Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We can start with any good ones: JFK , Roswell, John Lennon, UFO's, or any others you might think of.

What should we start with?

I've got one! They say that Arnold Schwarzzenagger was meant to be the governor of California since the day he was born. His whole body building career, movie stardom, marriage to a Kennedy, and spikey hair were all designed to help his campaign since day one. It's all a plan to turn the western united states into one big movie studio!

Did you hear the other theory where you could possibly be the only one on KMC forums and the rest of us are paid my Raz and Ush to pretend we are really members to make you feel like you have friends?!

Are you sure that you arent the one who is alone on here and its the rest of us who are paid to pretend??? Whoa, I just blew your mind , didnt I?

*starts to feel worried and backs up slowly*

i have a theory about casper but i think u want real theories huh

heres a theory for roswell, the aleins what their own amusment park just like their friends from plant earth!

well i think that really we are the aliens and that there's a whjole new world out there that "scientists" are trying to cover up coz we we are too stupid to comprehend anything like that and we would all panic.

yes, i am too beliving there are aleins at roswell, the government just likes to make up silly stories that have so many holes its impossible to belive...stupid government

wow you guys are doing such a super job...so thats what deniro ment by the moon watching all my actions..hmm..wow guys this is awesome,thanks!!

I think the Roswell alien myth was created to cover up a government experiment that went wrong and many innocent people got sick and died of radiation.

I think the first moon landing was a hoax

I think private interest groups support unknown space programs designed to fly people to Mars. Infact, flight to Mars may be occurring every day and we would never know it. Upon Mars there are already human civilizations. The mystique of Mars in propaganda to sway our minds into believing we haven't been there yet. Only the rich can afford the ticket. That is why they don't care about the Earth. The meteor is coming, they know it, we don't and we are meant not to. But fate will have it. The last flight of the rich and wealthy to Mars will end in tragedy for those aboard that ship. For the engines of the ship will fail and it will crash into the meteor that is heading toward Earth. Knocking the meteor off of it's path of destruction, the middle-class and the poor will unite as the ship explodes into a fire ball and crashes into the main artery of the only power plant on Mars, rendering them hopeless as they all die of suffocation.

Elvis.. Really did go home...

Covered up because, he didn't want his wife to know he left the building, and the planet...... Hand in hand with Marilyn Monroe......

government likes to make coverups

ditto I mean there's no wind on the moon so how can the flag have been blowing??? huh...huh? and you know there's that place in the middle of the desert that's "restricted" you know the place-wotitsname-well I think that's where it was and that its restricted coz if anyone saw it then they'd recognise it as being the "moon" and the jig would be up!

the flag has blowing because of the air blowing out from the lander thingy.

no way one guy shot JFK

i dont know the story beind the jkf assasination...can anyone fill me in

Moon landing was not a hoax, there isn't a single thing you can say about it being a hoax that cannot be refuted. There is no photo, ANYWHERE, of the flag blowing in a 'breeze'. There is the flag waving after movement, which happens as much on the moon as anywhere else, and there is a picture of it with a ripple in- which, unless you think all curtains are continuously in a breeze, is nothing to do with wind either.

sorry...I just dont believe it, there's something not right about it that's all.

Hmm... well, ok, but you'll forgive me for wanting proof (or at least evidence) it didn't happen...

yeah ok, i just dont believe it and everyone us intitled to their opinions

Doesn't necessarily make those opinions valid though...

look at this picture....
( photo clearly shows shadow of flag, but shadow of "Astro-not" is absent).

HMMMM. plus look at the flag...breeze? I doubt it's still unsettled!

hey that photo does luk kinda fake,look at his right leg-its on the ground but it luks like it shunt be,its hard to explain,just luk at his right leg and u'll see.im undecided about wether its a hoax or not

yeah like the guy has been stuck on or summit
hey thats it the astronot has been stuck onto the pic, that would explain no shadow!!!

The shadow is actually there and I can see it. There is a slight downslope or more like a pit right where he is standing so you cannot see the ground where the shadow would be. Part of the shadow is visible toward the very right of the picture though.

