Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Conspiracy Do You Believe In? And Why?


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Orion

Orion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 58 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 01:49 PM

As the title says, which conspiracy do you believe whole hearted and why?



#2 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 07:24 PM

I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald "acted alone" in JFK's assassination.  I believe that just because I kinda want to and because the Warren Commission "findings" don't add up.

 

I don't pretend to know what master conspirators were ultimately behind it all, but I would lean toward LBJ as the culprit, ya know?
 


Edited by Moronium, 03 February 2019 - 07:27 PM.

  • Deepwater6 likes this

#3 Deepwater6

Deepwater6

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 03 February 2019 - 08:34 PM

I agree with Moronium - too many lingering questions about the JFK assassination. I don't have any concrete counter evidence, but took the OP's posting as asking more of a general poll question

I Have heard arguments from conspiracy junkies about the moon landings. The Oklahoma city bombing, the real catalyst for the second Iraq/US invasion. the Rosewall incident, and of course the US gov. being behind the 911 tragedy.

However plausible any of the theories may be, the problem persists - changing people's opinion after they have heard the spin of information from their chosen media source that distributtes it. As well as the reasoning they think is behind it (right or wrong.)

Quote from an passed talk radio host;

"History is just a bunch of lies we agree on."
  • LaurieAG likes this

#4 Virtual

Virtual

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 12:46 AM

Well, not sure if this is considered conspiracy, but I don’t believe in climate change. I guess by definition it can’t be a conspiracy because it’s a negative belief rather than a positive claim.

#5 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 01:18 AM

Well, not sure if this is considered conspiracy, but I don’t believe in climate change. I guess by definition it can’t be a conspiracy because it’s a negative belief rather than a positive claim.

 

That may depend on *why* you don't believe it:

 

A global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent.  Global warming conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons, or both.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...nspiracy_theory

 

Sen. Inhofe believes that global warming is a hoax....Inhofe lays out a complete critique of each scientific point in the global warming debate, by analyzing its politics as well as its science. To summarize, Inhofe claims that global warming science is driven by the desire of its advocates to use an international global warming regime (such as that envisioned by the Kyoto Protocol) to restrict worldwide CO2 emissions, which would override U.S. sovereignty on this issue. The "hoax," according to Inhofe, is that the purpose of global warming advocacy is the international control regime; the concern over global warming is just the means to establish the international regime.

 

In particular, Inhofe claims that the IPCC -- the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the definitive consensus report on global warming -- is politically motivated -- he notes that the IPCC "was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007; it obviously did not win a Nobel science prize" (p. 135). Inhofe's gripe with the IPCC is that the EPA and other policymakers use the political part of the IPCC document -- called the "Summary for Policymakers" -- rather than its scientific parts. Inhofe disagrees with both the politics AND the science -- and he outlines in this book what have become the standard talking points against global warming, from both a scientific and political perspective:

 

I'd better expose my bias at this point: I hold a Master's degree in Environmental Policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as well as a General Science degree from Brandeis University. I do believe in global warming -- it was the focus of my education --  Inhofe gets the politics right: as a global warming advocate, I DO believe that an international control regime should override U.S. sovereignty on this issue.

 

 

http://www.ontheissu...eatest_Hoax.htm

 

It's all a commie plot, I tells ya!

 

Inhofe wrote a book about global warming called "The Greatest Hoax."  Funny that this author, a self-described "global warming advocate," should reinforce his point.  Generally speaking, "advocacy" is not considered to be science--politics or ideology maybe.


Edited by Moronium, 04 February 2019 - 01:36 AM.


#6 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 766 posts

Posted 04 February 2019 - 04:28 AM

That may depend on *why* you don't believe it:

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...nspiracy_theory

 

 

http://www.ontheissu...eatest_Hoax.htm

 

It's all a commie plot, I tells ya!

 

Inhofe wrote a book about global warming called "The Greatest Hoax."  Funny that this author, a self-described "global warming advocate," should reinforce his point.  Generally speaking, "advocacy" is not considered to be science--politics or ideology maybe.

 

Would Donald Trump be a commie :) Did the Russians help him get elected . Did the Russians swing the brexit vote via hacking twitter or facebook.

 

Trump shakes hands with Russian, North Korean Leaders but wont shake hands with European leaders, who perhaps view Russia as a threat.

 

Is it all a commie or other nameless plot.  :shocked: Countries acting internationally allegedly protecting their own interests, destabilizing governments that might not be sell at the right price, ie trade for weapons instead of perhaps something more useful. 

 

Labeling allows segregation, perhaps the labelers are behind all the conspiracies :( If people are seperated into labels they can be turned against each other and controlled. etc :)

 

Edit and are politicians equipped to decide if global warming is happening or not. The oceans are getting hotter, storms are getting stronger, the corals are dying etc. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 04 February 2019 - 04:38 AM.