Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Conspiracy Theories


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#18 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2676 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:29 AM

ACADEMIA AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA ATTACK “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS” AGAIN

 

 

 

– 1994: With a technique called “gene tracking,” Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made. Follow this link for more info

 

 

 

I believe all of these besides the one quoted due to Mycoplasma incognitus is a bacteria and it is nonsense that a virus protein coat would be in a bacteria and show proper expression of the protein coat being used for tracking of human subjects, that flat out isn't how that technology works, and that definitely not how you make a genetic tracking device. I happen to know how to make genetic tracking devices and that is flat out not how it works. In any case, that is slightly before retroviral engineering was discovered on this planet(https://www.ncbi.nlm...books/NBK19423/) and definitely before genetic tracking was invented(https://www.google.c...Q4dUDCAw&uact=5).


Edited by VictorMedvil, 28 June 2020 - 04:54 AM.

  • Thoth101 likes this

#19 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:53 AM

 

Very well said A- Wal and lets look up the definition of a conspiracy:

 

 

Definition of conspiracy

 

 

When a crime takes place even law enforcement has their theories on what might have happened. Or a conspiracy theory.

 

All conspiracy theories are is, different ways to look at what really is going on.

 

But yes some conspiracy theories are outlandish but also many conspiracy theories were found to be true.

 

 

I say question everything........

 

 

Even law enforcement agencies need evidence to support their theories in a prosecution, otherwise the result is either not proven (scotish law) or not guilty.

 

Developing a scenario helps us learn, by giving a starting point on a learning curve. When no provable facts support the theory, the theory is nonsense or as you say outlandish, if some but not enough facts exist to support a theory in its entirety it could be said to be not proven. There might even be a smoking gun :)

 

Once questions have been answered, and a theory is shown to have no credible supporting evidence, only someone with a religious nut mentality would persue it.

 

I notice you have not mentioned your suspicions about 5G, or Bill Gates, in your responses. Why not? Did you question your claims then change your mind?

 

As for the bilderberg group you might have a point :) 

 

 

Really now? Maybe you will do some unbiased research at some point in your life and actually learn what is really going on and connect the dots. You can poke fun of me all you want and I don't think you are stupid just mislead in your thinking. Maybe turn the propaganda off and do yourself some research on your own instead of believing what the "officials" or "experts" tell you.

 

Really now, I have not poked fun at you (much). I have humored more than most on this forum, against my better judgement.

 

Unbiased research completely ignoring reality, is worthless time wasting research. 

 

Propaganda. Whose the mushroom here, fed on **** and kept in the dark.  

 

Which officials or experts do you think I listen to, that might have influenced me.

 

David Icke is not one of them. PS I still want to know wtf you think a god head is???????? 

 

 

Are Conspiracy Theories Falsifiable? - Dr. Tjeerd Andringa on The Corbett Report

 

 

 

Of coarse they are falsifiable, why ask the question?

 

 

ACADEMIA AND MAINSTREAM MEDIA ATTACK “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS” AGAIN

 

 

Here are some irrefutable facts to put reality in perspective: from an article titled “Governments and Biowarfare: a Brief History”

 

 

Not one of the links in this post suggest that any of the conspiracy theories you have highlighted have any support ie bill gates and 5g, corona virus, ruling cabal, lizard people etc. Its another strawman response to deflect attention from your pet conspiracy theories.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 and the Pentagon attack as A-Wal pointed out is suspicious. Tower 7 collapse distracted me from the alleged pentagon attack.

 

JFK's assination is also suspect with the magical bullet explanation and subsequent apparent cover up. 

 

People who do not understand how the world works, but have a theory of how it might without any facts to explain it, have a unprovable theory. Not unlike Roger Penroses multiverses. Or perhaps Fred Hoyles Steady State universe. Big Bang theory is just a mathematical model, curve fit, it is not based on known physics, but makes a reasonable curve fit, and claims after many modifications that the CMBR supports the model. Would you regard these theories in the same league as your conspiracy theories ref Bill Gates, 5G, Corona Virus?



