It opens so many cans of worms and pretty much paints the entire picture of why things are how they are, and what led to it, and even the players behind it.
It is a certain fact of the Bushs being bonesmen, a part of a secret society.
How fucking awful would it be if what this documentary says is true? That H. W. Bush had a role in the assassination of JFK?
To me, every piece of the puzzle in this documentary can be argued against, but man....if its all actually true it is an absolute mindfuck how fucked everything is, and I lean towards it all being pretty much right on. Maybe not getting all of the players, but its fucked.
A different perspective from the 1980s about America's role in Cambodia:
Swimming to Cambodia
Gray goes on to perform a monologue where he discusses his experiences filming a small role in the movie The Killing Fields. Interspersed with his own experiences he expounds on the recent history of Cambodia up through the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge and the Cambodian Genocide. A small scene from The Killing Fields is the only other footage in the movie.
Waco; Rules of Engagement, explains the way the media totally fell in line with the gov. regarding the reasons for the attack on the Branch Davidians farmhouse/compound. The film clip at the end should have led to a Congressional investigation.
If you aren't familiar with him, John Pilger has some great documentaries on the way the world actually works. My favorite is The War On Democracy, but there are other great ones.
Not immediately apparent as conspiracy material but if you understand and accept the premise then a conspiracy becomes evident. I always get attacked on this sub when I talk about electricity it is quite amusing.
I wouldn't suggest Alex Jones any more than Richard Hoagland. There are better, less kooky choices out there as far as conspiracy theories go, though I personally listen more out of amusement and casual interest than because I believe it. (Same reason I visit here.)
Hoagland though "kooky", has yet to be dis proven after 20 years on his analysis of the Cydonia region of Mars. The night time IR images, not the face. That one piece of data he brought to the attention of the world still requires science and history books to be rewritten.
Source on where he got this 'infrared image'? Because Hoagland is well known for zooming in very far on images and then reading things into pixels, so I'd like the original image if you please.
I can compare it to the actual detailed images from MRO for example to see what he's up to lately.
Should be fun. (Know of any subreddit that covers this? It's been a while since I've dealt with image processing conspiracies.)
The Russians. NASA would never release those. It has been out there for 20 plus years. If that was to be debunked, it would have been years ago and plastered over every thing Hoagland has been involved with. The fact it hasn't speaks for itself.
Hoaglands credentials have also never been discredited.
Just a lot of mainstream scientists are threatened that Hoaglands theories and work totally upset the apple cart they have spent their lives work on.
The Russians. NASA would never release those. It has been out there for 20 plus years. If that was to be debunked, it would have been years ago and plastered over every thing Hoagland has been involved with. The fact it hasn't speaks for itself.
Your argument is that NASA hasn't bothered to publicly speak out against a conspiracy theory, therefore it's true?
Seriously?
Also, 'the Russians'? The image is from http://www.enterprisemission.com/ which claims it was made in 2002 with the Mars Oddysey, which is a NASA craft. You were saying?
Hoaglands credentials have also never been discredited.
What credentials? He doesn't claim to have a doctorate as far as I know, he just says he's been a curator at a museum and a science advisor for CBS. He has fewer credentials than I do when it comes to science, and you don't see me touting my awesomeness.
Just a lot of mainstream scientists are threatened that Hoaglands theories and work totally upset the apple cart they have spent their lives work on.
He has a private form of physics which he can't demonstrate - and he's not even a physicist to begin with. If any of his stories actually held water he could easily get a lot of recognition, it's not like amazing discoveries and landmark papers don't get released. C'mon, physicists are actively looking for alternatives to the standard model, it's not like they're secret about it...
No, my argument is NASA wouldn't have released those images. And NASA has also been known to edit images before releasing them to the public. Not just for clarity issues.
NASA has been putting red filters on Mars images to change the color of the sky from blue to red. They made the mistake years ago on a CNN special on the Mars rovers. The person they were interviewing at Nasa had a lap top on their desk with obviously unedited pictures from the rover on the surface of Mars. You could tell by the shadows it was not dusk or dawn, and the sky was a bright blue. Just like ours.
The fact NASA has held information back from the public is not a secret.
