• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The '86 Challenger Crew Are Alive & Well

I'd like to hear what Bill Hicks, I mean Alex Jones, has to say on the matter...

128934555627494408.jpg


alex-jones-bill-hicks5.jpg


wi4ff6b31d.jpg


https://mackquigley.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/11616/
 
Last edited:
Ulalume said:
A big issue for me is that I can't see any benefit, for the US government in general. for NASA itself, or anyone, really - in faking those astronaut's deaths. If they had wanted to cut the space program (the only reason I can see for doing such a thing ) all the government would have had to do is cut it - it's highly doubtful that the American people would have been hammering on the White House door demanding more space exploration. By 1986, the drama of the "space race" had long died down, and while Reagan had everyone paranoid about the Soviet Union, the focus then was all about missile defense, instead of besting the Russians by appearing to be on the forefront of scientific discovery.
Click to expand...

One of the Totally Nutjob Conspiracy Theories (to give it the full derisory perjorative term) revolves around the fact that those 'normal All-Amercan' crew members with typical 80's perms were never aboard the shuttle in the first place. Instead, they were the public-friendly faces of a Capricorn One earthbound scenario while a covert crew piloted the shuttle on some secret space programme mission. And there are lots of threads kicking about as what that may be.
 
Eleven Shuttle flights were classified as military launches, often with secret payloads and military crews; there would be no reason to pretend like this when they were routinely launching secret missions with little information given to the public.
 
Um... don't want to pressure you, Loquaciousness, but was there any reply to your e-mail at all?
 
The reason for that could be that the subject gets a lot of these e-mails and dismissed you as another crank. Or maybe this is the first and they still think you're a crank (!). You could always try another on the list, but I suspect the lack of response would be the same. That's assuming they're real people in the first place...
 
Let's not forget that the U.S. is not exactly the most fashionably-advanced of all nations and apart from celebrities. With the regulation perms and jumpsuits, they all looked the same then and with plastic surgery, a lot of them do now.
 
This month's FT scoffs at the Challenger conspiracy bunkum. Basically says, in any large country of 100s of millions of people, it's easy enough to Google the name of a person who died 30 years ago, see how many social media hits you get (a lot, unless they had a very strange name), and post a pic of someone who vaguely resembles an older version of the dead person. Whilst most people see through this nonsense, a handful of the more credulous will believe in it and propagate the conspiracy.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
This month's FT scoffs at the Challenger conspiracy bunkum. Basically says, in any large country of 100s of millions of people, it's easy enough to Google the name of a person who died 30 years ago, see how many social media hits you get (a lot, unless they had a very strange name), and post a pic of someone who vaguely resembles an older version of the dead person. Whilst most people see through this nonsense, a handful of the more credulous will believe in it and propagate the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Like we believe anything we read in THAT publication.
 
The FT article was extremely scathing, I noted. I suppose the hoax is in very bad taste.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
This month's FT scoffs at the Challenger conspiracy bunkum. Basically says, in any large country of 100s of millions of people, it's easy enough to Google the name of a person who died 30 years ago, see how many social media hits you get (a lot, unless they had a very strange name), and post a pic of someone who vaguely resembles an older version of the dead person. Whilst most people see through this nonsense, a handful of the more credulous will believe in it and propagate the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

I still don't think it is that easy to just pick several names and then find people who look a very good match AND have the same names. And have various other connections that link them to their dead namesakes.

Would be an easy test to do, pick an 80s disaster, select six victims and find modern online presences who look similar enough to be the same person 30 years on and with the same name. If it is so simple shouldn't be hard to do.
 
McAvennie said:
I still don't think it is that easy to just pick several names and then find people who look a very good match AND have the same names. And have various other connections that link them to their dead namesakes.

Would be an easy test to do, pick an 80s disaster, select six victims and find modern online presences who look similar enough to be the same person 30 years on and with the same name. If it is so simple shouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although I don't really think there's anything in the alleged conspiracy. I do think it's a very weird coincidence and worthy of note for that.
 
According to the FT column, a photo of a brother of one of the astronauts was used in one case. We can't even be sure the photos are who they say they are.
 
GNC said:
According to the FT column, a photo of a brother of one of the astronauts was used in one case. We can't even be sure the photos are who they say they are.
Click to expand...

The source website said the photo was the brother of the dead astronaut...

Two of the modern day people were clearly explained to have been the twin brothers of the dead astronauts. The implication being the dead astronaut was alive and posing as his own brother. A check of school records for the two would easily disprove the theory by showing that the dead astronauts did infact have brothers at the same school. I listed the schools that they went to earlier in the thread - wouldn't be that hard for someone based in the US and with the desire to do so to check that out and easily put the case to bed. That does not seem to have happened though.
 