Or, if he is actually jumping in the air, his shadow would not be visible especially with the sun at that angle.

First of all, yes, Tired Hiker is right, there is a shadow, look more closely next time.

The shadows in the picture are not 100% parrallel and with a low sun they are not easy to see. The astronaut's shadow is moving away and right. You can see it to the right of the foot on our right, his left. This is perfectly normal and in keeping with how might works when a photo is viewed without perspective- the astronaut is on a slope and this is obscuring and slightly re-directing his shadow in the picture. Look here:

http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/strangeshadows.html

You see non-parralel shadows every day on Earth, just people don't think about it.

Second, err, no NOT a breeze,. Why do you think there is a breeze? Like I say, the flag is like a curtain- it is rung from a horizontal rod at the top. Ripples do NOT mean a breeze any more than they do with a curtain! And if you think the flag is waving, where the heck do you think this was shot? Inside? How strong IS that air conditioning? Outside? If the wind is strong enough to blow the flag, it would blow the dust also. In either case, the whole flag would flap. In that picture the top of the flag is clearly rigid- because, as I say, it is hung from a rail.

That is a genuine photo, nothing wrong with it at all. And trust me, if NASA had faked the pic, they would have faked the shadow, it is piss easy to do so. And just what would be the point of superimposing an astronaut when, if you think this is a conspiracy, they would have just put the fake astronaut on the fake moon and taken the picture? In fact, just what do you think is going on at ALL with trying to make out the shadows are wrong? Presumably that the pic is a composite- why bother if you have a convincing fake set? It makes no sense. In any case, the picture is good.

It's nonsense, all of it. The landings were real.

Maybe because they had to use a special kind of camera? And no, they weren't that good. My grandparents had film of my mom when she was 4 and it was crappy just like the fuzzy moon-landing imaging.

You're all Paranoid....

doodoodooooodoododoodoooodooo

Indeed!

First of all, do you know how DIFFICULT it was to get decent camera footage of the moon? It was hideously technical!

Secondly, have you ever seen a helicopter land? Downthrust blows stuff AWAY, not up. If a helicopter lands on a dust bowl, not a piece of dust would get on it.

However, besides that, there is no air on the moon. Dust has to be pjysically touched by the exhaust to be displaced- the actual amount of dust shifted was very small.

i saw documentary on it
i think its a hoax very long explanation

Try me. It's not a hoax- or at least, you cannot prove it.

alright they have the theory that well in pictures of the moon landing theere appears to be a second light source other from the sun which up there would be the only source of light......
also one picture was taken in one location.......and days later another picture was taken very far away from the first yet the look exactly alike as if they were taken in the same place.........
and the shadows and the rock shadows do not match the way the sun hits them.............
and very smart scientists have proven that back then radiation could have very highly affected the astronauts causing them great problems.....
i hve some more points but i have the thing taped must watch again

who cares.. they say they landed on the moon.. they landed on the moon..

let's talk about Rabbits... are they really conspiring against us, with their killer deathrays?

ohohoh.. and the radioactive sausages from pluto..
they're so cool..

yea..

Right, that first claim falls apart because a. light reflects off other objects, b. the Earth sheds slight shadows on the moon as well and c. that is almost certainly simple confusion with non-parralel shadows again as I have already dealt with.

That second one I would need to see the pic but the idea that it proves a fake is silly- shadows very often point in different directions at different times of day. As for the 'taken far from but looks the same' thing, I assume you mean- as you cannot possibly prove elsewise that it was taken somewhere else- that you mean one shot with the lunar lander in view and one shot with it not. I know that pic- the claim is contemptible. The background is ten or twenty miles away- you could take a pic 100 metres in either direction from the Lander and the background would look the same.

Radiation would kill the astronauts? Nope- not according to all the best scientisits of the field- American, Russian, European. Check these links:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

To quote from the second one:

"Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth.

