Colin Craig – now denies moon landing

29
1

1463971_10151863046379285_1825970532_n

Just when you didn’t think Colin Craig could get any crazier, he’s just told Marcus Lush on Radio Live that he doesn’t think the Moon landings happened.

“I don’t believe it, I don’t not believe it”, was Colin’s answer.

WTF?

National-Conservative Party 2014 – climate denial, chemtrails & fake moon landings – this Government will represent a great leap backwards. God forbid Colin becomes the next Minister for Science and Innovation, children will be taught in classrooms without electricity that the Earth actually rests on 4 elephants standing on top of a turtle.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

John ‘no mates’ Key is having to swallow some bloated rotten rats to consider the loopy anti-science Conservative Party as a coalition partner.

This is medieval crazy, I get the feeling witch burning will get scholarship funding if Colin and his mates get into power.

How on earth can Colin Craig make John Banks look preferable???

29 COMMENTS

  1. Now you’re being a bit harsh on poor Colin. Of course the moon landing never took place; everyone knows the moon is made of cheese and it’d have to be a pretty big slice of edam to fit a whole spaceship on it!

  2. There are some pretty crazy wackos out there. Some people even think it is possible to power an industrial economy by wind power. Crazy I know

  3. “I don’t believe it, I don’t not believe it”

    As much a denial as an affirmation.

    No need to spin his position to either side of the absurd reply, it is stupid enough as it is – it’s a total refusal to engage with reality.

  4. It is a little bit of a stretch to say that Colin Craig “denies the moon landings happened” when what he actually said is that he “doesn’t know”.
    Of course, you can look through a high powered telescope and see the remnants of the moon landings, (or so I am told)

    However, if he wants to get on in politics, then this naive schoolboy honesty won’t get him very far

    • I’m disappointed in you, Andys, I thought you would have used an empirical example e.g. the mirror reflectors placed on the lunar surface that are still in use to measure our increasing distance from the moon.

      • Yogi – I’m old enough to remember Neil Armstrong stepping on the moon and watching all the subsequent moon landings. It would have taken an awful lot of effort to fake all that.

        However, if I look through a telescope and can see a lunar module, is that not empirical evidence?

        Maybe the Chinese will take some pictures for us when they head up in the next few years

        • Not enough for “Vandal” who asked…
          i heard that you could see the remains of the Luna landing” where is the evidence?
          I replied…
          Mirror reflectors placed on the moon so that a laser beam bounced off them from earth can measure how quickly the moon’s orbit is moving away from earth.

  5. Brethren and Sistern, the Lord has told me that he/she is sorely displeased with his /her servant jonkey, and yea verily, has sent his/her other servant Colin Craig to smite him in the polls by a shew of great ignorance. After that its a plague of boils. Amen

  6. Pre-supposing that National and Craig can form a coalition post 2014 (which also pre-supposes that National Party supporters are more masochistic than I had considered) – Key had best be prepared for a whole heap of problems with the Conservatives.

    Dunne’s fellow United Future MPs, post 2002, were a poisoned chalice for both Dunne and Helen Clark.

    Now imagine a three-ringed circus, involving a National-NZ First-Conservative Party coalition – and every blogger in this country will be working full time to comment on events.

    Be careful what you wish for, Dear Leader…

  7. Jesus walked on water, so the holy bible writ
    He did it ‘cos his mates off shore were getting in the shit
    the waves of Galilee were up, the skies were dark and dirty
    although it looked ok when they’d set sail around six thirty

    aboard their craft the twelve disciples really were at sea
    up on the bridge the water sloshed about up to the knee
    they’d only got five life jackets, and two without a whistle
    no flares were in the locker, just some wine and Paul’s epistle

    On hearing his poor followers cry out in deep distress
    Jesus resolved to save them from their self inflicted mess
    He figured if he lost this lot his teachings might not spread
    And Christianity, like God, might very soon be dead

    So off walked Jesus to the boat – he had these real big feet
    And self belief in bucket loads – he thought he was so neat
    He really ran across the waves, the way you skip flat stones
    In seconds he was on the boat, calming his buddies moans

    So when folks say that Jesus never walked across the brine
    I just say, you believe your stuff, and I’ll believe in mine
    As far as I’m concerned old Jesus walked across the sea
    More possible than Colin Craig ever getting a vote from me.

  8. What on earth is going on here? Colin Craig has not denied the moonlanding – he’s just said that if there’s doubt about it he’s not the person to ask as he hasn’t looked into it – yet the headlines everywhere are claiming he has denied the moonlanding and believes in Chemtrails. In fact the Herald now has him backing down on the comments he never made.

    He’s certainly naive to say these things to the media but he’s actually being honest in the strictest sense of the word.

    He’s getting a real savaging in the media and I’m kind of disappointed to see the Daily Blog joining in with the Herald and others in giving him a good kicking. From the outside it just looks like a pack of bullies gleefully having a go at the new boy in school and I can’t quite figure out what he’s done to deserve the level hatred he’s receiving.

    I’m not saying he isn’t deserving of criticism but the response to his existence is out of all proportion with the reality.

    Somehow he’s even got Chris Trotter mocking him for supporting binding referendums – something I always thought would be essential in any decent democracy.

    • I have to agree with this – Craig sucks, but it feels like we’re being graciously permitted to approve and join in with Paddy Gower and friends in laughing at a wierdo. Tantalised by the prospect of vicariously (but ineffectively) wounding National, we fail to notice that we are permitted to do this so long as we all agree that anyone who refuses to count out ‘conspiracies’ is crazy.

      Once we agree to help them establish that anyone who doesn’t think Werner Von Braun’s Nazi rockets helped America beat the reds to the moon is crazy, what then for those of us with concerns about PRISM, the NSA and the Five Eyes? What then for those of us who believe that the TPPA is part of the Asia Pacific Pivot strategy? We crazy too when Gower says so?

  9. 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.

    • Not so, the questions have revealed much about Craig’s grasp on reality. Climate change, chem trails. moon landings.

      He is a first-class science and evidence denier – or he is an ignorant moron.

      I hope he also gets asked about efficacy of vaccination programs, community water fluoridation, HIV’s association with AIDS, hell, even ask him the approximate age of the Earth.

      Science denial is a pea in pod with conspiracy theories.

  10. Firstly i am not a supporter of national or the conservative party…i have just read a lot of generalisations and unsubstantiated facts for example ” i heard that you could see the remains of the Luna landing” where is the evidence? Unless you were there to witness it first hand you are basing your ignorant opinion on a mediated version of the facts a construction of reality and “Truth” . As soon as someone questions the official story they are labelled a lunatic or crazy….evidence and research please ….facts figures can be manipulated to support any position…i doubt we had the technology at the time to send someone to the moon….you forget it was time of the cold war and an arms/technology race America has lied many times before …why not luna landing….you also forget science cannot explain many things and most facts are just hunches or a calculated guess …chemtrails…climate change research both sides to the argument…. dont be an ignorant fool and take mainstream medias opinion or that of a politicians…research Climate change …climates been changing and warming since the ice age….. media hypes up climatic disasters… as the biggest tornado..hurricane based on when? In recorded history , a very small period of time in relation to the history of the world….carbon emissions …don’t plants absorb carbon….why carbon tax? How is that going to save us except make living more expensive…what doe’s it lead too an environmental dictatorship its a joke…stop supporting this greedy monetary system of unsustainable consumption so we don,t have to sell off our resources or cut down forests….or mine …they say if you go left far enough you will see yourself come around on the right or vice versa…. its the same in the end neither will benefit us long term they are one in the same.

    • i heard that you could see the remains of the Luna landing” where is the evidence?
      Mirror reflectors placed on the moon so that a laser beam bounced off them from earth can measure how quickly the moon’s orbit is moving away from earth.

  11. I really must protest at this! Most of the muppets are intelligent, articulate and popular creatures and do not deserve to be denigrated as Colin Craig cultists, toadies and sycophants !!! 😉

  12. OK, for a start Bomber, your headline is a sensasionalist lie worthy of WhaleOil. Craig did not deny anything, he simply refused to give an opinion one way or the other. Unusual for a politician I know, but that’s the facts.

