The plot thickens?

Was the moon landing a hoax? Did Diana suffer at the hands of hired men? Are referees bent? (or just occasionally crap) ls Shabaz for real? etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Any tale is open to interpretation and tellers well always put their bent or be subject to 'unknown unknowns'. We see plots where there aren't any, patch up loose ends to get a beginning and so on. Indeed many a quirky fact or interesting lead is turned up but it would seem that once you go down that route things become evermore outlandish (1).
Scour the net and there's loads of this stuff, enough to make you believe that not much 'out there' is, erm, believable.
However, once you start picking through them their incoherence becomes apparent.

9/11 for instance - planes guided from the ground, mock-up at the Pentagon, explosives in the Towers, brainwashed dupes, etc. Enough and more to make Tolkein look like an amateur and not bad going for people that supposedly can't organise proverbials in a brewery.

There can be reason to believe that an unfair hand has been involved. The moon landings occured at a time when The US wanted to be the undisputed champions in space and given the uses of fabricated evidence it could have been a Hollywood set. Like the cow, though, get over it - we've been to the moon.


Diana was certainly an embarassment to the status quo and the accident was fortunate for those that uphold the sanctity, if not the sanity (2), of the monarchy. (I'd actually let Charles off talking to plants after all the earbashing my pc gets). However, Diana was merely a chapter in an unravelling saga.
Although you wouldn't put it past them.

Most of us accept that Elvis is dead, don't we?

What do hoax theories reveal? Probably that we don't believe much of what is put before us. There is an unacknowledged understanding that life is often valued or explained at a superficial level. Most of us just want to get through it intact, sort of plod on. Some want to make it one way or another. Those that idly dream are perhaps wont to drag down achievers or go getters whilst indulging in wishful thinking. Not believing in anything today, enchanted by the ancient but scared of the new or believing that some more intelligent (yet strangely humanoid) alien life form exists in another dimension (3).

Then, of course, you wouldn't put it past them. Anyone with a passing interest in politics, military affairs and indeed those of the heart will know there is always duplicity, cover up, intrigue and other flirtations with the truth. It makes this world go around, sort of. (4)

I must admit to sniffing some plotting after reading of Pentagon involvement with aspects of the film industry at the time of the release of the film Pearl Harbor (2001). This when the US was bristling and Bush upping the ante (6).

Perhaps the problem with conspiracy theories is the suggestion that the powers that be are all powerful, all controlling and that their operations run smoothly . .
. . hmm.

(1)http://www.rense.com/
http://www.vialls.com/
and http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html
(2)http://videodetective.com/home.asp?PublishedID=5607
(3)http://www.geocities.com/tasdevil42/featured-photos.html
http://images.google.com/images?q=alien+life+forms&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&start=0&sa=N
(4)http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1855852005
(5)See also http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE89.htm
(6)Top gun versus Sergeant Bilko? Duncan Campbell, MediaGuardian.co.uk, Aug 2001.



ps Poor sleep etzzz . . . . meant an eyeballing of Big Brother just to see what the attraction is/was. People offering themselves up to that level of scrutiny can't really expect much sympathy if it 'all goes wrong'. Shabaz aside, methinx from what l've seen of Pete, he suffers a social illness in that he's largely unrestrained in what he wants to say and is overegging it with his caricatures. He did seem to hit the nail on the head (in the bits that l saw) and strike something of a common chord. Who else agrees that when he called various of his colleagues 'hwanker! he expressed what we were thinking?
Perhaps more revealing is how he is more relaxed and less prone to express himself in that way now that he's in an 'open' environment and can express himself more freely.
Big Brother should maybe turn the screw some here and flood or aversion therapy the guy - or maybe he's the ringer? (Jus' kidding).

Not fair? Who are you trying to kid? The whole show is an expose of the self (of sorts) and all it's extensions. Others have probably said that we see in the participants extreme forms of ourselves. Our quirks naked for all to see. Us perhaps squealy voyeurs and closet wannabes (could also be the start of a successful career - l suggest a spinoff Pete and Shabaz on a desert island or flat that is hooked up via net and mobile phone to the outside world. My guess is they'd probably 'cure' each other - and would be up for it).

Not fair, cont'd . . Bullying perhaps? Funny that the blonde haired lady was hauled up for a 'mauling' and sherzzassshhh was allowed to continue his manipulation of events for far too long. He was allowed to act the spoilt brat to get his way. The opposite end of the spectrum to bullying perhaps but far more insidious in effect. ln this case the emptiest contestant held full sway and now the manipulation continues (Like, l say it could all be a plot and Sheraz is in on it. Pff mugs ain't we, eh?) lf it's the case that the poor guy had gotten to the point of considering suicide then Big Brother is guilty as charged. l'm sure the contestants had some clue what they were letting themselves in for. . . .

. . .Zzzzz