Craig on conspiracy theories

December 4th, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

should be talking about Conservative Party policies, but instead he is letting himself be distracted by questions about his personal beliefs.

He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue. That is not a sensible position. The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. You need to use common sense. The latest is on the moon landings:

Conservative leader Colin Craig says he has “no idea” whether man has walked on the moon, adding it’s “what we’re told” and he is “sort of” inclined to believe it.

His comments this morning came after it emerged last week he has no formal position on chemtrails – a conspiracy theory that suggests the trails left by aircraft deliberately spread chemicals.

Mr Craig was asked about the moon landing conspiracy – which suggests the Apollo moon landings were faked by the US government – by Radio Live host Marcus Lush this morning.

“I don’t have a belief or a non-belief in these things, I jut don’t know,” Mr Craig replied.

Asked again, Mr Craig said he had “no idea” whether man had walked on the moon.

“That’s what we’re told. I’m sort of inclined to believe it. But at the end of the day, I haven’t looked into it. And I know there’s some very serious people that question these things.”

He went on: “I’m happy that they can think that. I’m not going to judge any of these things without the facts.”

What Craig should have done is laugh at the question, joke about whether Marcus is also going to ask him if the moon is made of cheese, and then start talking policies.

Neil Armstrong once said, in relation to the claims the moon landings were faked, that they could always head up to the moon themselves and grab the camera he left behind there.

Tags:

195 Responses to “Craig on conspiracy theories”

  1. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    I think he is David (trying to get on to policy) but if you listen to the track, media jocks like Marcus keep pushing this stuff. CRaig again and again trys to get back to his policy platform, and Lush interrupts “Well, what about the Twin Towers?” etc. This is indicative of the NZ media, not Craig. They’re hunting for cartoons and foibles. This one was as manufactured as the TV3 vapor trails.

    Political discourse has become a form of sport.

    Re the Moon thing, the latest telescope can see the Moon buggy tracks in the lunar soil.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 24 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    Craig needs to spend some of his considerable $$ on some media training.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. wat dabney (3,809 comments) says:

    What Craig should have done is laugh at the question, joke about whether Marcus is also going to ask him if the moon is made of cheese

    But that’s the point. This loon doesn’t dismiss this conspiracy theory for the laughable nonsense it is; he actually gives it credence.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    Wat. you can’t take that from the audio. Craig is busy having a life, running several businesses(5 I think he as) and now running a party. he doesn’t have time to read Ian Wishart books, which was his point.

    This story basically goes…” So Mr Craig, in not expressing a view, you think it MIGHT be true?”

    “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?”

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. chris (647 comments) says:

    Just goes to show how ridiculous/slanted/biased the media is in New Zealand. I’m no fan of the Colin Craig, but why are they asking him questions like this? Unless they relate to policy, they’re not at all relevant.

    (Yes, I know they’re trying to ridicule him and make him look like a dick, but that’s not really the media’s job – they should be trying to find out what he would do if in Parliament.)

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. You need to use common sense.

    Looks like Colin falls at the first hurdle. Still, an absence of common sense never stopped an idiot becoming an MP (eg Aaron Gilmore).

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    But iMP, even if you hadn’t read up on it the default answer would be “I haven’t seen anything to suggest we didn’t land on the moon” rather than “I have no idea”. It’s pretty simple and it is pretty easy to avoid these gotcha questions.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?”

    Do you think Colin might pause before answering that? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Neil Armstrong once said, in relation to the claims the moon landings were faked, that they could always head up to the moon themselves and grab the camera he left behind there.

    Well, he would say that. Forgetting to buy milk on the way home is one thing, but leaving your camera on the moon?!!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Colin Craig appears to be too honest, and naive, for Parliament. But I’d rather have honest politicians who occasionally embarrass themselves, than the current crop of smarmy liars.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    If Craig can’t handle gotcha questions with the media now I don’t know how he’d manage as an MP in Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. SGA (1,142 comments) says:

    iMP at 1:10 pm

    Craig is busy having a life, running several businesses(5 I think he as) and now running a party. he doesn’t have time to read Ian Wishart books, which was his point.

    But you don’t have to read an Ian Wishart book to have at least some “idea” about the moon landings though, do you? The 4
    0th anniversary of the moon landings was all over the media only a few years ago. I’m left wondering who are these “very serious people that question these things” that have led to Craig having doubts.

    To be fair, I’m willing to believe that Craig isn’t that dim, but he’s doing himself no favours.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Tom Barker (145 comments) says:

    This man is a genius at making a fool of himself. He will be a superb Minister of Chemtrails and Creationism – just keep him away from anything important.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    What Craig should have done is laugh at the question, joke about whether Marcus is also going to ask him if the moon is made of cheese, and then start talking policies.

    I agree, even though I understand the point Colin Craig is was trying to make, that point is far too subtle for the audience.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RRM (10,020 comments) says:

    Ross –

    I think he unloaded the film and brought that back with him… :neutral:

    They also left behind a descent stage engine worth several $million, I don’t think dumping a camera to save weight was too much of a problem with the budget they had…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    Personally, i think Kiwis are finding this quite endearing, rather than the Peter Dunne style ordered careful double-poli-speak. Marcus seemed to appreciate it. There doesn’t appear to be any pretense with Colin Craig. It’ll get beaten out of him, though. The media nasties are coming at him like Pacmen.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Even if you had never thought about it it wouldn’t take much to convince yourself that the moon landing conspiracy was bullshit

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Questioning the Moon landings is getting into very deep, quite nutty conspiracy theory.

    However, Lush himself is no intellectual giant, if you can judge by his vacuous overseas TV travel documentaries and his almost childish infatuation with railways.

    And repeating what I posted on this topic in the general thread earlier:

    I listened to the clip, and when Lush asked him whether he believed Man had walked on the Moon, Lush replied:”I’m inclined to think they did.”

    He gave the impression he didn’t have the time for, or give the priority to, looking at conspiracy theorists’ doubting of the Moon landing.

    Possum Dunne’s champion on Kiwiblog posted later in the general debate thread that what Craig said was: “I’m sort of inclined to believe it..”

    There are some interesting comments on this in the general debate thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. georgebolwing (1,000 comments) says:

    That Colin is being asked these questions is indicative that the media know that they will get a story out of the reply. No one asks John Key, or David Cunliffe or even Rusel Norman these sorts of questions, because they know the answer will not be news.

    The only sensible answer to the question “Did man land on the moon?” is “Yes.” To the follow-up question “What do you say to people that think we didn’t?”, the only sensible answer is “They are wrong”. The answer to any follow-up question to that is to pivot to the Conservative Party’s policy on science and innovation.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (10,020 comments) says:

    Can’t wait for Craig to get over the 5% in 2014.

    I’ll run a sweep on how many days after polling day the honeymoon lasts before Redbaiter starts calling him a gutless, turncoat, far left loon and a disgrace to the REAL right…

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Manolo (14,065 comments) says:

    If Craig can’t handle gotcha questions with the media now I don’t know how he’d manage as an MP in Parliament.

    He could always have a middle-age crisis, get infatuated with a younger hack, and leak profusely.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Nigel Kearney (1,049 comments) says:

    There’s no way for Craig to win here. The media are going to try to embarrass him any way they can because they want to help the other side get elected. If he finds ways to prevent that they will just stop interviewing him live and instead misrepresent his views when he’s not around. He needs to find ways to communicate with the public directly.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Tautaioleua (318 comments) says:

    It’s not hard to question the moon landing. The Russians were ‘first’ on just about everything space-related, and the Americans came out of nowhere to take the moon.

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    The media may be doing Craig a favour. If they acquaint him with how to deal with conspiracy theories that will prepare him for dealing with Winston Peters.

    Craig’s next test should be on the Mikhail Lermontov.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nick R (510 comments) says:

    This guy is comedy gold.