#20 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 10:42 AM

The human brain  joins together dots of information making patterns, optical illusions ie the candle stick versus 2 face. People taking hallucinagens, or having mental illness, etc can all give different views on reality. Some even hear voices and or stream pictures into their heads @Thoth101. 

I think there's a problem with the low intelligence conspiracy theorists in that the explanation for why their theory is wrong is too complicated for them to understand.

One conspiracy theorist suggested that the proof for 911 being an inside job is in there being wingtips found from one of the planes. When it was suggested that the wingtips found hadn't contacted the building (s), he was unable to accept that as a logical answer.

Is there another explanation for not being able to accept that answer?

Your explanation for Thoth's behaviour could be another partial answer at least?

 

My remarks aren't meant to lead this discussion into a 911 debate, just to use it as an example.


Edited by montgomery, 28 June 2020 - 10:45 AM.


#21 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 11:22 AM

I think there's a problem with the low intelligence conspiracy theorists in that the explanation for why their theory is wrong is too complicated for them to understand.

One conspiracy theorist suggested that the proof for 911 being an inside job is in there being wingtips found from one of the planes. When it was suggested that the wingtips found hadn't contacted the building (s), he was unable to accept that as a logical answer.

Is there another explanation for not being able to accept that answer?

Your explanation for Thoth's behaviour could be another partial answer at least?

 

My remarks aren't meant to lead this discussion into a 911 debate, just to use it as an example.

 

I think the first link I posted covers this "Belief perseverance refers to the fact that we seek to maintain our beliefs even after the information that originally gave rise to it has been refuted. Once we’re set in our beliefs, evidence to the contrary will be dismissed, actively.

This is why politicians promote polls that show them to be popular (confirmation bias) and label as "fake" those polls that don’t (belief perseverance). This is why when you’re in love, you tend to latch onto everything good about your love object and gloss over or fail to notice warning signs (confirmation bias). When your friends warn you about the love object, you accuse them of lying out of jealousy (belief perseverance). 

 

Thus, ironically, once we settle on a belief, however deluded or implausible (e.g., the earth is flat), we’re highly likely to seek and believe information that supports it (“looks flat to me!”) while rejecting any data to the contrary, however plausible, as false, malevolent, or deluded (“The science? All the scientists are lying”)."



#22 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 11:40 AM

The Pentagon story was dodgy, passports that survived the inferno which melted the plane debris. I have not heard of suicides of witnesses.

https://www.youtube....h?v=suQitX2GmTU Jump to 6:19, it's quite spooky.

There was also a really good five minute video of an ex US intelligence general saying there's no way it could have been a plane that hit the pentagon, but..."This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country." :)

 

Like I said, dodgy AF. JFK is 100% a cover up, and anyone who thinks it isn't belongs in a looney bin!


  • Thoth101 likes this

#23 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 11:53 AM

I think the first link I posted covers this "Belief perseverance refers to the fact that we seek to maintain our beliefs even after the information that originally gave rise to it has been refuted. Once we’re set in our beliefs, evidence to the contrary will be dismissed, actively.

This is why politicians promote polls that show them to be popular (confirmation bias) and label as "fake" those polls that don’t (belief perseverance). This is why when you’re in love, you tend to latch onto everything good about your love object and gloss over or fail to notice warning signs (confirmation bias). When your friends warn you about the love object, you accuse them of lying out of jealousy (belief perseverance). 

 

Thus, ironically, once we settle on a belief, however deluded or implausible (e.g., the earth is flat), we’re highly likely to seek and believe information that supports it (“looks flat to me!”) while rejecting any data to the contrary, however plausible, as false, malevolent, or deluded (“The science? All the scientists are lying”)."

