This document will cause emotional turmoil for most people, so try to read the entire thing before you make any decisions.

Our history books and encyclopedias tell us that Oswald killed Kennedy by himself, that lots of men walked on the moon, and that 19 Arabs attacked us on September 11. After investigating such events, my conclusion is:

American schools do not "teach history" to their students. Rather, they "deceive" students with "government propaganda". 
 

An American with a Ph.D. in history does not have an "advanced degree in history". Rather, he has "extensive exposure to propaganda".
 

Americans with PhDs in history are often given the title of Doctor. A more appropriate title would be Victim or Fool.

Hundreds of people, including most of my relatives, have told me that astronauts did walk on the moon, and that I am a fool to think otherwise. Many people complain that I should stop promoting the nonsense that the Apollo is a hoax. They tell me that I am going to ruin my reputation and make the 9/11 movement look stupid.

If those people were dictators of the earth, they would remove the Apollo material from my web site, and they would prevent me from talking about it. They would do this for my own good, and for the good of the human race.  

Should we have laws against Apollo conspiracies?

President Bush gave a speech to the United Nations in which he advocated that we do not tolerate "outrageous conspiracy theories" in regards to the September 11 attack.

If President Bush were to propose a law that prohibits "wackos" from promoting the "outrageous conspiracy theory" that the Apollo moon landing is a hoax, I would not be surprised if most of my relatives and millions of other people would support the law.

Would you approve of a law that prohibits outrageous Apollo conspiracies?  

Explain, don't suppress

How would suppressing my opinions about Apollo make life better for anybody? If I am wrong about Apollo, wouldn't the best solution be to show me where I am making my mistakes?

Nobody benefits when somebody's opinions are suppressed if he has reasons for his opinions. It makes more sense to show him where he made mistakes in his reasoning.

Consider how this concept applies to children. Imagine you send your child to kindergarten, and the teacher asks him what two times two equals. He responds:

"Well, zero times zero equals zero, and one times one equals one, so I think two times times equals two!"

Would you approve of the teacher if he told your child to shut up, and if he sent your child to the principal for punishment? Or would you prefer the teacher explain to your child why his reasoning is incorrect?

Likewise, if I people walked on the moon, why not show me where I am making a mistake? Why tell me to shut up? I have a Science Challenge about Apollo, and nobody has yet been able to explain where my mistake is. Until somebody can show me my mistake, I am not going to remove it.  

A government is justified to demand evidence

If somebody were to accuse you of a crime, and if he had no supporting evidence, you would be upset. You would not consider his "baseless accusations" to be "free speech".

Both citizens and our government officials should demand people provide supporting evidence for their theories. Without supporting evidence, a person does not have a "theory", rather, he has something else, such as slander, libel, insults, defamation, or insane ramblings.

I am making a serious accusation when I say Apollo is a scam. I am accusing NASA of committing a major crime, and wasting enormous amounts of money. I am also accusing them of helping to destroy the morale of America.

If I did not have reasoning for my accusations, the government would be justified in telling me to remove my Apollo material from my web site. If I refused, they would be justified in arresting me.

However, since I have reasoning for my accusations, the government should show me where I am making mistakes.

There is a subtle difference between a government demanding that people support their accusations with intelligent evidence, and a government that suppresses the questioning of historical events. Judging by what is going on in Europe, I don't think many people can understand this subtle difference.  

Why is Europe afraid to question historical events?

Europe has not passed laws against promoting conspiracy theories about Apollo, but six nations have laws that allow arresting people who promote conspiracy theories about the Holocaust. Some nations also stop conspiracy theories about Anne Frank's diary.

A few people have been arrested as a result of these laws, but the arrests seem more symbolic than serious. For example, some of the people have been given small fines, and some have been given jail terms of only a few months.

Some of the people arrested are university professors. The other professors, scientists, and engineers do little or nothing as these professors are arrested. Are Europeans becoming accustomed to the idea that their friends might go to jail for questioning the government?

If next year the European governments pass a law against questioning the September 11th attack, and if they locked a professor in jail for 15 years for questioning the official story about the September 11 attack, would the other professors complain? Or would they be so accustomed to watching professors locked in jail cells that they consider it just another routine arrest?    

What is going on in Europe?

These laws to stop people from promoting conspiracy theories about the Holocaust are justified as a method to protect us from Nazis who are trying to make Hitler look better.
Here is the Jewish version of why these laws are needed: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/denial.html  
 
Most Europeans seem to be thankful that their government is protecting the truth about the Holocaust. Most Europeans do not seem to understand (or maybe they just don't care) that the truth does not need laws to protect it.

The difference between a law against libel and a law against conspiracy theories seems too subtle for most people to grasp. Here is one way to describe the difference:  

A law against libel is intended to suppress accusations with no supporting evidence. This is justifiable. 
 

A law that stops conspiracy theories will stop people who disagree with the government. There is no justification for a government to suppress serious investigations or serious theories.

So why would European governments pass a law to stop conspiracy theories about the Holocaust? Are they trying to prepare people for laws that prevent conspiracy theories about September 11th, or an even bigger scam that has not yet occurred?      

Why is it illegal to question the Holocaust?

As of today (March 2005), American University professors are legally permitted to create conspiracy theories for every historical event. Of course, only a few professors bother to use their freedom. One exception is professor Norman Finkelstein. His research can help us understand one of the reasons some people are supporting laws against questioning the Holocaust.

Finkelstein's mother and father were prisoners in Nazi camps. After they got out of the camps they met each other on and got married. They told their son Norman about life in the camps. Eventually Norman noticed that the official story did not exactly match the stories from his parents. Finkelstein was confused, so he looked more deeply into the events of World War II.

Finkelstein eventually wrote a book in which he complains that enormous numbers of Jews are pretending to be survivors of the Nazi prison camps in order to get money from the German and/or other governments. He says his mother made the sarcastic comment:

"If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one, who did Hitler kill?"

Continue reading here: http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies12.htm

Back to Navigation page                                                                                                   Return to top