    As for preparing him for Winston Peters – you don’t get it. Craig is Winston Peters redux.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    No, Craig is much different to Peters, he doesn’t want to waste his time on conspiracy theories while Peters wastes a lot of his time on conspiracy theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. thePeoplesFlag (256 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is Winston Peters with none of the vices we admire and all the virtues we despise.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Yeah, if Craig was more experienced and cynical in politics, he might have counter-attacked Lush with:

    “Do you believe it’s fair to us taxpayers that Radio Live’s owner, MediaWorks, has got off millions of dollars of owed tax because of an IRD deal in the MediaWorks receivership? We taxpayers are thus the ones who allow you to sit here day in, day out, preaching your Leftist garbage. And you want to talk about Moon landings. Our millions for that?”

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wreck1080 (3,964 comments) says:

    Moon landing deniers are in the same camp as anti fluoride campaigners.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Unfortunately, wreck1080, I suspect Craig is also anti-fluoride.

    But he still deserves a fair hearing, free from ridicule by the Left-biased MSM.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    The fact that he is not learning and continually making these basic mistakes is a bit concerning for me (with regards to having him in Govt with National). I don’t really have an issue with what he said in this interview or Plunket’s (he is allowed his own views after all) but this is politics and he is representing his party. Every time he starts talking about this is time he could be pushing forward his policies. Why doesn’t he seem to get this??

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Cunningham:

    Did Lush ask him about his policies?

    No, he wanted to ridicule him. Given the views and performancs of Lush and Media Works TV3’s Campbell, you can conclude the IRD tax deal on Media Works was a disaster.

    And compared with the shoddy treatment given to the SAS soldier who lost his leg, it is shameful.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. thePeoplesFlag (256 comments) says:

    Actually, if Colin Craig had simply said he thinks the moon landing were a triumph of 1960s technology then we wouldn’t be talking about this now.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,700 comments) says:

    “Did Lush ask him about his policies?

    No, he wanted to ridicule him”

    So he should grow a pair and just forceably steer the conversation to his policies. It is something he HAS to learn and quickly.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Cunningham, agreed that’s what he should do.

    Why would he want to go on the railway loon’s radio show in the first place, though?

    Nigel Kearney (1.34 post) is on target.

    The Internet and social media are offering great new ways of communicating with voters, as Obama recognised so cleverly in this first presidential election.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. MH (817 comments) says:

    There came a conservative named Craig
    Whose answers were decidedly vague
    his political career
    became a non sequitur

    Becauses he tried too hard to evade

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nick R (510 comments) says:

    The idea that Craig isn’t getting a fair go from the media is hilarious. Craig is doing this to himself. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how easily Craig could avoid this. Hell, half the comments on this thread have made sensible suggestions. He has to be aware of that. But he still thinks the best approach is to let people ask the questions and then start digging in by not dismissing them.

    So either he is incapable of managing the media – in which case he clearly isn’t ready to be leader of a party in Parliament. Or he is doing this deliberately because he would rather be talking about chemtrails or fake moon landings than his own policies. Which poses another question – does he think his own policies are less credible than chemtrails conspiracy theories?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Than (496 comments) says:

    Nick R, I completely agree.

    Conservative supporters can tell themselves it’s a “biased, left-wing MSM” if they want. But it wasn’t the MSM that originally published the question about chemtrails on the Conservative website, and it’s not the MSM that keeps giving non-committal answers. Craig should be ridiculing these questions and giving a firm no. Instead he keeps giving vague “I don’t know” answers which make it sound like he thinks these conspiracy theories are at least credible.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    Nick R (2.35) and Than (2.46).

    What if there are enough conspiracy theorists to get him over 5 per cent?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. NK (1,257 comments) says:

    Personally, i think Kiwis are finding this quite endearing, rather than the Peter Dunne style ordered careful double-poli-speak.

    iMP, personally I think your head is so far up Colin the Con’s arse I can’t tell where you end and he begins.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. emmess (1,432 comments) says:

    What really pisses me off that as a leader of an AGW skeptical party giving all the nutty conspiracies credence allows the left to lump AGW skepticism in with all the other conspiracies, when in fact the reverse is closer to reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. stephieboy (3,400 comments) says:

    Jack5 (3,702 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 2:57 pm

    Well Craig is free to try and see if Conspiracy Theories gets him over the 5% just as the media and members of the public are free to ridicule or lampoon him and his party in this attempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. SGA (1,142 comments) says:

    Jack5 at 2:57 pm

    Nick R (2.35) and Than (2.46).
    What if there are enough conspiracy theorists to get him over 5 per cent?

    Ahhh… well, that will depend on whether he gets a “lizard-free” clearance or not :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    From the 3.07 post of stephieboy:

    …just as the media and members of the public are free to ridicule or lampoon him and his party ….

    But the MSM wouldn’t be lampooning any where near as enthusiastically if Craig was from the Left, would they stephieboy?

    He’s from the Right, he’s a born-again Christian, and from a political point of view he’s suicidally honest.

    Definitely not MSM pin-up material, eh?

    AND to SGA’s 3.32 post: What, please, does “lizard-free” mean?

    Don’t tell me you’re some sort of conspiracy theorist, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. SGA (1,142 comments) says:

    Jack5 at 3:36 pm

    AND to SGA’s 3.32 post: What, please, does “lizard-free” mean?
    Don’t tell me you’re some sort of conspiracy theorist, too.

    LOL. No, not me, but there does seem to be at least one on Kiwiblog
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reptilians

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. itstricky (1,888 comments) says:

    DPF – how come you keep telling him what to do, rather than laughing at him as some loonie hippy whack job like those Greens?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Jack5 (5,157 comments) says:

    SGA, your link indicates that 4 per cent of American believe in these lizard people.

    Perhaps it’s local believers who are trying to get the NZ party vote threshold down to 4 per cent from 5 per cent?

    Reptiles of the Media, perhaps? No, no. They aren’t shape shifters – mostly fatties and unhappy at being fatties.

    They’re green, right? Couldn’t be those dope-tolerant, folk-dancing, anti-oil Melon people, could it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Bob (497 comments) says:

    I am a bit puzzled why there should be any question about the moon landing being true. Surely at the time anyone with the appropriate equipment and a directional aerial pointed at the moon could have picked up the signals. As far as I can remember the Soviet Union didn’t try to claim the landings were false. They criticised the Americans for putting men’s lives at risk as a stunt.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    iMP>“Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?”

    I’m not well informed about Conservative policy. Are you supposed to beat your wife, or just your children?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. James Stephenson (2,225 comments) says:

    Craig needs to spend some of his considerable $$ on some media training.

    Or even a plane ticket to NZ for Buzz Aldrin, so he can punch some sense into him.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Gulag1917 (1,012 comments) says:

    I think Colin may be trying to appease conspiracy theorists. Best thing he can do is ignore them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. J Bloggs (250 comments) says:

    Tautaioleua (171 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 1:34 pm

    It’s not hard to question the moon landing. The Russians were ‘first’ on just about everything space-related, and the Americans came out of nowhere to take the moon.

    :-)

    That’s because the Russian genius in charge of their space program died of lung cancer in the early 1960’s, and his replacement wasn’t half the leader his predecessor was, which allowed the americans to take the lead in the race to the moon. One of the Russian cosmonauts published a book on the russian space program, and reckoned if the first guy hadn’t died, the russians would have been on the moon in late 67-68

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    Jack5, you too should welcome our new lizard overlords !

    To me the question is Colin Craig simply ignorant of the media and perception, or is he really aiming at the flakes ? The more sophisticated (apparently sophisticated) strategy of deliberately encouraging this vagueness about conspiracies in order to seem “not the typical politician” seems unlikely, what upside would he see ? I think he’s earnest, serious, and almost completely unsuited for politics. Add to that the fact that his policies are a bunch of populist rubbish, only the truly disaffected will vote for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    I loved the Myth Busters entire programme about whether the Moon landings were real or not, by viewer demand, and all the experiments they conceived (in detail) to test it out.

    Gee, I guess they must have thought it MIGHT be a real conspiracy. GASP!

    Of course its all settled as I said above. You can see the lunar buggy tracks in the soil via the new hubble telescope now.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. iMP (2,422 comments) says:

    Nevada can feel like the Moon in November.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue.