That's what happens when the potential debunkers don't take cases like this seriously. Maybe wiser heads are afraid of being pulled into the maelstrom of conspiracy internetery? It'll be interesting to see if there are any letters about this in the next FT.
 
McAvennie said:
I still don't think it is that easy to just pick several names and then find people who look a very good match AND have the same names. And have various other connections that link them to their dead namesakes.

Would be an easy test to do, pick an 80s disaster, select six victims and find modern online presences who look similar enough to be the same person 30 years on and with the same name. If it is so simple shouldn't be hard to do.
Click to expand...


OK. How about the 1980 Mt St Helens volcanic eruption?
One of the most high profile victims was vulcanologist David Johnston, who died aged 30 on May 18th 1980.

david_johnston_at_camp_05-17-80_med.jpg

A simple search on the name, being a fairly common one, reveals a very large number of Facebook, Linkedin and umpteen other social media hits, including several of men in late middle age, some with facial hair, who could conceivably pass for being the unfortunate Mr Johnston's older self. I haven't got time to do this, as I believe it is bunkum anyway (and feels rather morbid), but if you took the subset of David/Dave Johnstons' of the approximate age and with approximately corresponding features - say 2 or 3 hundred of them, and scrutinised their profiles, I'm sure you could find a link, however tenuous to either Washington State or volcanoes.
 
blessmycottonsocks said:
OK. How about the 1980 Mt St Helens volcanic eruption?
One of the most high profile victims was vulcanologist David Johnston, who died aged 30 on May 18th 1980.

View attachment 608

A simple search on the name, being a fairly common one, reveals a very large number of Facebook, Linkedin and umpteen other social media hits, including several of men in late middle age, some with facial hair, who could conceivably pass for being the unfortunate Mr Johnston's older self. I haven't got time to do this, as I believe it is bunkum anyway (and feels rather morbid), but if you took the subset of David/Dave Johnstons' of the approximate age and with approximately corresponding features - say 2 or 3 hundred of them, and scrutinised their profiles, I'm sure you could find a link, however tenuous to either Washington State or volcanoes.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you could. The point is could you then find four or five more with more unusual names?
 
McAvennie said:
I'm sure you could. The point is could you then find four or five more with more unusual names?
Click to expand...

Well, if you allowed yourself the option of including siblings - which the proponent of this particular theory very generously granted himself - then you're halfway there already.

...these two look-alikes both claim to be BROTHERS of the two respective Challenger martyrs - yet both bear a striking resemblance to their allegedly deceased-back-in-1986 brothers.
Click to expand...

So, the claim that someone is someone else's brother is deemed to be suspicious because the two look like, erm...brothers. No, hold on - Ha...if two 'brothers' look like each other then that must mean that they can't...Okay, got it - if two people came out of the same womb and bare a passing resemblance to each other, then...people who share the same surname can't be....DON'T RUSH ME...I'll get it in a minute....

Okay, I'm a little wary of falling back on per fas et nefas to attack a whole argument - but this is utter bullshit whichever bucket you put it in, and it accounts for one third of the whole.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't going to bother reading about this as it seems too ridiculous to be true, but some of you seem to think it's interesting if nothing else so, having a look.
This line stood out in the thread linked to in the OP, anyone got any more info on what this guy's talking about?

"This reminds me of the countless times we have, after viewing evidence of it, suspected multiple people playing the same role in a news story."
 
XEPER_ said:
"This reminds me of the countless times we have, after viewing evidence of it, suspected multiple people playing the same role in a news story."
Click to expand...

Surely people here, on this forum, are generally of a higher intelligence than many others out there in consumerland?

And as such, we are instinctively and intuitively more analytical/skeptical/doubting about everything....including the packed normality that is served up to you, every day, on the news. Truth can be as artificial as the (now, also often-packaged) 'paranormal'.

People can be scarily split-brain about this. On one hand, many grudgingly accept that government and other groups within society such as the media can and do lie to them. Either the end arguably justifies the means (WMD/Dr Kelly, whatever) or it does not, but many of society's jaundiced citizens seem bizarrely-unwilling to recognise any aspects of contributory examples or mechanisms.

If anyone even mentions false flag operations (do we genuinely think that in war governments don't stir the pot?) or media paranoia hype (pandemics anyone?) they are rounded on by most, and laughed at as 'conspiricy theorists'. Despite the fact that sometimes they are actually closer to being in the right...just not every time.

The News is often just a stage. Not always, but a lot. And yes, sometimes these 'similar faces' analyses are wrong, but there can still be nuggets of uncovered deception contained therein.

https://facebook.com/FauxNewsAgreeorDisagree

MSM fabricates stories using actors and reports them as truth in deceptive news theater
http://www.themoderngnostic.com/?p=22576
 
On a related note, I can be watching, say, a television advertisement for cancer charities, or the Postcode Lottery, or even some of these reality shows such as Ice Truckers/Auction Hunters etc. Not forgetting formulaic talentless shows...

Generally speaking, more than three-quarters of the people watching alongside me just totally accept what they see. Are oblivious to multi-angle camera shots, multiple takes, continuity blurs, noddy shots, mouth unsync.

A lot of people just soak-up what they're served, like uncritical zombies. And that includes fiction, edited fact, false documentary, and some slices of relative reality. Some degree of reuse of people/imagery may actually be going on....especially within the music industry. But perhaps even more endemically than that as well
 
Ermintrude said:
...People can be scarily split-brain about this. On one hand, many grudgingly accept that government and other groups within society such as the media can and do lie to them...but many of society's jaundiced citizens seem bizarrely-unwilling to recognise any aspects of contributory examples or mechanisms...
Click to expand...

There's no contradiction there. An acceptance that Governments, the Media, business and banking interests can and do act in a thoroughly dishonest manner does not mean that you have to accept every - or even most - alleged examples of that dishonesty; there's nothing 'split brain' about people refusing to allow themselves to succumb to confirmation bias.
 
But there is a split-brain paradox when/if people refuse to accept every granular instance of such duplicity when proferred to them. Please note, the Challenger example being debated here is not necessarily the best upon which I should be setting-out my concerns. My apologies for taking the thread out on a parallel path, if not an unproven tangent.

And @Spookdaddy : presumably you do agree that confirmation bias also applies when we absorb and accept a packaged and post-produced reality, just as much as when we feverishly-pursue any fringe theory?
 
Ermintrude said:
But there is a split-brain paradox when/if people refuse to accept every granular instance of such duplicity when proferred to them...
Click to expand...

It wouldn't worry me as a description of a particular individual's arch scepticism. It does worry me that this type of argument is often used to attack all forms of dissension from the alternative orthodoxy, however measured. It's also not even necessarily true: I mean, an individual could fervently believe that the official version of JFK's assassination was complete fabrication, and still not believe any of the conspiracy theories proposed; there isn't actually any contradiction there.

...Please note, the Challenger example being debated here is not necessarily the best upon which I should be setting-out my concerns....
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't.

...presumably you do agree that confirmation bias also applies when we absorb and accept a packaged and post-produced reality, just as much as when we feverishly-pursue any fringe theory?
Click to expand...

Confirmation bias is not exclusive to any one group: not the conspiracy theorists - not the three quarters of people who don't see what you do on the TV. (I'm assuming that was a metaphorical TV audience - not an indication that you have a very big lounge.)
 
Ermintrude said:
Surely people here, on this forum, are generally of a higher intelligence than many others out there in consumerland?

And as such, we are instinctively and intuitively more analytical/skeptical/doubting about everything....including the packed normality that is served up to you, every day, on the news. Truth can be as artificial as the (now, also often-packaged) 'paranormal'.

People can be scarily split-brain about this. On one hand, many grudgingly accept that government and other groups within society such as the media can and do lie to them. Either the end arguably justifies the means (WMD/Dr Kelly, whatever) or it does not, but many of society's jaundiced citizens seem bizarrely-unwilling to recognise any aspects of contributory examples or mechanisms.

If anyone even mentions false flag operations (do we genuinely think that in war governments don't stir the pot?) or media paranoia hype (pandemics anyone?) they are rounded on by most, and laughed at as 'conspiricy theorists'. Despite the fact that sometimes they are actually closer to being in the right...just not every time.

The News is often just a stage. Not always, but a lot. And yes, sometimes these 'similar faces' analyses are wrong, but there can still be nuggets of uncovered deception contained therein.

https://facebook.com/FauxNewsAgreeorDisagree

MSM fabricates stories using actors and reports them as truth in deceptive news theater
http://www.themoderngnostic.com/?p=22576
Click to expand...

Yeah I know all that. I generally read the Above Top Secret forum so I know about all that stuff, I was wondering about that one line though, because I haven't really read anything in particular about that - people playing multiple parts in MSM stories as he appears to be suggesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top