As far as his theories on hyperdeminsonial physics, they can not be measured with our current technology, but does that mean they don't exist? If you cant tell me how they built the pyramids, do they vanish? There are things that we don't fully understand, yet they are still present.
If the ancients have built things that we would have trouble duplicating today, does that mean they were more advanced than us? Some people think so. Even things we can duplicate that they did, think about the advantage in technology we claim to have. And the effort it would take just to DUPLICATE their work. Also think about what we have built today, what would stand the test of time like the pyramids. The Hoover dam might be the only thing.
No, my argument is NASA wouldn't have released those images. And NASA has also been known to edit images before releasing them to the public. Not just for clarity issues.
For what purpose? And how did random internet people get access to them if NASA doesn't release them? NASA has a ton of pictures publicly available including most that Hoagland uses...
NASA has been putting red filters on Mars images to change the color of the sky from blue to red.
The issue of color is more complicated than it seems. Cameras and eyes don't work identically, and the former have to be calibrated to deliver an image that is representative of what our eyes would see. Most cameras have such options, people just don't generally use them. Early Mars images were calibrated to be more 'Earth-like' and sometimes NASA still does that; it's basically just changing the balance of light in the image to replicate what we see here on Earth, rather than what you would see on Mars. Current rovers have images of known color on board to calibrate the camera on the surface rather than based on our best approximation.
The fact NASA has held information back from the public is not a secret.
I'm sure they have, but 'has kept information back' is not the same thing as 'is literally hiding alien cities and other mystical stuff.'
As far as his theories on hyperdeminsonial physics, they can not be measured with our current technology, but does that mean they don't exist?
Practically? YES. If he can't show that it's true, then how does he know about it? If it can't be measured, then why should anyone believe it? There are plenty of scientific hypotheses on the same level as his (although they tend to have their math figured out) which aren't commonly accepted either.
If the ancients have built things that we would have trouble duplicating today, does that mean they were more advanced than us? Some people think so.
Such as? I know of no structure from the ancient world that modern man could not in principle replicate, although some would take a lot of doing (they also took a lot of doing the first time around.)
Even things we can duplicate that they did, think about the advantage in technology we claim to have.
We have advantages, but we also can't just hire an entire working class of people for several months per year to do our huge construction efforts, like the Egyptians could with their off-season farmers. You can do a lot of things if you just throw enough people at them.
Also think about what we have built today, what would stand the test of time like the pyramids. The Hoover dam might be the only thing.
We could easily build a structure that would stand as long as the Pyramids did if we wanted to, but there's no real rational desire for anything that lasts that kind of time. For the most part we don't really care for giant piles of rocks, we build useful things instead.
You might not, but if we wanted who ever is here thousands of years from now to know we existed, and we understood complex mathematics the precession of the sky, knowing that they wouldn't speak the language, what would you build? The fact you don't want to or that other dont explains right there why the ancient people were probably more advanced than us, technology wise, and spiritually. They understood that building in stone would make their existence more than a myth and something that we have to deal with. Despite that some people dont want to or have a hard time wrapping their minds around. Even with a degree.
Check out his site. The enterprise mission. You should be able to find it. If I had more time and didn't all ready do the homework once, I would do it for you. Even Joe Rogan tried to slam Hoagland on his podcast in an interview with Graham Hancock, to which Graham defended Hoagland, Rogan back peddled after Graham stated his case. Rogan doesn't do that often. Gained a little respect for it imo.
Yeah, I know about the site. The issue I have with this is the same I have with essentially all of Hoagland's stuff - blatant anomaly hunting and abusing the limitations of technology.
Mr. Jones may not be the best place to start, because he thrives on the fear-factor too much. He may mean well, but his method is arguable. I'd start out with researchers like Eustace Mullins or something, just to get a picture of the root cause first.
30 comments
17 MTRHBLN 2015-07-05
JFK to 911 - Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick
8 blacy0520 2015-07-05
Absolutely worth the time investment.
It opens so many cans of worms and pretty much paints the entire picture of why things are how they are, and what led to it, and even the players behind it.
It is a certain fact of the Bushs being bonesmen, a part of a secret society.
How fucking awful would it be if what this documentary says is true? That H. W. Bush had a role in the assassination of JFK?
To me, every piece of the puzzle in this documentary can be argued against, but man....if its all actually true it is an absolute mindfuck how fucked everything is, and I lean towards it all being pretty much right on. Maybe not getting all of the players, but its fucked.
10 aristocrates91 2015-07-05
New Pearl Harbor
National Security Alert - 9/11 Pentagon Event
6 low_la 2015-07-05
I may be out of the loop, but what happened to voting for doc of the week?
5 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
JFK II
4 grandmacaesar 2015-07-05
Defamation, a film about anti-semitism made by an Israeli jew.
3 Jesse_Jacksons_Ego 2015-07-05
Lets Talk About Sandy Hook
Unravelling Sandy Hook by Sofia Smallstorm
New Pearl Harbor
2 EatMorTurkee 2015-07-05
Here's a good place to find videos galore. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracydocumentary
2 FortHouston 2015-07-05
A different perspective from the 1980s about America's role in Cambodia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_to_Cambodia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDWbr9Y8g2M
1 sapiosex 2015-07-05
Thralldom-Based Education A documentary which explores the origin, purpose and contemporary manifestation of government-controlled education.
1 CelineHagbard 2015-07-05
James Corbett's Century of Enslavement: A History of the Federal Reserve
1 planochase 2015-07-05
Waco; Rules of Engagement, explains the way the media totally fell in line with the gov. regarding the reasons for the attack on the Branch Davidians farmhouse/compound. The film clip at the end should have led to a Congressional investigation.
1 throwawaynameday 2015-07-05
If you have 43 hours, The Mystery Babylon series.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYGFfvhnV2k&list=PLF05201F9DA35C234
http://www.hourofthetime.com/
1 my_cat_joe 2015-07-05
If you aren't familiar with him, John Pilger has some great documentaries on the way the world actually works. My favorite is The War On Democracy, but there are other great ones.
1 Baron523 2015-07-05
Not immediately apparent as conspiracy material but if you understand and accept the premise then a conspiracy becomes evident. I always get attacked on this sub when I talk about electricity it is quite amusing.
Eric Dollard - History and Theory of Electricity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TttHkDRuyZw
0 drewshaver 2015-07-05
Zeitgeist, especially the second one.
-5 [deleted] 2015-07-05
[deleted]
5 Roarian 2015-07-05
I wouldn't suggest Alex Jones any more than Richard Hoagland. There are better, less kooky choices out there as far as conspiracy theories go, though I personally listen more out of amusement and casual interest than because I believe it. (Same reason I visit here.)
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
Hoagland though "kooky", has yet to be dis proven after 20 years on his analysis of the Cydonia region of Mars. The night time IR images, not the face. That one piece of data he brought to the attention of the world still requires science and history books to be rewritten.
2 Roarian 2015-07-05
Source on where he got this 'infrared image'? Because Hoagland is well known for zooming in very far on images and then reading things into pixels, so I'd like the original image if you please.
I can compare it to the actual detailed images from MRO for example to see what he's up to lately.
Should be fun. (Know of any subreddit that covers this? It's been a while since I've dealt with image processing conspiracies.)
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
The Russians. NASA would never release those. It has been out there for 20 plus years. If that was to be debunked, it would have been years ago and plastered over every thing Hoagland has been involved with. The fact it hasn't speaks for itself.
Hoaglands credentials have also never been discredited.
Just a lot of mainstream scientists are threatened that Hoaglands theories and work totally upset the apple cart they have spent their lives work on.
2 Roarian 2015-07-05
Your argument is that NASA hasn't bothered to publicly speak out against a conspiracy theory, therefore it's true?
Seriously?
Also, 'the Russians'? The image is from http://www.enterprisemission.com/ which claims it was made in 2002 with the Mars Oddysey, which is a NASA craft. You were saying?
What credentials? He doesn't claim to have a doctorate as far as I know, he just says he's been a curator at a museum and a science advisor for CBS. He has fewer credentials than I do when it comes to science, and you don't see me touting my awesomeness.