    The alternative position is that there is no explanation for anything that looks like a conspiracy, i.e. a position where vigilance does not exist. There is a name for people who ignore evidence of conspiracy on political grounds, and it is not a pretty one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    J Bloggs>That’s because the Russian genius in charge of their space program died of lung cancer in the early 1960′s, and his replacement wasn’t half the leader his predecessor was

    That’d be Sergei Korolev, and he died in 1966 when things were already too late for the Soviets to salvage their moon program.

    The reason that they failed was because their early program was a series of stunts, rather than a well-structured R&D program.

    Look at the US Gemini program: There was a first simple test flight. They they tried a space walk. Then they tried a longer duration mission, to show that people could survive long enough to make it to the moon and back, and to prove fuel cell technology so they knew they could generate enough power. Then they showed that they understood orbital mechanics enough to rendevous two spacecraft, without docking. Then they completed a series of missions to show that they could dock two spacecraft, maneuver in orbit, and master space walking. All coherent stuff taking them towards their goal.

    By contrast, the Soviets looked at the US plans to launch a 2 man craft and decided to launch just one 3 man craft, even tho the guys inside were packed so close they could hardly wave their arms around and the seats were turned 90 degrees from the instrument panel. Then they worried about the US planning the first space walk and hurried their own guy out the hatch first, which was almost fatal. Then there was no follow-up for years. They had the first woman in space, but she was it for twenty years. Stunts designed to prove the “superiority” of Communism, but like Communism they were just symptoms of failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I am a bit puzzled why there should be any question about the moon landing being true.

    I’ve seen a couple of clips that don’t leave much doubt.
    In one an “astronaut” moves near a flag, and the flag moves like a breeze has found it. If there video was taken in an environment without an atmosphere (like the lunar surface) then this couldn’t happen.
    In another the astronauts are in orbit and are blacking out the inner surfaces of the capsule so that the earth looks like it is far away. They were on youtube, sorry but I have no links to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Re the Moon thing, the latest telescope can see the Moon buggy tracks in the lunar soil.

    The back story to the theory was that JFK started the mission to force knowledge of the Nazi technology into the public arena. In other words the problem for NASA wasn’t in getting to the moon, it was making it look like it happened with ordinary technology.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. edhunter (552 comments) says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMBCfuKs9i8

    Ugly above is the 3 min clip from mythbusters debunking the flag in the wind myth. As mentioned before they take almost every myth about the moon landing & bust it to pieces.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    Mr Craig has obviously been doing some research. Three years on & the sane are staying away from his party in droves so he has introduced a new strategy.

    So far he has the conspiratists, the child beaters, the Godwhacks, the lizard people & Winston Peter’s rejects signing up & eating out of the palm of his hand. Provided no one introduces a test to weed out lunatics from the electoral rolls victory is assured.

    Cunning. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly above is the 3 min clip from mythbusters debunking the flag in the wind myth.

    That’s not the one I was talking about. In your video someone is holding the flag, in mine that doesn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. s.russell (1,646 comments) says:

    “Moon landing deniers are in the same camp as anti fluoride campaigners.”

    And how many people are against the use of fluoride? The referenda in Waikato, Whakatane and Hastings produced votes of between 30 and 40% against fluoride.

    This suggests that Craig may be tapping into a big market – which is great. Better these people vote for Craig (who will back National) than Peters (who will back Labour).

    Besides, National has a total lockout on all sensible voters. To make sure of victory in 2014, some of the idiots have to be bought over to the side of the angels.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Reboot (101 comments) says:

    Is this really any different from people who believe in talking snakes and Jesus walking on water?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    ‘Is this really any different from people who believe in talking snakes and Jesus walking on water?’

    People will believe in Satan but they won’t believe in Christ. So yes, there is a difference.

    People will believe in horoscopes but talk to them about the Bible used by the greatest minds, statesmen and teachers in history and they’ll think you’re mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    And how many people are against the use of fluoride? The referenda in Waikato, Whakatane and Hastings produced votes of between 30 and 40% against fluoride.

    The same could be said for conspiracy theorists.

    A quarter of Britons believe the Apollo 11 mission moon landings in 1969 were a hoax.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/5851435/Apollo-11-hoax-one-in-four-people-do-not-believe-in-moon-landing.html

    An opinion poll, carried out by Gfk NOP for BBC’s The Conspiracy Files in 2011, found that 14% of people questioned in the UK and 15% in the US did not believe the official explanation that al-Qaeda was responsible, and instead believed the US government was involved in a wider conspiracy. Among 16 to 24-year-olds that belief rises to around one in four.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14572054

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    He seems to have adopted a stance of accepting conspiracy theories may be true, as they have not been proven untrue. That is not a sensible position. The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. You need to use common sense. The latest is on the moon landings:

    The same can be said about claims that god exists.

    It is exactly the position frequently advanced by christians. The only difference is that Colin is applying it to other things. At least he is consistent and intellectually honest.Christians have no proof of God, so demand others prove their incredible claims are not true. They reverse the onus of proof onto the one deny the claim, rather than the person making it. As David says, the sensible option is non-belief in the absence of evidence.

    By far the most bizzare belief he holds is his belief in God. That said, I like most of his ideas on the direction of the country and would not rule out voting for him just yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    As David says, the sensible option is non-belief in the absence of evidence.

    Since evidence of conspiracy exists you both fail.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Ugly, the truth is not decided by vote. It is decided by evidence.

    If 100% of people voted that pigs could fly, would the worlds pigs sprout wings ?

    Your appeal to the popular does not hide the lack of evidence for your wild claims.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    ‘The nature of conspiracy theories is you can never prove they are not true. ‘

    The 9/11 conspiracy is completly true.

    Long time engineer proffessionals are on record stating the official version of 9/11 is absolutely impossible.

    As usual it’s all online.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    So, this was pretty good viewing. At the time they had the technology to go to the moon, they didn’t have the technology to fake going to the moon.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. PaulL (6,048 comments) says:

    Ha ha ha ha ….clunk.

    How can you expect to be taken seriously wiki? Or do you not expect that? FFS, it must be true, it’s on the internet. So that ad I got just before saying that there are hundreds of beautiful women in my home town who want to sleep with me must be true as well. I better be off then…..

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    PaulL

    I’m going on the word of professional engineers.

    where’s your research to prove 9/11 PaulL

    The Pentagon was a complete hoax. The hole that was made could never have fitted an airliner

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Your appeal to the popular does not hide the lack of evidence for your wild claims.

    I never argued that the popularity of conspiracy theories makes them true. It is sensible for a politician not to alienate himself from roughly a quarter of the population by repeating the typically inane comments of politicians re conspiracy theory.

    I mentioned video evidence before, please try to keep up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Ah, ugly truth: between 15 and 20 % of Americans can be found to believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t _prove_ anything. There was stuff left on the moon, and as someone else pointed out, we can now see that space junk. There was also a reflector left on the moon, so that the varying distance between the Earth and Moon could be accurately measured to test a couple of theories about the changes in the Earth’s length of day.

    Grand theories of this or that massive conspiracy are simply unsustainable. Such conspiracies would not remain hidden for long because of the numbers of people involved.

    The Moon landing occurred. To suggest otherwise …

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    they didn’t have the technology to fake going to the moon.

    Except that they did. There are hints of Stanley Kubrick’s cinema tricks in some of the footage.

    http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    ‘between 15 and 20 % of Americans can be found to believe ANYTHING.’

    They believed The SEAl team 6 killed Osama Bin Laden.

    Seal Team 6 never got to confirm it. They were all killed in a helicopter accident before they could go public on whether they did or didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    I just knew UglyTruth would pop up on this thread!

    Let’s start with a working definition of conspiracy theory:

    A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact.

    So, according to UglyTruth, we have a conspiracy theory about astronauts in space:

    UglyTruth (2,081 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    I’ve seen a couple of clips that don’t leave much doubt.
    In one an “astronaut” moves near a flag, and the flag moves like a breeze has found it. If there video was taken in an environment without an atmosphere (like the lunar surface) then this couldn’t happen.
    In another the astronauts are in orbit and are blacking out the inner surfaces of the capsule so that the earth looks like it is far away. They were on youtube, sorry but I have no links to them.