I'm sorry that I missed that link; it's a great exaplantion for a lot of the **** that's believed. It just takes a while for me to build enough trust in a person so that I find it worth my time to look at their links.

 

But I think that it doesn't apply correctly to the politicians, but that's another topic, albeit one that could be vry interesting in considering Trump's behaviour especially. Or more specifically, the reason why the goofs who make up his base believe his nonsense?

 

Edit: Flummoxed, why do you think A-wal believes and promotes a 911 conspiracy theory?


Edited by montgomery, 28 June 2020 - 12:21 PM.


#24 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 12:11 PM

Well I can see now that it's more than just dodgy to you! You just didn't want to go all the way and call the official 911 story a conspiracy. And now that's pretty clear from the videos you've posted and appear to be willing to sign onto.

 

I'll just say here that I buy the official 911 story, fwiw. And so having said that, the question I would be asking Flummoxed is: Why does A-wal not believe the official story? Or? Why, among all the various reasons we know, is he buying into a conspiracy theory.

 

Please be aware that it's not my intention to insult your intelligence. It's that I'm of a different opinon on 911 and so I have to question what motivates people who believe roughly as you do. As Flummoxed suggests, this isn't a matter of intelligence.

 

You wrote: "JFK is 100% a cover up, and anyone who thinks it isn't belongs in a looney bin!"

 

Now that's not helpful is it? The official story is plausible enough to believe, even though it's not my preference. 


Edited by montgomery, 28 June 2020 - 12:16 PM.


#25 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 12:31 PM

Edit: Flummoxed, why do you think A-wal believes and promotes a 911 conspiracy theory?

I do neither of those things.

 

Well I can see now that it's more than just dodgy to you! You just didn't want to go all the way and call the official 911 story a conspiracy. And now that's pretty clear from the videos you've posted and appear to be willing to sign onto.

Then you need to get your vision checked! I think somebody's joining dots to make an invalid picture. :)

 

I posted them because they're relevant and interesting. They're examples of the 'dodgyness' I was talking about.

 

 

Edit:

You wrote: "JFK is 100% a cover up, and anyone who thinks it isn't belongs in a looney bin!"

 

Now that's not helpful is it? The official story is plausible enough to believe, even though it's not my preference. 

It wasn't designed to be helpful. You think the official JFK story is plausible? Wow, okay.
 


Edited by A-wal, 28 June 2020 - 12:39 PM.


#26 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 12:53 PM

A-wal

 

I do neither of those things.

 

O.k. then you believe the official story on 911. And then that leads me to ask what is 'dodgy'?

 

 

 

Then you need to get your vision checked! I think somebody's joining dots to make an invalid picture.

 

Rudely suggesting that I need to get my vision checked isn't helpful. I've already warned you about that kind of behaviour with me.

 

 

 

I posted them because they're relevant and interesting. They're examples of the 'dodgyness' I was talking about.

 

They're interesting and relevant and also conspiracy theory nonsense in my opinion. You use the word dodgy and in one sense at least that refers to 'dodging' the truth. If you have some other meaning for your reference to 'dodgy' or 'dodginess' then let's hear it? 

 

So for now I'll put it this way: Which is it, of the reason for conspricy theories we've discussed so far, can serve to explain why you think the official 911 story is dodgy?

 

The Kennedy assassination story is plausible enough for millions of Americans to believe. 

 

And that just leads us further into more possible reasons for people (Americans) to believe that which they choose to believe, doesn't it!


Edited by montgomery, 28 June 2020 - 12:58 PM.


#27 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1414 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 01:25 PM

Tower 7 collapse has been reasonably well explained https://www.popularm.../a3524/4278874/

 

The Pentagon is as A-Wal suggests dodgy. If we believe the claims. No aeroplane debris ? . People dying of suicide and of accidents, is not proof of a conspiracy to cover up 9/11, but could easily be used to add weight to a cover up claim. Oh wait a minute https://www.popularm...myths-pentagon/ Perhaps the popular mechanics link is part of the cover up.

