.(WV another UN-NGO) Chapman also came from a Pentecostal church.
I see the error in my past comment where I said Oswald was shot instead of JFK.

3:38 PM, August 24, 2006  
Blogger the Pilgrim said...

Surfer,
You are right on the money. These conspiracies become rather obvious once the facts are known.
I find it interesting that presumably everyone commenting can believe that a Jew who once walked on earth created the sun, yet it can't be believed that a patsy was set up to take the fall in an assassination or that a moon landing could be a hoax.
Did the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost conspire to redeem a bride for Christ? That is the most important conspiracy.

1:38 AM, August 25, 2006  
Blogger Hiraeth said...

I give up. It rather seems that anyone who produces contrary evidence is a part of the conspiracy.

Pilgrim, I can believe that someone might have set up Oswald as a patsy, that someone could have plotted the death of Kennedy or faked the moon landings.

I just don't believe they did, that's all!

On the moon landing, a few questions. Did the Russian Lunar lander actually go to the moon? Did the later moon landinging occur? Was the abortive Apollo 13 mission real or a fake?

3:38 AM, August 25, 2006  
Blogger Ransom said...

One last time for the reality-impaired:

Surfer, if someone went to a night baseball game on a clear evening, took a 35mm camera with him, and took a picture that included a portion of sky . . .

. . . if the sky showed no stars, would you therefore conclude that the baseball game was faked?

7:18 AM, August 25, 2006  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home