    Yes, right, so how many people are involved in this astronauts-in-space conspiracy?

    UglyTruth (2,081 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 5:57 pm

    I mentioned video evidence before, please try to keep up.

    The video evidence you said you didn’t have? I don’t think we need to keep up – we’re already ahead of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    SEAL Team Six, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden in May, lost members Saturday when Afghan insurgents downed a NATO helicopter.

    Helicopter Crash in Afghanistan Reportedly Kills Members of …
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/06/afghan-president-31-americans…6/08/2011 · … most of them belonging to the same elite unit as the Navy SEALs who killed Al … of SEAL Team 6. … Navy Seal Team Six helicopter …
    SEAL Team Six: Obama honors troops killed in helicopter crash …
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0809/SEAL-Team-Six-Obama...

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ah, ugly truth: between 15 and 20 % of Americans can be found to believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t _prove_ anything.

    Of course, please see my previous comment to Kea.

    There was stuff left on the moon, and as someone else pointed out, we can now see that space junk. There was also a reflector left on the moon, so that the varying distance between the Earth and Moon could be accurately measured to test a couple of theories about the changes in the Earth’s length of day.

    True but irrelevant. The theory is about the Apollo mission being faked, not the fact that they have sent men to the moon.

    Grand theories of this or that massive conspiracy are simply unsustainable. Such conspiracies would not remain hidden for long because of the numbers of people involved.

    Yes, this is the usual strawman. It fails because conspiracies can be compartmentalized so that the average participant has no direct knowledge of the greater conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nuwanda (83 comments) says:

    That Craig can’t outright deny conspiracy theories tells you everything you need to know. A moon landing skeptic/agnostic is a conspiracy theorist by default. You could say he’s at least lacking in guile or artifice, but that only makes him an honest idiot.

    Hell, if I was in the media I’d now make it my mission to ask him what he makes of every nutty conspiracy out there. If you’re gonna stick your dick in the mincer someone’s gonna turn the handle. I can only imagine Key is ironically lamenting that an event that took place in 1969 may cost him the election.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The video evidence you said you didn’t have?

    I said that I didn’t have the links to the video. I’ve seen it, as far as I’m concerned it is actual evidence.

    Here’s a link to the “Scotchlite” evidence.

    http://realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    Nuwanda:

    Hell, if I was in the media I’d now make it my mission to ask him what he makes of every nutty conspiracy out there.

    What’s your list of nutty conspiracy theories?

    I’d like to see how UglyTruth responds to each theory on your list.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    You could say he’s at least lacking in guile or artifice, but that only makes him an honest idiot.

    That non-sequitur speaks volumes about your view of the duplicity of the typical politician.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Here’s a link to the “Scotchlite” evidence.

    I invite you all to check out Ugly’s evidence.

    Apparently the moon landings are fake, but not flying saucers and alien visitations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
    A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

    1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

    2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

    3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

    4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

    5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

    6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

    7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” – piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

    8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

    9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

    10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Of course its all settled as I said above. You can see the lunar buggy tracks in the soil via the new hubble telescope now.

    Actually, that proves very little…except that something made those marks. There have been various unmanned landings. And there’s apparently been 6 different moon landings. I think the argument has always been that the first moon landing was faked, not that they all have been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    We see those theories voiced frequently in the country Kea. :)

    Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vmia77sq1krq3ma/reid.jpg

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    Returning to where this thread started…I am very dissappointed that CC indulged Lush in this nonsense for a minute…several more witty commenters than me have suggested what he should have said to Lush…

    I don’t have anything like the technical knowledge to know whether PaulL’s clip at 5.51 above contains correct technical info or not…I would be interested in anyone’s comments about it..

    The reason I dont listen to “they never went to the moon” conspiracy nuts is simple: How would you keep the THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it quiet…for FORTY FOUR YEARS…And remember there wasnt just one mission: they went NINE times…As former astrounaut Charlie Duke says at the end of the excellent doco “In the Shadow of the Moon”…”We went to moon nine times…why the hell did we fake it NINE times…if we faked it?” Game set and match for me right there…

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    Kea,

    No.s 1 – 9 could just as easily apply to the way you approach debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Nostradamus (3,433 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    From your link:

    In the end, it looks like Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey; and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life.

    Kubrick couldn’t have faked the moon landings by himself. A director needs actors. So what was the pay-off for the actors? And for the studio crew who worked with Kubrick?

    How can the astronauts’ two shadows not be consistent with each other? If they were actually standing in the bright light of the sun, their two shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Because Kubrick used studio lighting!

    But why would Kubrick make a mistake like the inconsistent shadows in the above image? A great filmmaker like Kubrick must have realized that this was a huge mistake.

    My answer is that Kubrick did this on purpose.

    He left behind telltale evidence for his work. And he did this on purpose. Not just in the above shot, but actually all over the Apollo photographic record. In my forthcoming documentary on the NASA Apollo fakery titled Kubrick’s Odyssey, I will reveal much more photographic evidence than I possibly can in this short essay.

    One thing that I am sure of is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done. And that is why he left behind clues that would explain who did it, and how.

    So, if you were Kubrick, why would you want people to remember you as the guy who faked the moon landings rather the professional film maker who had a distinguished career?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    1. If the moon landings were fake the Russians would have been all over it. If there was any possible way to discredit the American efforts they would have done so.

    2. *They placed a reflector on the moon (lunar laser ranging retroreflector array). It is still there today. Any Tom Dick or Harry can bounce signals off it.

    http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2004/07/17/21jul_llr_resources/A11_LRRRfull.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    The theory is about the Apollo mission being faked, not the fact that they have sent men to the moon.

    Absolutely correct. It’s curious that those who call conspiracy theorists nutters have to resort to ad hominem attacks or to make arguments that are beside the point. It the truth was so obvious surely there’d be no need to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Lucy, Stop talking nonsense. Have you packed your bags yet for our trip ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    Jesus…just in the few minutes I spent typing my comment…UT, tell me…are you a recreational drug user? (Other than alcohol?) I’m sure you won’t mind answering since you use a pseud, so no issue of breach of your privacy arises….unless of course the GCSB is paying particular attention to your comments on a blog…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    How would you keep the THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it quiet…for FORTY FOUR YEARS…And remember there wasnt just one mission: they went NINE times…As former astrounaut Charlie Duke says at the end of the excellent doco “In the Shadow of the Moon”…”We went to moon nine times…why the hell did we fake it NINE times…if we faked it?”

    Another silly point. The argument has been that the FIRST mission was faked. It’s interesting that this argument has morphed into something more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    nasska, brilliant ;)

    I like how it works in a number of ways. Eg: using sheep.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    UT, tell me…are you a recreational drug user?

    You must be tripping to even have to ask that question David !

    Ugly is the poster boy for drug harm and the failure of our mental health system.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    David Garrett,

    I agree with regards to the moon landing. Years ago I came across a whole lot of information that called into question that it actually happened, and it didn’t ring true to me, though I couldn’t pinpoint why at the time. Your position is more like the “Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200″ gate in Monopoly, very sensible. Though, if you read Dean Koontz, he’s not averse to entertaining a few conspiracy theories in some of his books and how people would actually get away with them, even if a lot of people were involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Si, in reality, we can conclude that Watergate never really happened cos it was a conspiracy theory and, as we all know, conspiracies theories are rubbish. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    Kea,

    I’ve got too much on. Can’t possibly go with such short notice. Besides, when I go to Europe, it will be on a Cathedral crawl, starting with Rome, the Eternal City.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I have seen some surprisingly convincing evidence that, at least the photos of, the moon landing were fake. It was not hysterical nonsense. However further research revealed the explanations to the points raised. The evidence in support of the moon landings is far more convincing and credible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    Lucia at 6.44 – that’s the first thing that came to mind when I read that too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Lucy, From Rome you can jump on a ferry and meet me in Split. We will be sipping Grappa on the waterfront by evening.

    Croatia is lousy with Cathedrals and makes Italians look like a bunch of heathens. The place is crawling with Nuns, cute ones too !

