Ghost - Leicester Conspiracy

[ghostrider]

I don't know if you were around in 1964 when the big brute Sonny Liston was assumed invincible until the then unknown 22 year old Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. hammered him into submission. Immediately following this is was widely stated that it was a set up and a conspiracy plot but as they say the rest was history and Muhammad Ali went on to unbelievable glory.

I saw Sonny Liston on his visit to Newcastle at St. James Hall and he was enormous. He even towered over his minders who surrounded him and no wonder at the time he was considered invincable.

It's all about scrutinising anything and coming to a conclusion on it, whether it has potential for script or not.

One man's view is another man's obscurity.
It's all dependent on what each individual takes from anything like this.

[ex_pat_magpie]

It's all about scrutinising anything and coming to a conclusion on it, whether it has potential for script or not.

One man's view is another man's obscurity.
It's all dependent on what each individual takes from anything like this.

I think you've summed it up well ghost.

It will always be a matter of a person's own opinion.

[nufcwelsh93]

My problem with this conspiracy and most conspiracies is people are involved.

Perhaps im wrong but the logistics involved in pulling something like this off would be quite large with many people involved the likelihood of everyone keep their mouth shut are is really low in my opinion. Particularly in an industry filled with ego.

Im not ruling it out but im not convinced i dont have that much faith in people lol

My main problem with conspiracy theories is they take away from legitimate proven theories i.e operation paperclip, operation northwood etc etc

[ghostrider]

My problem with this conspiracy and most conspiracies is people are involved.

Perhaps im wrong but the logistics involved in pulling something like this off would be quite large with many people involved the likelihood of everyone keep their mouth shut are is really low in my opinion. Particularly in an industry filled with ego.

Im not ruling it out but im not convinced i dont have that much faith in people lol

My main problem with conspiracy theories is they take away from legitimate proven theories i.e operation paperclip, operation northwood etc etc

People generally look at conspiracies as being unworkable due to the amount of people having to be involved in keeping something quiet, then and for later.
It's always a case of, someone will surely spill the beans...and I could easily go along with those that think on these lines and yet will refuse to look any further than those lines.

That's one of the reasons among many that gives potential conspiracies a sort of legitimacy and generally renders the few conspiracy theorists as being basically, cast off as fantasists, clowns, unstable or basically just cast off as wrong to mass opinion that goes along with the official narrative....and in a way it's fair enough because that's literally how we generally go with things in life.

In the cases of something that apparently involves too many people...if thought about, it does not have to involve too many...it just depends on how certain things are pulled off or are they what they've been portrayed to be.

Leicesters supposed miracle could've consisted of player enhancement, plus the aid of a handful of officials and a few other top people to pull strings and keep the wolves from the fox's door, so to speak.

You could go back to many things and ask yourself, well how did the Manhattan project manage to stay a secret, which can be looked at in a few ways and not just the narrative the majority accepted.

D.Day landings.

The great escape.

The moon landings.

The Joseph Kittinger jump from a supposed 31 km height... to similar exploits of recent past of, Felix Baumgartner.

And so on and so on.
In all you can say " well how can hundreds, thousands or hundreds of thousands of people keep their mouths shut and nobody spills the beans?"

Possible because most of it was not what it was purported to be, so didn't actually require the people that people believed were required.
The official narrative could've been just a fairy story in some and the reality was maybe much more simple and different which required very few people in the real physical know of what was really going on.


You see, very few of us trust media. Very few of us trust politicians...and basically many of us are sceptical of a lot of stuff....yet collectively most people will follow a narrative given out as official because it becomes a do as you do/we do, we all do and those that oppose it are outcasts.
It just depends how something is sold to the populations.

That's the natural way in life. Always has been and always will be, most likely.

If you can't be persuaded by words...maybe a few pictures, or video. If we don't buy into one there's always other teasers and it comes right back down to the old arguments of " the camera doesn't lie. There's video proof, so there's no argument. And so on.
The thing is...if we can live in a world full of actors and manipulations by being told they're just acting...we can absolutely be duped by actors and manipulations of anything that is cast out as legitimate.

Most people do not like so called stand alones. Most people don't like to be associated with minority views.
The thing is, it takes a lot for a person to delve into stuff that goes against the grain and even more resilient efforts to actually edge towards an alternative theory...especially if that theory has been dubbed " a conspiracy theory" because most people just assume conspiracy theories are studied by nutters or oddballs.
It's not the ordinary persons fault for doing this...it's a deliberate coaxing by the mass media into that mindset. Brainwashing at its best to garner compliance.

This is why those at the top have and everyone else just gets by in a belief that they're all ok, even as they're getting stripped of almost everything....but that's another story.

Anyway, a long post but each to their own.

[HughieG]

People who claim that the Earth is flat and the moon landings didn't happen though... I simply don't have time for that. It really is seriously stupid and anti-scientific.

[ghostrider]

People who claim that the Earth is flat and the moon landings didn't happen though... I simply don't have time for that. It really is seriously stupid and anti-scientific.

You don't have to have time for it and you're quite entitled to claim anything you wish, as long as you understand that you have no direct proof of your claims, other than accepting mainstream explanations and so called reality photo's and video.

I could stand about saying I have no time for people who believe we spin on a globe at over 1000 mph, going around a central sun that is almost supposedly 800,000 miles in diameter at 66,000 mph but I'm in acceptance that we are brought up to believe all this stuff, so anyone that goes against it is naturally deemed a waste of time to anyone who has no reason to question it.

As for being anti scientific...I'd say it's being scientific but is being anti mainstream, like I said earlier. Going against the accepted grain.

So to react to your comment on people being seriously stupid for believing in alternate theories to the indoctrinated one, I'd say it's far from stupid. Far from it.

Some people get the idea of a flat Earth and just think of pancake flat, they don't take time to look at any of it because it doesn't fit their interest or upbringing.
It's not too different to an upbringing of religious belief's. One person will have their belief and another will have theirs. Some belief's are masses strong and others are sectioned, with alternate one's, including non-belief are spread out in smaller sections.

I once believed it all. I was told from being a kid about the 8 minutes it takes for the suns light to hit us from it's 93,000,000 mile distance in so called space and a 240,000 mile so called moon.

Most people accept it all as I did and most people will expire with that mindset.
I say each to their own but when a person makes a claim against another, unless they have absolute proof, then it's really all down to sorting the wheat from the chaff and being interested enough to see both sides of an argument from a person's own points and not guided by points gleaned from books or mainstream say so as some kind of truth and whole truth and nothing but a truth.

Anyway, read this or bypass it. That's my two penneth and we'll leave it at that.

[HughieG]

You don't have to have time for it and you're quite entitled to claim anything you wish, as long as you understand that you have no direct proof of your claims, other than accepting mainstream explanations and so called reality photo's and video.

I could stand about saying I have no time for people who believe we spin on a globe at over 1000 mph, going around a central sun that is almost supposedly 800,000 miles in diameter at 66,000 mph but I'm in acceptance that we are brought up to believe all this stuff, so anyone that goes against it is naturally deemed a waste of time to anyone who has no reason to question it.

As for being anti scientific...I'd say it's being scientific but is being anti mainstream, like I said earlier. Going against the accepted grain.

So to react to your comment on people being seriously stupid for believing in alternate theories to the indoctrinated one, I'd say it's far from stupid. Far from it.

Some people get the idea of a flat Earth and just think of pancake flat, they don't take time to look at any of it because it doesn't fit their interest or upbringing.
It's not too different to an upbringing of religious belief's. One person will have their belief and another will have theirs. Some belief's are masses strong and others are sectioned, with alternate one's, including non-belief are spread out in smaller sections.

I once believed it all. I was told from being a kid about the 8 minutes it takes for the suns light to hit us from it's 93,000,000 mile distance in so called space and a 240,000 mile so called moon.

Most people accept it all as I did and most people will expire with that mindset.
I say each to their own but when a person makes a claim against another, unless they have absolute proof, then it's really all down to sorting the wheat from the chaff and being interested enough to see both sides of an argument from a person's own points and not guided by points gleaned from books or mainstream say so as some kind of truth and whole truth and nothing but a truth.

Anyway, read this or bypass it. That's my two penneth and we'll leave it at that.

Of course I'm going to read it as you've taken the time to respond to my comment. And you're right we probably should leave it at that because we will never agree on this. Let me just say that I respect your views because you are entitled to them, but I will fight them because I don't want people who know nothing about science to present unqualified views on it, just as I don't like dogmatic religious beliefs to be part of government. To say that we're simply talking about "going against the accepted grain" and that people don't have "time to look at it as it doesn't fit their interest" are extreme claims in my opinion. You talk about evidence. If you have actually taken the the time, like you claim other people don't, and examined the evidence, you'd know that there is much more evidence in support of the moon landings and the Earth being round than the other way around.