Radiation protection for the Apollo Program was focused on both the peculiarities of the natural space radiation environment and the increased prevalence of manmade radiation sources on the ground and onboard the spacecraft. Radiation-exposure risks to crewmen were assessed and balanced against mission gain to determine mission constraints. Operational radiation evaluation required specially designed radiation-detection systems onboard the spacecraft in addition to the use of satellite data, solar observatory support, and other liaison. Control and management of radioactive sources and radiation-generating equipment was important in minimizing radiation exposure of ground-support personnel, researchers, and the Apollo flight and backup crewmen."

I think as Languages have changed, So has names...
bleh.. I dunno.. You're so confusing, Ush..

well ill find some info about it and get back to you
and i say i think its a hoax not that it definately is
also there is a murder conspiracy going around about the astronauts that were origainally supposed to be on the first flight......
however they all disappeared and were replaced at the last moment

That's just the plot of Capricorn One!

You've been watching that rubbish Fox Special on the moon landings...

yes i have
and i dont fully agree with it but it raises some interesting points

There is only one presented piece I have ever seen that cannot be answered and that is mis-continuity between the film of Buzz Aldrin climbing off the Lander and the photos of the same.

Anyway, Irene, read this:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

Trashes that programme pretty damn good...

That's what the damned suits are for, Silver...

And the moon rotates too, not just the Earth! It's spinning while orbiting the planet, which is spinning and orbiting the sun, which is spinning! Lots of spinning! Dizzy!

it doesnt spin that fast

Just corrected that link for you, Irene, so it brings you to the top of the page.

And if everyone is born evil- how did we learn to be good in the first place?

i dont know we evolved some what i guess

Ah So you don't HAVE to learn it from others- you can develop it yourself, you say?

In that case, don't you mean we are born ignorant, not evil?

i say we are born evil but since children dont like talk and understand fully they lose these urges and such.........since they cant expand on them and such they forget them and the evil is lost from them.......somewhat
if children were born fully capable of thought and such then they would probably commit evil deeds as well......
baptism is said to be cleansing their souls and getting rid of the original sin........but what if there are more than one sin already

how bout this one........did Mi6 kill princess diana
i have proof too

See, you say they are born evil but then say they just do not know., That I do not think is fair- evil should not be confused with ignorance.

After all, not everyone who is taught better ACTS better. Surely the ones who are told how to be good but are still evil- THEY are the ones born evil, yeah? Ones that do not know what good is- how can one judge one way or the other?

If you say people can develop good independantly of others- and you concede that is possible- it is therefore not possible to sustain your view that everyone is born evil- else we would NEVER have developed the concept of morals.

And I don't give a flying monkeys for baptism.

You do NOT have proof MI6 killed Princess Diana. Incidentally, had they done so, no-one would have suspected it.

how do you know morals are the right thing to do.......
wat if we were meant to kill eachother to prevent over population and sumone was too lazy to do so so everyone stopped

fine read this...........
http://www.londonnet.co.uk/ln/talk/news/diana_conspiracy_evidence.html

Because it isn;t. That is simply something humanity has developed and discovered. To argue elsewise is simple futility- you cannot back it.

back wat????
theres quite a few there

You mean MI6 is real? I thought it was a 007 made up thing!

wat if pictures on the walls look back

First of all, there is absolutely no possibility that anything Diana did could ever have been a threat to the stability oif the state, at ALL.

Diana and Dodi were give a post mortem in France.

To say the fact that the French could not find the van responsible therefore means that secret agents must have obstructed them is the purest bollocks. Police don't find hit and run vehicles all the damn time.

Henri Paul was almost certainly on private retainer for his money and his behaviour before the drive utterly confirms he was pissed as a newt.

TRJ was the only person wearing a seat-belt... because he was the only one wearing a seatbelt. And it is established that Diana never wore hers.

Some witnesses say there was an explosion. Many more say they heard no such thing. There is no evidence of any such thing. No such thing had any bearing on the crash. Similar issues surround this 'flash of white light'.

Hewitt talks shit- he WAS warned to stay away, though.

And who the hell cares where the Press were?

Now- where is your PROOF, Irene? Not mad ideas- actual evidence that I cannot refute.

they were actual ideas
andf i didnt say that its true its a theory

None of them are even evidence, let alone proof.

well theyre not mine then are they
do u guys think that time travel is possible?

Ask me yesterday.

funny