    It goes without saying that all that church going will require us to commit numerous sins, for forgiving :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    Ross the Communist (I think you are that one; I get confused these days)…even if ONE landing was faked, thousands of people would have had to be in on it…as I said in a comment on this topic on another thread the other day: right down to the humble steward on an aircraft carrier that picked up the astronauts 4-5 days before they were supposed to…Not to mention the Russians monitoring the hell out of what Apollo 11 was doing…so that disposes of the “they just circled the earth for five days then splashed down…” theory…

    But why am I wasting my time? If you think it/they were faked, you go right on believing it…no skin off my nose…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    Kea,

    If I intend to commit (mortal) sins with the caveat that they’ll just be forgiven, then I’ll not have the proper purpose of amendment in order to make the Confession valid. Someone like me, who just knows too much, is unlikely to turn back once on the path of damnation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The reason I dont listen to “they never went to the moon” conspiracy nuts is simple: How would you keep the THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it quiet…for FORTY FOUR YEARS

    Same tired old strawman.

    How many of your “THOUSANDS of people who would have had to be in on it” had complete knowledge of the conspiracy, as opposed to the people who were simply providing technical support services?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    If the Russians believed it that alone is evidence enough for me.

    The Russians did all the important scientific work first and were more advanced in many areas. That takes nothing away from the American effort, which I rate as man kinds biggest single achievement, because it brought together so man areas of technology and human endeavor.

    The Russians were more advanced and would have been closely monitoring everything. Before, after and during the landing.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Kea,

    If I intend to commit (mortal) sins with the caveat that they’ll just be forgiven, then I’ll not have the proper purpose of amendment in order to make the Confession valid. Someone like me, who just knows too much, is unlikely to turn back once on the path of damnation.

    Lucy, a refreshingly candid response that encapsulates why I think you would be good company. ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    But Lucia…..how will you recognise mortal sins if you haven’t experienced them? You’re taking the easy way out if you merely ignore temptation rather than overcome it.

    I’ll get Kea to book the tickets for two. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Kubrick couldn’t have faked the moon landings by himself. A director needs actors. So what was the pay-off for the actors? And for the studio crew who worked with Kubrick?

    How should I know? If they paid Kubrick off then they could pay the others off: get them to sign a NDA before they started and then feed them some spiel about how it’s important that the US was seen to be technologically strong in order to discourage the Russians.

    So, if you were Kubrick, why would you want people to remember you as the guy who faked the moon landings rather the professional film maker who had a distinguished career?

    Have you seen Eyes Wide Shut? Maybe he wanted to be remembered as the guy told us what they were really about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    nasska, the force flows strong in that one. She is intelligent enough to worry where that could take her, left unchecked. You do know she was once a hell bound pagan earth goddess ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Ugly, at what age did you start smoking dope ?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Lucia Maria (2,609 comments) says:

    Nasska,

    I’ve experienced quite a few mortal sins, so will have no problems recogising them. The rest, I’ll leave to my immense intellect.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    ….”You do know she was once a hell bound pagan earth goddess”…..

    Don’t give up Kea….I’m sure she’s just taken a slight deviation off Lucifer’s highway. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Original tapes of the first moon landing were erased. A simple mistake I guess. :)

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    nasska, nah I never go for naughty girls. They are banal and make inpersonal lovers. Lucy on the other hand is a throbing ball of barely contained passions and intellect. Far easier to make a good girl a bit naughty, than make a naughty girl a bit good.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Take it to twitter, Romeo.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. nasska (11,808 comments) says:

    Where’s your sense of romance Ugly? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Fentex (1,038 comments) says:

    ’m no fan of the Colin Craig, but why are they asking him questions like this?

    Because the first time someone did he didn’t slam the credulous nonsense for what it was, establishing himself as a possible loon.

    And if he keeps saying stupid things about conspiracy theories – which is anything but clearly and instantly dismissing them – people will keep poking what seems like a looney to see what comes out.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Take it to twitter, Romeo.

    Yeah so the lizard people can tap into my mind you illuminati shill !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think Craig’s only problem is he is politically immature. He is trying to please everyone, and in doing so, hasn’t yet worked out that giving such answers will only put him in hot water. Give him a week or two and he’ll have it sussed and be lying on cue like the rest of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    Ah, DG and others (including me): People like UT will NEVER be convinced by logic and obvious evidence. It is like trying to show that there are no cats that are green with purple polka dots. You can find EVERY cat in the world, and the reply will be “Ah, but you haven’t found the green cat with purple polka dots that I am my fellow conspiracy theorists know exist.”

    And just on one point: As for the two shadows – out beyond the Earth’s atmosphere, both the Sun and the light of the Sun reflected from the Earth will cast shadows. If the Earth had no atmosphere, and the Moon were in the sky at the same time as the Sun (which we know happens because often we can see the Moon during the day), then we would see two shadows cast on Earth – one from the Sun and the other due to the light reflected from the Moon. Our atmosphere scatters the light so that we only see the one shadow. You can see a similar effect if you stand in sunlight and near a building with large windows. You can get two shadows.

    But I know that the simple physical explanation will never be enough. Same as people who claim that aliens must have built the pyramids. We mere humans could never have built something like those ourselves. Sigh.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    And if he keeps saying stupid things about conspiracy theories – which is anything but clearly and instantly dismissing them – people will keep poking what seems like a looney to see what comes out.

    Yeah those pot-smokers must have really been toking on some serious herbs and spices when they documented Operation Northwoods.

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Judith, it is pretty clear the media are doing a job on Craig.

    Did they ever ask the vile Klarken beast what her view was on the moon landing, chemtrails etc ? Of course not !

    You have seen me challenge the conservatives many times on various issues. But I do not appreciate being told what to think by the left wing media. They fear him because they know dam well that many of his policies may have popular appeal. They even appeal to me, just as long as he does not get all god addled and start persecuting poofters and stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. David Garrett (7,548 comments) says:

    David in Chch: Very well said Sir…Don’t know why I bothered to engage in the first place…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. wreck1080 (3,964 comments) says:

    “And how many people are against the use of fluoride? The referenda in Waikato, Whakatane and Hastings produced votes of between 30 and 40% against fluoride”

    It really does just show how stupid kiwis are.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    DG: Because it’s fun at first to wind them up, but then it gets depressing after a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    People like UT will NEVER be convinced by logic and obvious evidence.

    You wish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Ugly, have you found that your drug use opens your mind and allows you to see these conspiracies more clearly ?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea

    I agree. As I said, a bit of political maturity will teach him to be more guarded in his comments, and protect his political butt.
    Sadly it all contributes to politicians who are so obscure, we actually know very little about them – thanks to a story hungry media.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    It really does just show how stupid kiwis are.

    Yep. Kinda sad that the majority would believe that adding a neurotoxin to the water supply is a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kea (9,226 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 8:01 pm

    So you have a conspiracy theory about conspiracists?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “And how many people are against the use of fluoride? The referenda in Waikato, Whakatane and Hastings produced votes of between 30 and 40% against fluoride”

    Only one third of local councils add fluoride to the water. I’m guessing you didn’t know that.

    You’ll be delighted to learn that we have this thing called toothpaste. You might have heard of it. It works wonders and means you don’t need to consume fluoride in order to protect your teeth.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    So UT, you obviously avoid ALL multivitamins because they contain selenium and zinc, and all other micronutrients? Because while a small amount (like a microscopic amount of fluorine) is necessary for good health, too much can be fatal? Because you see, nature adapted to the environment in which it evolved. So it found a way to use those small amounts of even heavy metals – they are usually needed for triggering enzymes and the like. It’s just that too much can be harmful. In fact, MOST of what we physically consume is like that. Oh, I guess you don’t drink water either, because too much can be fatal. That would be the logical extension of no fluorine (and other micronutrients).

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    I agree. As I said, a bit of political maturity will teach him to be more guarded in his comments, and protect his political butt.

    Judith, I find that sad. I would rather he be open and honest, even if I disagree with some of his views. We all want honest politicians but the sheeple then cut to bits anyone that is honest. It leaves us with only the contrived and insincere to vote for.

