Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why so many believers in conspiracies?


Anomalocaris

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, I can't comment on video's I havn't seen, SkyEagle. However, I can assure you that the video of the apparant bomb strike on the howitzer is - indeed - electronically manipulated. The 'bomb' never existed - it was superimposed "post production". 

I mean... I have no idea why the original video was made, or what the motives of the producer of that video was.. but the presentation on youtube that you linked to has been faked. There WAS  a small explosion, no doubt about it. But there was no falling bomb. The Howitzer was blown up intentionally by a very small  explosive charge placed on - or just below - the howitzer itself. The falling bomb is a subsequent addition to the original footage, by persons unknown, and for reasons unknown.

There is no debating this; the evidence of the video is unassailable - it is a "staged" video, not a bomb attack.

If the visual characteristics of this video are similar to the OTHER "DoD" videos you say you have seen, then a number of questions arise.

Firstly, are you claiming that THIS video was a Department of Defence video ? Or was that a simple "slip of the tongue", so to speak ?

Secondly, if ACTUAL "DoD" videos have similar characteristics to THIS video, then perhaps you should re-evaluate the authenticity of those videos as well ?

Warmest regards,

RoofGardener.

 

I think you misunderstood me. I said, that I have reviewed close-in JDAM and Paveway videos and many of those videos were DoD videos. Let's take a look how it all started.

US military aircraft conduct strike on ISIS artillery
August 8, 2014

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/08/us-military-aircraft-conduct-strike-on-isis-artillery-pentagon-spokesman-via-twitter.html

http://wapwonz.xyz/video-isis-u.s.-airstrikes-&-president-plan-update!-9/7/14.html

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/603032/us-aircraft-conduct-targeted-airstrike-in-northern-iraq
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
6 hours ago, skyeagle409 said:

I think you misunderstood me. I said, that I have reviewed close-in JDAM and Paveway videos and many of those videos were DoD videos. Let's take a look how it all started.

US military aircraft conduct strike on ISIS artillery
August 8, 2014

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/08/us-military-aircraft-conduct-strike-on-isis-artillery-pentagon-spokesman-via-twitter.html

http://wapwonz.xyz/video-isis-u.s.-airstrikes-&-president-plan-update!-9/7/14.html

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/603032/us-aircraft-conduct-targeted-airstrike-in-northern-iraq
 

Fair enough SkyEagle :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, skyeagle409 said:

I think you misunderstood me. I said, that I have reviewed close-in JDAM and Paveway videos and many of those videos were DoD videos. Let's take a look how it all started.

US military aircraft conduct strike on ISIS artillery
August 8, 2014

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/08/08/us-military-aircraft-conduct-strike-on-isis-artillery-pentagon-spokesman-via-twitter.html

http://wapwonz.xyz/video-isis-u.s.-airstrikes-&-president-plan-update!-9/7/14.html

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/603032/us-aircraft-conduct-targeted-airstrike-in-northern-iraq
 

and this was two years ago, and has it made any noticeable contribution to bringing the war within measurable distance of its end? All this is fuel to the mill of the conspiracy theory (which is what this thread was after all about) that Obama is only interested in showing off with "pinpoint strikes" on random things here & there, rather than having any kind of strategy for combating them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed Otto. Of course, it could be argued that this is ISIS's "strategy" as well ? (Along with Al Quada's). Not sure where that leaves us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed Otto. Of course, it could be argued that this is ISIS's "strategy" as well ? (Along with Al Quada's). Not sure where that leaves us.

Without a doubt; drag on a conflict that will just continue to draw the West in and tie them up for the foreseeable future, and they can't lose, can they. Particularly when the leader of the West is continually being pressured by belligerent nutcases all around him to attack the Syrian government at the same time. All they have to do is sit back and watch the West tie themselves up in ever tighter knots of illogic. I'm sure it's worth it from their point of view to have their Second in Command bumped off every month or so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Indeed Abaddonire.

However, it was NOT a "pentagon camera" that captured those images of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a camera at the pentagon. It matters not a whit who owned or operated it. It's resolution and frame rate was nowhere remotely comparable to the camera in the cited clip. You attempted to shift those goalposts is noted.

20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It was a camera from a private company, "surveiling" one of the Pentagon car parks.It was NOT a "military" camera. If it was, it wouldn't have appeared on YouTune.

I would guess that the imaging chip was  (and it is an educated guess, but ONLY a gues) 1990's technology. 

It didn't caputure the Boeing.. because it was designed ot capture cars approaching/leaving at 10 MPH.

Which is exactly the point I made. The ownership of said camera is a red herring to divert away from the fact that you were attempting to divert away from your comparison of apples and wrenches.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... for some reason I had got it into my head that the cameras had been described as 'military cameras', or somesuch. I can't work out WHERE I got that notion from, unless I was thinking of your reference to "DoD videos".

Having said that, I'm obviously not the only one halucinating; can you explain - in light of the fact that my comments on the "pentagon" camera was supporting your own comments - where this "red herring" was supposed to be diverting from ?

Or.. more accurately.. what diversion was it supposed to be diverting from. And what comparison - other than within the post itself - was I supposed to have been making ? And if I was diverting from a diversion, what was the function of the original diversion ? And why did I attempt to divert from it ?

Actually... if I  divert away from a diversion, aren't I in danger of ending up back where I started from ? Wherever THAT was ??

I hope you can help, as I seem to have somewhat lost track.

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2016 at 11:11 AM, skyeagle409 said:

Not a fake at all. Apparently, you are unaware of our dial-a-yield weaponry and other specialized weapons such as concrete bombs. 

Apparently YOU are now claiming that is not only a real missile in the video, but a nuclear missile as well.

Truth is, it's fake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2016 at 10:48 AM, RoofGardener said:

Indeed Abaddonire.

However, it was NOT a "pentagon camera" that captured those images of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a camera from a private company, "surveiling" one of the Pentagon car parks.It was NOT a "military" camera. If it was, it wouldn't have appeared on YouTune.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by the bolded?

Quote

 

I would guess that the imaging chip was  (and it is an educated guess, but ONLY a gues) 1990's technology. 

It didn't caputure the Boeing.. because it was designed ot capture cars approaching/leaving at 10 MPH.

 

BTW, it did capture the Boeing.  Absolutely and without doubt.  Given the camera and the object, we see just what we should expect to see in the video, and it is exactly that - Boeing 757 AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2016 at 3:41 PM, darkmoonlady said:

People like believing they know something and believing everyone else doesn't. It makes them feel special and less insignificant on a planet of billions. If you feel for whatever reason your life isn't fair, having some bigger force (real or not) outside of your control that you lay fault on for why your life isn't fair it removes responsibility. Oh it's the government/NWO/Bilderberg keeping me from being successful or free or whatever. It's an easy out. I had a conversation with this guy who was going on and on about the NWO and banks etc. I listened then I said OK assuming everything you said is true what if anything can you do will stop them or slow them down. He sputtered and got kinda irritated and said well I can take my money out of the banks! I said OK but that has zero effect. So basically nothing you do has an effect on this supposed cabal because it's so big and formidable. So I said taking money out of the bank does nothing, telling me this does nothing. So just live your life like it isn't there. Either way ranting about changes nothing. He got fairly ticked off at me. My point I said is believing these conspiracy theories doesn't change them or get rid of them. If they were all real even then what one person does to "fight" them is nothing and so why waste so much energy on something like that? 

Telling other people and making them aware of what is happening is "fighting" them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.