 

Would people in the USA think that their government or secret services would deliberately promote a terrorist organisation and then allow a terrorist attack by said terrorists in the USA and then cover up any links. Or even if a president was doing something the security services or "cabal" disapproved of would have the President shot by a single magic bullet 3 times. 

 

Edit would the Priminister of the UK go to war illegally to help over throw another leader in Iraq, based on no evidence of any wrong doing under international law. https://en.wikipedia...of_the_Iraq_War  https://www.theguard...ocked-by-judges


Edited by Flummoxed, 28 June 2020 - 01:31 PM.


#28 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 01:33 PM

O.k. then you believe the official story on 911. And then that leads me to ask what is 'dodgy'?

No I certainly do not. I already said I think it was probably an inside job, probably means more likely than not.

 

Rudely suggesting that I need to get my vision checked isn't helpful. I've already warned you about that kind of behaviour with me.

You did? Oh well then I suppose maybe I don't respect you enough to heed you 'warnings'. :)

 

They're interesting and relevant and also conspiracy theory nonsense in my opinion.

I think this might well be that precondition response I mentioned earlier.

 

I said jump to 6:19 because you have a woman specifically saying that she isn't planning on committing suicide shortly before committing suicide. My point was that it's spooky.

 

The video of the ex intelligence general wasn't "conspiracy theory nonsense", it was genuinely his opinion that it can't have been a plane that hit the pentagon. It was part of his job to analyse video footage so like I said, interesting.

 

You use the word dodgy and in one sense at least that refers to 'dodging' the truth. If you have some other meaning for your reference to 'dodgy' or 'dodginess' then let's hear it? 

 

So for now I'll put it this way: Which is it, of the reason for conspricy theories we've discussed so far, can serve to explain why you think the official 911 story is dodgy?

The pentagon wreckage or lack thereof, the building 7 explanation that doesn't match witness reports, the suspicious suicides and other deaths surrounding it. All the things I've already mentioned specifically related to my comment that the whole thing seems a bit dodgy. I have no idea why you're having so much trouble following the conversation.

 

The Kennedy assassination story is plausible enough for millions of Americans to believe.

That really doesn't surprise me to be honest. :)



#29 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 01:39 PM

Tower 7 collapse has been reasonably well explained https://www.popularm.../a3524/4278874/

It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers, I didn't realise is was that long after.

 

There's another much more recent (last couple of weeks I think) report claiming the exact opposite of that one. I have no idea how official or plausible the newer one is because I haven't seen it.



#30 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:22 PM

No I certainly do not. I already said I think it was probably an inside job, probably means more likely than not.

 

You did? Oh well then I suppose maybe I don't respect you enough to heed you 'warnings'. :)

 

I think this might well be that precondition response I mentioned earlier.

 

I said jump to 6:19 because you have a woman specifically saying that she isn't planning on committing suicide shortly before committing suicide. My point was that it's spooky.

 

The video of the ex intelligence general wasn't "conspiracy theory nonsense", it was genuinely his opinion that it can't have been a plane that hit the pentagon. It was part of his job to analyse video footage so like I said, interesting.

 

The pentagon wreckage or lack thereof, the building 7 explanation that doesn't match witness reports, the suspicious suicides and other deaths surrounding it. All the things I've already mentioned specifically related to my comment that the whole thing seems a bit dodgy. I have no idea why you're having so much trouble following the conversation.

 

That really doesn't surprise me to be honest. :)

You miss the whole point. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, I care about what it is that causes you to promote them. Flummoxed has already pinned a lot of this batsh-t crazy stuff down for us. Which one fits you?



#31 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:45 PM

Tower 7 collapse has been reasonably well explained https://www.popularm.../a3524/4278874/

 

The Pentagon is as A-Wal suggests dodgy. If we believe the claims. No aeroplane debris ? . People dying of suicide and of accidents, is not proof of a conspiracy to cover up 9/11, but could easily be used to add weight to a cover up claim. Oh wait a minute https://www.popularm...myths-pentagon/ Perhaps the popular mechanics link is part of the cover up.

 

Would people in the USA think that their government or secret services would deliberately promote a terrorist organisation and then allow a terrorist attack by said terrorists in the USA and then cover up any links. Or even if a president was doing something the security services or "cabal" disapproved of would have the President shot by a single magic bullet 3 times. 

 

Edit would the Priminister of the UK go to war illegally to help over throw another leader in Iraq, based on no evidence of any wrong doing under international law. https://en.wikipedia...of_the_Iraq_War  https://www.theguard...ocked-by-judges

Do any of your previous links deal with many Americans bowing to authority figures? It seems that if it's a General saying something, it must be true.

 

I'm professor Irwin Corey, the world's foremost authority. The mass of the wingtips was not enough to penetrate the Pentagon and so the hole wasn't as wide as the aircraft. Trust me on this Flummoxed, it wasn't the Martians sending an unmanned saucer to hit the Pentagon. And it wasn't the Russians. the Chinese, or the USA who sent a missile to make the hole. None of the above had a motive!

 

You asked: "Would people in the USA think that their government or secret services would deliberately promote a terrorist organisation and then allow a terrorist attack by said terrorists in the USA and then cover up any links. Or even if a president was doing something the security services or "cabal" disapproved of would have the President shot by a single magic bullet 3 times."

 

It's a double barreled or triple barreled question that I can't answer. I'll take a stab at answered the first barrel.

 

No,  the American people wouldn't promote a terrorist organisation. It's more likely they would be thinking of how much beef they're getting on their Bigmacs. Or maybe wondering where Loblaws hides the machines that make all that beef?

 

From a Canadian POV, the US government would use the 911 revenge attacks to promote a war with Iraq, and then get caught doing it.


  • Flummoxed likes this

#32 montgomery

montgomery

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:53 PM

It collapsed seven hours after the twin towers, I didn't realise is was that long after.

 

There's another much more recent (last couple of weeks I think) report claiming the exact opposite of that one. I have no idea how official or plausible the newer one is because I haven't seen it.

Shouldn't you be an expert on all these facts by now if you're declaring some of them 'dodgy'?



#33 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 04:54 PM

You miss the whole point. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, I care about what it is that causes you to promote them. Flummoxed has already pinned a lot of this batsh-t crazy stuff down for us. Which one fits you?

You seem to be unable to follow very simple sentences. I've quite clearly explained what I find suspicious about the official story. I find it extremely amusing that someone who believes the official JFK story would be deluded enough to call someone else batshit.

 

You provide a wonderful example of I was describing in my earlier post:

Be careful labelling all conspiracy theories as nonsense, always try to avoid precondition responses like that. Conspiracy theory (whether naturally or by design, or a bit of both) has become a highly weaponised term that produces a trained response. No doubt some conspiracy theories are somewhat accurate while others are utter nonsense.

Look at it this way, do you trust the people in power or those with wealth and/or influence? Almost everybody would answer no to this question and yet reject every example of possible instances of those same people lying and covering it up, that's an irrational preconditioned response.

I'd be much more interested in the psychology behind the tendency of formally educated people to label anything outside of what they've been taught as false yet believing without question in what they've been told by what they believe to be an authority.

There are experiments that show an effect where people tend to want to give up critical thinking and follow without question the instructions of somebody they trust, I can't remember the details but it's quite a well known experiment.


#34 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1362 posts

Posted 28 June 2020 - 05:03 PM

Shouldn't you be an expert on all these facts by now if you're declaring some of them 'dodgy'?

No I shouldn't be an expert on any of them. I don't spend enough time researching this so I can only go by what little I've seen. I don't think I declared or even suggested that I myself have have any kind of 'expert' knowledge of any of these issues.