    I hope the guy does well. I may not be christian and I are a classical liberal in many ways, but I see lots of common ground with the guy. He also provides a needed counter balance to the excess of the lefist parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    So UT, you obviously avoid ALL multivitamins because they contain selenium and zinc, and all other micronutrients?

    In your world the difference between neurotoxin and micronutrient is just a matter of semantics, right?
    If fluoride was necessary for good health then it would exist in mother’s milk in similar quantities to beneficial micronutrients.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. David in Chch (523 comments) says:

    sigh. I have said my piece. Bye UT. Keep an eye out for that green and purple polka dotted cat.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “New Zealand is one of only eight countries in the world which fluoridate more than 50% of the municipal water supply.”

    It makes you think.

    http://www.hamilton.co.nz/our-council/consultation-and-public-notices/haveyoursay/Fluoride%20Submissions/855.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    PrettyLies, in fact fluoride does exist in water naturally. That is how they found out about it. Areas with more fluoride had less tooth decay.

    However, I do agree that the government has no right to add stuff to our water, beyond making it safe to drink. But that is a different argument to the one about the safety of fluoride.

    I think fluoride is beneficial, but in my view it should be a personal choice. Win/win for both of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Steve Taylor (211 comments) says:

    It seems that when it comes to the Conservative Party & Colin Craig, there are some in the media who want to ask every question
    except a relevant question. I’m referring of course to the deliberate and diversionary questioning of Colin Craig on various issues that have nothing to do with either Colin Craig, or the Conservative Party.

    Outside looking in, I would appreciate the media asking questions of Colin Craig pertaining to Health, Education, Law & Order, Race Relations, & Welfare, because it will be the answers to these types of questions that will determine my voting choice in 2014.

    If some members of the media wish to engage in self-congratulatory comedy at other peoples expense, then they are welcome to
    enter “Novice Night” at their local Comedy club, and leave the serious conversation and debate to the adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Keep an eye out for that green and purple polka dotted cat.

    Keep an eye out for motive, means, and modus operandi.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    PrettyLies, in fact fluoride does exist in water naturally. That is how they found out about it. Areas with more fluoride had less tooth decay.

    So what’s your point?

    Newborns typically feed naturally, not from formula. Nutrition is obviously important for infants and children, so the lack of fluoride in breast milk says that it is not essential for tooth and bone development. You might as well argue for lead to be added to the water supply, fluoride is that toxic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    Uglytruth:If fluoride was necessary for good health then it would exist in mother’s milk in similar quantities to beneficial micronutrients.

    If there is fluoride in the mother’s water and food then there will be fluoride in her milk. Its pretty hard to get out more than you take in unless you believe that mammary glands are capable of transmutation of elements.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    there are some in the media who want to ask every question except a relevant question.

    … which is kind of self-incriminating when the topic is conspiracies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    “You might as well argue for lead to be added to the water supply, fluoride is that toxic.”

    PrettyLies, that is factually wrong.

    The body does not know how to handle lead, but it can process fluoride and use it to make the body stronger. Like many conspiracy nutters you can not understand that toxicity is dose related. Pure water can (and does) kill people who drink too much of it.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If there is fluoride in the mother’s water and food then there will be fluoride in her milk.

    The point is that fluoride is not passed on as an essential micronutrient when it exists the mother’s blood. This means that there is no good reason for it to be there to which might offset its toxic effects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    PrettyLies, that is factually wrong.

    You wish.

    “We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.” —-Dr. John Yiamouyiannis
    http://www.whale.to/d/fluoride.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    Psychology Today: Here to Help

    Paranoia and the Roots of Conspiracy Theories

    Melley proposes that conspiracy thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: 1) holds strong individualist values and 2) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual’s right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one’s own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators.

    When fervent individualists feel that they cannot exercise their independence, they experience a crisis and assume that larger forces are to blame for usurping this freedom. “For one who refuses to relinquish the assumptions of liberal individualism, such newly revealed forms of regulation frequently seem so unacceptable or unbelievable that they can only be met with anxiety, melodrama, or panic.”

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Than (496 comments) says:

    I see John Key has come in to provide damage control for the Conservatives. Apparently Colin Craig was just winding the media up. Yeah, right.

    This isn’t a one-off event. Colin Craig has a long history of gaffes generating bad headlines. If he can turn “no opinion” into a negative news story, how well will he do with fringe (which I define as “believed by a very small percent of the population”) issues where he does have a firm minority opinion? National needs to distance themselves from Colin Craig and his party, or they will be the stone that drags them down next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    It’s not the media’s fault that Colin Craig opened himself up to such silly questioning.
    If he publicly entertains the idea that he cannot make up his mind on these conspiracy theories, either becasue he really might believe in them or because he is trying to appeal to a certain clientel, then he’s fair game.

    In fact the media should ask these questions. It’s up to Colin Craig himself where he wants the discussion to go.

    And the fact whether an aspiring politician can evaluate facts, reason rationally and make sensible decision is very relevant.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. lolitasbrother (749 comments) says:

    tell me this,
    why didn’t NZ NAT take East Christchurch seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    eszett , what was the putrid Klarken beasts view on these topics ?

    You must know as surely the msm asked her the standard questions they ask ALL political candidates. You know, stuff about chemtrails, aliens, the moonlanding…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    lolitasbrother,

    I am impressed !

    This should be read by all the posturing self righteous creeps who shrieked on this topic:

    http://paulscottstories.blogspot.co.nz/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Fluoride is in much of the water, thus it goes into the mothers breasts and thus into the many of the world’s children.

    To call it a dangerous additive when it goes into water without naturally occurring fluoride, to ensure that the positive impacts on teeth are universal (also occur in areas without fluoride in the water), is unscientific.

    And for about the 4th time now to ross 69, you know very well that a number of European countries add it to their salt instead of water.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    If he publicly entertains the idea that he cannot make up his mind on these conspiracy theories, either becasue he really might believe in them or because he is trying to appeal to a certain clientel, then he’s fair game.

    The problem for the corporate media is that he is going off the reservation by not, on principle, avoiding or pooh-poohing anything that is conspiracy related, and if they use this against him as an ad hom then it starts to look like they are in on the conspiracy themselves somehow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, Key is proposing to use Craig and his party to stay in government and so places a political novice at the centre of the governing coalition’s future planning – reason enough to learn where he personally stands on stuff.

    Holding him accountable for his ambition to be involved in our government is not a conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Fluoride is in much of the water, thus it goes into the mothers breasts and thus into the many of the world’s children.

    If it was of benefit to children then the concentration would be higher, like the concentrations of beneficial micronutrients.

    To call it a dangerous additive when it goes into water without naturally occurring fluoride, to ensure that the positive impacts on teeth are universal (also occur in areas without fluoride in the water), is unscientific.

    You could say the same about radioactive elements like plutonium, but you would never argue for the addition of radioactive substances to the drinking water in order to bring it up to “naturally occurring levels”.

    You know someone has seriously messed up values when they use a religious meme – “universal” – to push for a secular goal – “scientific”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Holding him accountable for his ambition to be involved in our government is not a conspiracy.

    Sure, but that doesn’t affect the point that he is going off the reservation by not towing the party line on issues of confidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    You know someone has seriously messed up values when they use a religious meme – “universal” – to push for a secular goal – “scientific”.

    I feel dumber for reading that information.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the word universal, as in universal education and health care, is not a religious meme.

    I note you quickly resort to casting aspersion about the values of those that hold a differing opinion to yourself, I note that comes under arrogance on the checklist for conspiracy theorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. chiz (1,164 comments) says:

    UglyTruth:

    If it was of benefit to children then the concentration would be higher, like the concentrations of beneficial micronutrients.