People work with science in so many shapes and forms every day all over the world, trying to make us wiser. To say that people are denying conspiracies because it's not in their interest is wrong - science, unlike religion, will happily admit its wrong because that's its very nature. For it to be proven wrong or right, evidence needs to be presented. "One person have that belief, another has a different one" - that rule simply does not apply to science. So gravity is a matter of opinion? Nope, it's just a fact.

But yeah, let's leave it at that

[ghostrider]

Of course I'm going to read it as you've taken the time to respond to my comment. And you're right we probably should leave it at that because we will never agree on this. Let me just say that I respect your views because you are entitled to them, but I will fight them because I don't want people who know nothing about science to present unqualified views on it, just as I don't like dogmatic religious beliefs to be part of government.

To be fair none of us has a clue whether someone is presenting unqualified views unless we believe a certificate on some theory makes a person more qualified for the truth, based on studying and mimicking that study.
I'd say it makes that person more qualified to recite that study by process of higher/accepted percentage that dictates a qualification and nothing more.
It's not a physical proof of truth.
Science that we can all verify, leaves little scope for alternate views.
Unverified science leaves it all wide open for alternate views.

To say that we're simply talking about "going against the accepted grain" and that people don't have "time to look at it as it doesn't fit their interest" are extreme claims in my opinion.

Maybe but people are people and that's what we generally do. We tend to follow protocol by mass.

You talk about evidence. If you have actually taken the the time, like you claim other people don't, and examined the evidence, you'd know that there is much more evidence in support of the moon landings and the Earth being round than the other way around.

Do you mean much more evidence because the tabloids said? Or people supposedly involved said? Or is it pictures and video being a proof?

I'd argue that there's much more evidence against it all but it comes down to circumstantial and logical evaluation against 50 years of storytelling that easily fooled the public at the start but slowly started to look like the monstrous heap of garbage that I believe it to be.
However, you can claim everything is totally above board and you don't see any issues at all and that's fine by me.
Anyone can choose to think what they wish.
I'm 100% convinced it didn't happen and you're 100% convinced it did...in how we were told. Fair comment.

People work with science in so many shapes and forms every day all over the world, trying to make us wiser.

Yep and they do a fantastic job.
But there's scientists and pseudo scientists, right?
There's actors and realists...right?
It's all about sorting the wheat from the chaff.

To say that people are denying conspiracies because it's not in their interest is wrong - science, unlike religion, will happily admit its wrong because that's its very nature.

But people do. If someone is not interested in a theory outside of the indoctrinated one then they can simply deny it and be done with it...not wishing to engage in debate/argument over it...which again is absolutely fine.

My wife just accepts everything on the news or in the papers. I ask her why and she just says " because I can't be bothered questioning any of it, I just want to spend my time watching my soaps and doing my own stuff, as well as washing my clothes on your super six pack once a week."
Ok the last bit could potentially be a stretch of the truth. lol

For it to be proven wrong or right, evidence needs to be presented. "One person have that belief, another has a different one" - that rule simply does not apply to science.

Science in itself is about exploring what we are and part of, so yes it is about what one persons belief is against another.
It's about hypothesis to theory to actual nailed on truth and can only be a nailed on truth when it can be physically proven to be that....otherwise is remains a hypothesis or a theory and is open to argument/debate/interpretation.

Unless of course you're bound by mainstream scientific theory which is sold as a truth but passed as theory as a contingency in case of the house of cards falling. In my opinion.

So gravity is a matter of opinion? Nope, it's just a fact.

Yep, it's a matter of opinion.
Not all people believe it exists and it cannot be proven to exist, except for inconclusive experiments that really prove nothing.
Having gravity on a spinning ball goes against logic but having pressure against density inside a container makes more sense to me.
Our own cell of life under pressure of atmosphere, not fictional gravity, in my opinion.

But yeah, let's leave it at that

[ex_pat_magpie]

Quote by Ghostrider in previous post

Yep, it's a matter of opinion.
Not all people believe it exists and it cannot be proven to exist, except for inconclusive experiments that really prove nothing.
Having gravity on a spinning ball goes against logic but having pressure against density inside a container makes more sense to me.
Our own cell of life under pressure of atmosphere, not fictional gravity, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]


Wilf if you don't believe gravity exists then why don't you just allow yourself to float off into outer space and then conspire with the aliens about how to get back.

[HughieG]

I'm so happy that most people recognize, and live by, the fact that science is not simply a matter of opinion.