    Here’s what I think is going on. By taking a neutral stance on controversies like chemtrails and the moon landing, Craig is dog-whistling those who hold dissenting views on such issues, people who might otherwise vote ACT, NZ First, or Greens. By vilifying him for not immediately defending the mainstream view on these issues, left-wing bloggers who support a Labour/Greens government are playing right into this strategy. Your response can be used to show that a “Left” government will base their policies on received wisdom and ideology, whereas a National government, tempered by the Conservatives, will start with an open mind, and base their policy on evidence. Perhaps it would be better political strategy if we could be a bit more humble and diplomatic here?

    I know many intelligent, caring people – many of whom put loads of unpaid time into activist and independent media work – who hold opinions which you could just as easily dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. Some of them I agree with; genetic-engineering of food plants is a trick to get around the rules against patenting of life, water fluoridation began as a way to dispose of toxic waste, mercury-amalgam should never be used in dentistry, 1080 use is an ecological crime, the official story of 911 is rediculous etc. There are others I disagree with; peak oil was invented to justify raising oil prices, climate change was created to justify global government, canola is an industrial lubricant unfit for eating, the Illuminati are behind all the world’s problems etc Whether I agree or disagree with somebody on a particular issue, I still recognise them as part of the 99%, and if I avoid alienating them with intellectual snobbery and holier-than-thou attitudes, part of the same movement or movements working towards a better world.

      • Speaking of intellectual snobbery and holier-than-thou attitudes:
        “oooh look! a 9/11 troother springs to Craig’s defence.”

        Firstly, I’m not defending Craig, I’m defending fairness and accuracy in reporting. Secondly, have you seen Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 911 Richard? Long before there was a “911 truth movement” hijacked by ultra-conservative opportunists like Alex Jones, the anti-Bush left were already pointing out ridiculous elements of the official story of 911. If it’s legitimate to question parts of the official story like the lightening-fast accusation of Bin Laden, and whether the destruction of the towers justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, why are the rest of the claims made in that story off-limits?

        • Firstly, I’m not defending Craig,

          Yes you were.

          This is the internet. Hello? We can scroll up and read what you wrote.

          You described Craig’s strategy as a “dog whistling” appeal to the conspiracy kooks and actually a clever ruse to gain votes from other parties. Further to that you offered the lame justification that conspiracy theories were somehow legitimate because you happen to know intelligent and caring people that believe them too, which only speaks to your judgment.

          Then you listed the conspiracy theories you believe in and the ones you that don’t believe in, attempting to justify your stance on some through your rejection of the others. News for you: they all require unworkable conspiracies (except for the simple mercury amalgam statement, but I suspect you’ll have a conspiracy story somewhere in there too.)

          Along the way you managed to label left wing policies as relying upon received wisdom and, in the most ludicrous manner, those of the conservatives, presumably as represented by Craig, as relying upon evidence.

          You follow your conspiracy claims up with reply using a classic bait and switch and by adopting the role of victim of intellectual snobbery.

          Boo-hoo to you.

          • Yes, I suggested that Craig might be dog-whistling to build the Conservative vote, not to defend Craig (whose socially conservative views on smacking, drug law, prison etc I find terrifying), but to question whether it’s good strategy for the anti-National ‘left’ to be playing into such divide-and-rule tactics, by alienating people just because they hold minority opinions.

            Obviously intelligent and caring people are as capable of being wrong as anyone else, but this also applies to me, Bomber, even you. That’s why I say that some humility and good faith is called for.

            I didn’t offer any justification for the various “conspiracy theories”, I just listed them as example. Again you are erecting strawmen. My point was that calling a proposition a “conspiracy theory” is not an argument, it’s a smear, and an attempt to shut down discussion. If National supporters call our concerns about the TPPA “conspiracy theory”, and claim that the “mainstream” view is pro-TPPA, does that make further debate off-limits? I think not.

            >> Along the way you managed to label left wing policies as relying upon received wisdom and, in the most ludicrous manner, those of the conservatives, presumably as represented by Craig, as relying upon evidence. <> (insert conspiracy theory here) = same methodology same result: reality denial. <<

            Who gets to decide what's a "legitimate" theory and what's a "conspiracy" theory? Who gets to decide what is and isn't "reality"? Even if anybody had the authority to rule on such distinctions, who empowered you to police them?

Comments are closed.