    No. You can’t put out more fluoride than you take in unless you can transmute elements.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    The fluoride issue is quite complex, with entrenched liars on both sides of the debate.
    If anyone wants to see recent in depth discussions, there is a series of blogged debates ongoing at http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/featured local retired scientist Ken Perrott & Paul Connett.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  164. flipnz (2 comments) says:

    Colin Craig provides further evidence of falling education standards

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. emmess (1,432 comments) says:

    I have no problem with Colin Craig being questioned over this

    And the media are even questioning other politicians
    http://www.3news.co.nz/Colin-Craig-clarifies-moon-landing-comments/tabid/1607/articleID/323938/Default.aspx

    Which is great but I wish they get someone to follow up on Hone’s comment at 1:49 where he tells the journalist to ‘Fuck Off’. Was that a ‘no’ he does not believe the moon landing occurred from him?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. eszett (2,430 comments) says:

    Kea (9,237 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
    eszett , what was the putrid Klarken beasts view on these topics ?

    You must know as surely the msm asked her the standard questions they ask ALL political candidates. You know, stuff about chemtrails, aliens, the moonlanding…

    Kea, Colin Craig could have shut down the discussion after the very first question was posted. If he had answered in a sensible fashion, no one would have known, no one would ahve bothered to report a common sense answer.

    The very fact that the whole discussion is kept alive is only due to the way Craig repsonds to these questions. And hence it does become a topic.

    I am sure many silly questions have been asked of John Key and Helen Clark and never have been reported because they brushed them off and stopped it becoming a story. Politician gives a common sense, reasonable answer to stupid question is not a headline.

    But then again, Craig is nowhere nearly in the same league as Clark or Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. Reboot (101 comments) says:

    wikiriwhis business (2,496 comments) says:
    December 4th, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    ‘Is this really any different from people who believe in talking snakes and Jesus walking on water?’

    People will believe in Satan but they won’t believe in Christ. So yes, there is a difference.

    People will believe in horoscopes but talk to them about the Bible used by the greatest minds, statesmen and teachers in history and they’ll think you’re mad.

    Verily, verily, I say unto you… I completely agree that people who believe in Satan and horoscopes are just as stupid as Christians that believe in God. It’s very sad.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    This is definitely a self inflicted wound by Craig. The MSM have pre-conceived ideas about anyone to the right of their position (which on average is well to the left). Even moderate centrist Nats get gotcha questions on issues that the left get worked up about and think the Nats are raging right wingers about (e.g. the current welfare reforms). As you go further to the right, the further you stray into ‘enemy territory’ for left wingers and the more extreme they will perceive you to be and they will seek any confirmation of their preconceived notions. Hence ACT candidates get extra scrutiny on economic policy for any evidence of Rogernomics II that the media can obsess about.

    For the Conservatives, sporting a plethora of socially conservative policies that really get up lefties noses AND having – shock horror – practicing Christians in the party, it opens up a whole new area of world views that the left think are balmy (pro-choice on abortion, belief in God and the Bible etc.). If they find evidence that a conservative, in addition to holding mainstream conservative social positions and religious beliefs, believe some nutty stuff as well then its GAME ON.

    Surely the chemtrails questions were a clue as to what the media would be trying to do with Craig. Now every conspiracy theory is on the table for discussion – 9/11, Obama’s birthplace, fluoride, the Illuminati, man on the moon… you name it. That Craig cannot or will not rule these matters unequivocally out either by being very clear in his statements in favour of orthodox belief or, if he actually harbours his own silly belief in some of these conspiracy theories, to refuse to even discuss these sorts of questions, speaks volumes for his naivety. There are a number of time tested and proven techniques that politicians the world over use to deflect away from questions that the man in the street consider to be very much peripheral to the core of what they want to know no matter how persistent the interviewer such as policy positions and views on the major economic and social issues exercising middle NZ.

    If Craig cannot learn to STFU then he’s doomed in my opinion. The left and media will define him as a conspiracy theorist driven nutter even if his views on these matters are tentative and maybe neutral. That he dabbles in, discusses, mulls over and refuses to rule out discussion on who brought down the twin towers is an epic political fail. I don’t know who is advising him but whoever they are, they need to get this man top level media training and not let him near another reporter until he can competently navigate any interview without being sidetracked by this rubbish.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth, the word universal, as in universal education and health care, is not a religious meme.

    It is a religious meme because Catholic, from katholika, means universal. The doctrine of the Church of England is based on the Universal Church of Rome. The meme is part of NZ politics via the religious roots of the Westminster political system.

    I note you quickly resort to casting aspersion about the values of those that hold a differing opinion to yourself, I note that comes under arrogance on the checklist for conspiracy theorists.

    In your dreams.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Manolo (14,065 comments) says:

    KIA: are you telling me Obama is not Kenyan? :D :D

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. tas (646 comments) says:

    Craig is no kookier than the Greens, but they are better at PR.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    I need to clarify what Colin Craig needs to shut up about. It is comments on conspiracy theory crap not political issues of interest. He SHOULD be discussing Conservative Party policy ideas but he should refrain from offering himself as a juicy big media mocking target by leaving peripheral stuff (that is not part of mainstream conservative political dialogue even here in the US) off their website and out of his media interviews. My comment could be construed to mean he shouldn’t speak at all and that is not the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    I need to clarify what Colin Craig needs to shut up about.

    Why, what is the threat (to Colin Craig)?

    In commerce, the truth is sovereign. Maybe his honesty will bring him more support from people who like to take responsibility for their own security.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. SGA (1,142 comments) says:

    America is the only country where a significant proportion of the population believes that professional wrestling is real, but the moon landing was faked.
    – David Letterman

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  175. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth
    For every one person who get exercised about fluoride, Truther folklore, chemtrails and moon landing conspiracies and who would vote for Craig because he implies that he at least questions orthodoxy, there are ten who would never vote for him because he’s nabbling with nuttiness even though they may have some sympathy with the policy positions of his party.

    I have had long, detailed, technical and thorough discussions with a few well meaning Truthers. It does not matter how many experts thoroughly debunk their wild conspiracies, they will still cling to their theories. In their world, these matters are huge and they cannot see how crazy they come across to others.

    In the fragile marketplace of political perception, Craig is playing with fire and laying the foundation for electoral oblivion, especially when he’s competing with NZ 1st and Winston’s own conspiratorial world view. We all know the Greens are nuttier still but they cloak their nuttiness well and are protected by like minded media.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. xy (190 comments) says:

    Someone should ask Craig about the IONIZING RADIATION that is flooding our environment this time of year due to the SHIFT IN PLANETARY ALIGNMENT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Pete George (23,683 comments) says:

    John Armstrong: Hello Colin Craig – you have a problem>/a>

    Craig’s clanger is the kind of career-defining and sometimes career-destroying own-goal that sticks in the public’s mind.

    Craig is fast becoming a liability for National to the extent that people may be put off voting for Key’s party if the price for remaining in power means pandering to the Conservatives’ more extreme tastes.

    Craig’s problem is National’s problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  178. Paulus (2,664 comments) says:

    As earlier commented I wish we could learn more about the Mickael Lermontov conspiracy.
    There are many hidden aspects never revealed.
    Great Dive though

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. itstricky (1,888 comments) says:

    That Craig cannot or will not rule these matters unequivocally out either by being very clear in his statements in favour of orthodox belief or, if he actually harbours his own silly belief in some of these conspiracy theories, to refuse to even discuss these sorts of questions, speaks volumes for his naivety.

    In the fragile marketplace of political perception, Craig is playing with fire

    Be very clear in his statements? Silly belief? Political Perception? His naivety? I mean, come on, be a little serious here – if he was anyone else but for “The Conservative Saviour of The National Party” would you not be hacking him down as a crazy loony whack job? Same thing goes for DPF and my comment earlier.

    Don’t worry, apparently they’ve asked Rodney to come back. Reborn, if you will. In a New Testament kinda way.

    (Yes, those last couple of sentences were just for Colin Craig)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Kiwi in America – totally agree with you. I’m not sure what game Colin Craig is playing but he is in danger of becoming the media’s go to guy when they want a wacky quote.
    I agree about the Greens. The co- leader of the Greens is a former member of the McGillicuddy serious party, she was a member of the legalise marijuana party – but hell would freeze over before people like John Campbell would ever ask her a searching question about her views. So there is a blatant media bias against right of centre politicians and for left of centre politicians.