He has a private form of physics which he can't demonstrate - and he's not even a physicist to begin with. If any of his stories actually held water he could easily get a lot of recognition, it's not like amazing discoveries and landmark papers don't get released. C'mon, physicists are actively looking for alternatives to the standard model, it's not like they're secret about it...
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
No, my argument is NASA wouldn't have released those images. And NASA has also been known to edit images before releasing them to the public. Not just for clarity issues.
NASA has been putting red filters on Mars images to change the color of the sky from blue to red. They made the mistake years ago on a CNN special on the Mars rovers. The person they were interviewing at Nasa had a lap top on their desk with obviously unedited pictures from the rover on the surface of Mars. You could tell by the shadows it was not dusk or dawn, and the sky was a bright blue. Just like ours.
The fact NASA has held information back from the public is not a secret.
As far as his theories on hyperdeminsonial physics, they can not be measured with our current technology, but does that mean they don't exist? If you cant tell me how they built the pyramids, do they vanish? There are things that we don't fully understand, yet they are still present.
If the ancients have built things that we would have trouble duplicating today, does that mean they were more advanced than us? Some people think so. Even things we can duplicate that they did, think about the advantage in technology we claim to have. And the effort it would take just to DUPLICATE their work. Also think about what we have built today, what would stand the test of time like the pyramids. The Hoover dam might be the only thing.
1 Roarian 2015-07-05
For what purpose? And how did random internet people get access to them if NASA doesn't release them? NASA has a ton of pictures publicly available including most that Hoagland uses...
The issue of color is more complicated than it seems. Cameras and eyes don't work identically, and the former have to be calibrated to deliver an image that is representative of what our eyes would see. Most cameras have such options, people just don't generally use them. Early Mars images were calibrated to be more 'Earth-like' and sometimes NASA still does that; it's basically just changing the balance of light in the image to replicate what we see here on Earth, rather than what you would see on Mars. Current rovers have images of known color on board to calibrate the camera on the surface rather than based on our best approximation.
I'm sure they have, but 'has kept information back' is not the same thing as 'is literally hiding alien cities and other mystical stuff.'
Practically? YES. If he can't show that it's true, then how does he know about it? If it can't be measured, then why should anyone believe it? There are plenty of scientific hypotheses on the same level as his (although they tend to have their math figured out) which aren't commonly accepted either.
Such as? I know of no structure from the ancient world that modern man could not in principle replicate, although some would take a lot of doing (they also took a lot of doing the first time around.)
We have advantages, but we also can't just hire an entire working class of people for several months per year to do our huge construction efforts, like the Egyptians could with their off-season farmers. You can do a lot of things if you just throw enough people at them.
We could easily build a structure that would stand as long as the Pyramids did if we wanted to, but there's no real rational desire for anything that lasts that kind of time. For the most part we don't really care for giant piles of rocks, we build useful things instead.
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
You might not, but if we wanted who ever is here thousands of years from now to know we existed, and we understood complex mathematics the precession of the sky, knowing that they wouldn't speak the language, what would you build? The fact you don't want to or that other dont explains right there why the ancient people were probably more advanced than us, technology wise, and spiritually. They understood that building in stone would make their existence more than a myth and something that we have to deal with. Despite that some people dont want to or have a hard time wrapping their minds around. Even with a degree.
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
Check out his site. The enterprise mission. You should be able to find it. If I had more time and didn't all ready do the homework once, I would do it for you. Even Joe Rogan tried to slam Hoagland on his podcast in an interview with Graham Hancock, to which Graham defended Hoagland, Rogan back peddled after Graham stated his case. Rogan doesn't do that often. Gained a little respect for it imo.
2 Roarian 2015-07-05
Yeah, I know about the site. The issue I have with this is the same I have with essentially all of Hoagland's stuff - blatant anomaly hunting and abusing the limitations of technology.
0 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
I agree, Hoagland will stretch things and try and baffle you with bs, but those images are what they are.
1 throwawaymikehawk 2015-07-05
More info.
1 MTRHBLN 2015-07-05
Mr. Jones may not be the best place to start, because he thrives on the fear-factor too much. He may mean well, but his method is arguable. I'd start out with researchers like Eustace Mullins or something, just to get a picture of the root cause first.
1 TheCocaineFairy 2015-07-05
I said don't trust him