    Basically what is happening with Colin Craig is standard media practice. Catch them out saying something slightly off-colour and paint him as an idiot. That’s what the media did in the United States with George Bush and Dan Quayle. Basically ridicule them as stupid and paint that in the public’s mind. On the other side in the eyes of the media President Obama is a genius and probably the brightest man who has ever been in the White House.

    The reason the media does this is that they really believe that Conservative people are stupid. If they were bright they would be Liberals like them.

    Colin Craig has to do a lot of work dealing with the media and getting some media training as you so rightly suggest. Because the Conservative message is a good one. There is a large portion of the electorate that is not being represented at the moment. Labour has long since abandoned people with traditional moral views. And national has shown that it also is not concerned with voters of traditional morals.

    The interesting thing is that when the Conservative party policies are laid out they get a lot of support. Colin Craig has to work hard to get back on message, cut through the media clutter and distractions and bring a Conservative message to the people of New Zealand. God knows we need it. As Margaret Thatcher once said – “the facts of life are conservative”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  181. wikiriwhis business (4,119 comments) says:

    ‘I’m not sure what game Colin Craig is playing but he is in danger of becoming the media’s go to guy when they want a wacky quote.’

    The wacky media want to ask Craig if Santa Claus is real. That’s how desperate they are for a quote from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth

    For every one person who get exercised about fluoride, Truther folklore, chemtrails and moon landing conspiracies and who would vote for Craig because he implies that he at least questions orthodoxy, there are ten who would never vote for him because he’s nabbling with nuttiness even though they may have some sympathy with the policy positions of his party.

    One in ten?

    Despite the media’s best efforts to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories, one in two Americans doubt the government’s narrative and skepticism is slowly seeping its way into the mainstream. – Russia Today

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. ChardonnayGuy (1,215 comments) says:

    I think we should label this “ABS”- “Anti-Beltway Syndrome.” We need to bear three things in mind.
    One, Colin Craig is a fundamentalist Christian and they tend to be awfully encapsulated within their own subculture. Look at those awful Left Behind books and an entire US fundamentalist musak industry centred in the United States. They’re paranoid and susceptible to conspiracy theories and social and political authoritarianism precisely because they don’t get out much and reject “non-Christian” information sources.

    The second problem is that New Zealand is a highly centralised jurisdiction. Unlike the United States, Canada and Australia, we are a unitary state, not a federal one. There are no formal provinces or states, except in rugby or netball games, and Auckland is the only significantly large metropolitan centre. This means that lobby groups need to analyse and prepare their material for parliamentary party processes and procedures- if not for a governing party of the moment, then possibly for an Opposition, except on matters of bipartisan agreement.

    The third problem is that Colin Craig has never held public office. This means that he is minimally engaged with what really needs to go on in terms of everyday practices, procedures and processes of government. Hence the abdication of the responsibilities that go with parliamentary constituency seats and elected representative status, in favour of continual cant about “binding referenda.” The latter is held up as a paragon of “pure” participatory democracy. In reality, well-heeled interests throw money at populist demagogues, who are bankrolled to argue for entrenched, highly partisan, sectarian and divisive sectional agendas. The latter commonly employ public relations firms to spin their message.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Scott (1,818 comments) says:

    Colin Craig is a Christian – there is no need to add any other title to that. He is not a fundamentalist – that is a pejorative title designed to marginalise people. He doesn’t actually go to church, so the idea that he is some kind of ideologue entranced by the left behind series is pure nonsense.
    He should go to church I think. Nothing wrong with being a Christian and going to church. If we all did it our country would be a lot better place in my opinion. Also we would all go to heaven when we die and avoid hell – which is a very good thing to do.

    The list of Christian politicians historically would probably be a long one. The Labour politicians of the 1930s for example saw their welfare program as applied Christianity. It is only more recently that agnosticism has become the more common stance of our leading politicians.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. TheContrarian (1,091 comments) says:

    Why am I not surprised the Ugly doubts the moon landing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  186. SPC (5,775 comments) says:

    This is not about any lack of media training, it is about staying on message (batting away media attempts to divert him) and displaying a capacity for logical rational thinking. If he can answer the questions in a way that demonstrates the latter then that serves him well, then media attempts to divert him from his message will have to move onto political matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth
    The reputable polls done asking specific questions of 9/11 Truther allegations (e.g. planted explosives bringing down the twin towers) never rise above 15% of the US population. Even vague questions like “Did the Bush administration tell the whole truth about 9/11” never come close to a plurality of voters. The deeper you question voters on the specifics of Truther claims, the lower the support. The same is true with the other issues that Craig refuses to rule out.

    Peter George
    John Armstrong has summed up what will quickly become the conventional wisdom about Colin Craig. The media will not probe Catherine Delahunty about her wacky theories about Mother Gaia but they WILL ask Craig about 9/11, chemtrails and men on the moon. Unless Craig rules a firm line under this nuttiness and never goes back there, he is toast. I’ve been pretty deep into the dark art of politics in my time in Labour and I can tell you he is a centre left campaign’s picture child for electorally fatal character defining. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. I’m just staggered at the political naivety here. There’s no point whining about the anti Christian, anti conservative bias of the MSM. Someone like Craig needs to engage with said media with the full knowledge that he is entering a lion’s den where his political destruction is the goal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. stephieboy (3,400 comments) says:

    Manolo (11,460 comments) says:
    December 5th, 2013 at 6:46 am

    KIA: are you telling me Obama is not Kenyan?

    The Conspiracy myths and fabrications about Obama are plainly in the same category as fake moon landings, Holocaust denial and 9/11 Truth.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Kea (13,359 comments) says:

    stephieboy, I agree regarding the myths about Obama. But the reality is far worse. He is a terrible president and the worst thing to happen to America for a long time.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  190. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    stephieboy
    I’ve never believed any of the conspiracy theories about Obama. He was born in Hawaii, he is a Christian albeit nominally. But he did marinate in radical company in his earlier years (Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and was a disciple of Saul Alinsky) and has been a terrible President. Those on the right in the US (a good example is Glenn Beck) who traffic in Obama conspiracies have utterly destroyed their ability to move more mainstream conservative opinion because any good material he presents is drowned out by the rubbish and so people like me just cease ever listening any more. That is the fate that awaits Colin Craig. He will attract a small group of people who thrive on that conspiratorial stuff and evangelical Christians but he’ll burn off more mainstream conservatives who may be seeking something a little more to the right of National and can no longer support ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. ciaron (1,441 comments) says:

    Just for shits and giggles, SolidWorks modelling of Pentigon 9/11 strike.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Why am I not surprised the Ugly doubts the moon landing.

    The moon landing happened, just not the way that NASA sold it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  193. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The reputable polls done asking specific questions of 9/11 Truther allegations (e.g. planted explosives bringing down the twin towers) never rise above 15% of the US population. Even vague questions like “Did the Bush administration tell the whole truth about 9/11” never come close to a plurality of voters. The deeper you question voters on the specifics of Truther claims, the lower the support.

    Poll: More Americans Believe World Trade Center 7 Was Demolished On 9/11 than Believe the Government’s Explanation

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-09-11/poll-more-americans-believe-world-trade-center-7-was-demolished-911-believe-g

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. kiwi in america (2,510 comments) says:

    Ugly Truth
    Your link is broken. One poll doesn’t make the case. Ask American’s specific 9/11 Truther claims and you get barely 15% agreeing http://jmq.sagepub.com/content/84/2/353.abstract

    In the case of Craig and 9/11 Truther rubbish, explaining is losing. Umminh and aaahing is also losing. You might be part of the Truther community, the target voter demographic for the Conservatives are more put off by a candidate dabbling in conspiracy theories than excited by it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Your link is broken.

    It worked for me.

    One poll doesn’t make the case.

    One argument makes the case: energy signatures. There was the same heat signature from WTC7 (the building that collapsed that wasn’t hit by a plane) as for the twin towers. There wasn’t enough energy to produce this heat signature unless energy was introduced from sources like explosives. The fact that the heat signatures exist mean that the mainstream story is false, and the same heat signature indicates that the same type of explosives were used in all three buildings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote