Jump to content

The illuminati


SpringDon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Whatever you may or may not think of the BBC you have to tip your hat to it at least not being a state sponsored propaganda machine.

I am deeply worried and concerned by how an increasing number of people are buying in and lapping up "news" from the most bizarre and incredible sources. The amount of times I have seen people try to counter a rational argument with some You Tube clip of a bloke in his bedroom who says it's the jews and the illuminati and apparently that's going definitive. Indeed, people are actually believing this and I can only assume that it is the desire to willingly accept what you want to hear.

I blame the X-files.

P.S.

There was a bloke on FB spouting the usual "sheeple" you don't know anything, and I asked him "do you believe that man landed on the moon?"

Now, this is my lead in rationale test - I have worked out that there is absolutely no point trying to argue with someone who refuses to accept that the world is round or that man didn't land on the moon because it was all a conspiracy. No point whatsoever. However, their numbers are growing. It is really really worrying.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Whatever you may or may not think of the BBC you have to tip your hat to it at least not being a state sponsored propaganda machine.

I am deeply worried and concerned by how an increasing number of people are buying in and lapping up "news" from the most bizarre and incredible sources. The amount of times I have seen people try to counter a rational argument with some You Tube clip of a bloke in his bedroom who says it's the jews and the illuminati and apparently that's going definitive. Indeed, people are actually believing this and I can only assume that it is the desire to willingly accept what you want to hear.

I blame the X-files.

P.S.

There was a bloke on FB spouting the usual "sheeple" you don't know anything, and I asked him "do you believe that man landed on the moon?"

Now, this is my lead in rationale test - I have worked out that there is absolutely no point trying to argue with someone who refuses to accept that the world is round or that man didn't land on the moon because it was all a conspiracy. No point whatsoever. However, their numbers are growing. It is really really worrying.

 

Eloquently put!  I blame it on Care in the Community.......most of these idiots should be in Mental Hospitals !

5 minutes ago, SpringDon said:

I’m afraid I’ll have to correct you there. It is widely known that the landings were faked, it’s just that the cheapest and most convincing way to do it was to go to the moon.

Mainly due to the savings on catering and hitman fees for all the witnesses.

:good::good:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a weird one. History will eventually show and hold a special place for holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, flat earthers and religious loonies.

But seriously, how can you possible hope to win any rationale argument with these people? Any fact presented can be washed away without any counter evidence on the basis that it is part of a conspiracy and the original fact is a lie. Do bear in mind that this is all without counter evidence.

Me: The World is round.

Nutters: That's what they want you to think. They created the set of circumstances and control the information and it is a lie that the world is round. You may think that the world is round because that is what you have been lead to believe.

Seriously, how do you argue with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, JDog said:

The recent thread on the bombs being dropped on Syria has brought out the ‘usual suspects’. There will be no name calling from me but shall we say they have differing views on the world from my own.

Yes true but, what an interesting world they live in, where anything is possible and the laws of truth and fact play little part in forming boundaries to reality. 

I was there once sitting in front of the 'The Night Watch' in Amsterdam for maybe two hours (time was not relevant) marveling at the hidden images within the painting and wondering where they had come from. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a case in point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

It is amazing just how many journalists (and former associates of the Russian ruling regime) who have tragic accidents. Indeed, the statistics defy probability.

When choosing who to believe, let's not forget that Russia ranks 83rd out of 100 countries for press freedom (and China is in at 87) https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017

But don't tell me, that's what "they" want us to believe and again it's a Jewish conspiracy with the illuminati and the CIA who are behind both the BBC and Freedomhouse.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

This is a case in point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

It is amazing just how many journalists (and former associates of the Russian ruling regime) who have tragic accidents. Indeed, the statistics defy probability.

When choosing who to believe, let's not forget that Russia ranks 83rd out of 100 countries for press freedom (and China is in at 87) https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017

But don't tell me, that's what "they" want us to believe and again it's a Jewish conspiracy with the illuminati and the CIA who are behind both the BBC and Freedomhouse.....

 

 

That makes interesting reading, thank you.

The map showing the 'scores' in particular, the UK is considered 5 points away from a 'partly' free press, and is beaten by Uruguay !   Many of the eastern European countries, and Italy do not have a fully free press.
You would also think that countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan would have a worse score than Russia and China?

The shocker is though how countries you would not consider to be 'free' actually are, and countries that Ive always considered to be, are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uruguay is a really interesting place - I was lucky enough to be there in January this year.

Practically zero crime rate (notwithstanding Buenos Aires is a 60 minute ferry ride away), highest standard of education and highest annual average income for the whole of South America, first country to legalise gay marriage, legalised cannabis and quite a tolerant and open place with some amazing scenery and restaurants.

I should add that I went there on a day trip after some shooting and not to get married or stoned :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

Whatever you may or may not think of the BBC you have to tip your hat to it at least not being a state sponsored propaganda machine.

 

Really? In my opinion they completely rely on politicians ignoring the public's repeated call for them to have to stand on their own 2 feet,  publish what they are told to and tow whatever politically correct flavour of the month is current. Just take a look at all the pro shooting folk who have not had contracts renewed, anti-shooting folk who have and their continued biased reporting against shooting sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have watched a number of you tube clips - some are obviously nutters, whilst others raise interesting points. You have to read / watch and make your own judgement. I am with Mungler on the tests:-

1. Is the earth round?

2. Did astronauts really land on the moon? Non-believers - speak to Buzz Aldrin, but take some face protection.

3. Did the planes that flew into the twin towers cause them to fall or was it an inside job? The fact that two planes did actually hit the twin towers, just about the time they started to fall, could be entirely co-incidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm far from a conspiracy theorist.....BUT

We know the Earth is round how? From satellite pictures and astrological studies. Did anyone here take those pics or produce the studies or are we relying on someone else's word for it? 

I know people say these theorists can't prove so-and-so, but can we prove the opposite? We can reel off official versions of things and google various images to "prove" our point, but I don't truly believe it proves anything other than what we have been told or taught by someone else. 

My own conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theories are made up at the highest level and fed to the gullible who in turn pass it onto the less gullible in such a way we think they are all mad. By doing this, when a genuine event is covered up, we assume it's the nutters at it again.

Just to add, I don't think the Earth is flat - that was just an example. My Mother did though. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

Whatever you may or may not think of the BBC you have to tip your hat to it at least not being a state sponsored propaganda machine.

I am deeply worried and concerned by how an increasing number of people are buying in and lapping up "news" from the most bizarre and incredible sources. The amount of times I have seen people try to counter a rational argument with some You Tube clip of a bloke in his bedroom who says it's the jews and the illuminati and apparently that's going definitive. Indeed, people are actually believing this and I can only assume that it is the desire to willingly accept what you want to hear.

I blame the X-files.

P.S.

There was a bloke on FB spouting the usual "sheeple" you don't know anything, and I asked him "do you believe that man landed on the moon?"

Now, this is my lead in rationale test - I have worked out that there is absolutely no point trying to argue with someone who refuses to accept that the world is round or that man didn't land on the moon because it was all a conspiracy. No point whatsoever. However, their numbers are growing. It is really really worrying.

 

Tell you what mung ,Youre gonna look a right fool when you and your mates are having a fine old  jolly up on the good ship mungler , and it falls off the end of the earth ???. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's either an empirical scientific test (i.e. going definitive) of it is the balance of probability.

No, I have not been into space and seen the earth for myself but given the wealth of scientific knowledge starting with Pythagoras in 6BC and now space imagery, the probability that the world is anything but round is staggeringly unlikely.

However, whilst there is empirical scientific evidence that the world is round, no, I have never met Pythagoras, Stephen Hawkins nor any of his fellow scientists and even if I did I would not be able to understand their raw data or the equations which they have used to reach their conclusions and so would not be able to check for myself what they say.

Indeed, it could be that these scientists are not real - whilst I have seen their images on television they could have been actors, clones created by aliens or generated by advanced CGI, or it could be that I am in a pod in the Matrix and none of this is real. Again, probability is my friend. 

Lastly, just conjuring up any possible (but highly improbable) counter set of circumstances or argument does not actually make the original proposition any more or less true. For example, if a scientist says "the world is round" and the counter argument is "the illuminati told you to say that", does just saying "the illuminati told you to say that" alter the original statement? No, it doesn't make it any less true, it just throws some BS at it and any old loon can do that.

 

Edited by Mungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

I have watched a number of you tube clips - some are obviously nutters, whilst others raise interesting points. You have to read / watch and make your own judgement. I am with Mungler on the tests:-

1. Is the earth round?

2. Did astronauts really land on the moon? Non-believers - speak to Buzz Aldrin, but take some face protection.

3. Did the planes that flew into the twin towers cause them to fall or was it an inside job? The fact that two planes did actually hit the twin towers, just about the time they started to fall, could be entirely co-incidental.

1. I believe the earth is round, there is nothing to suggest to me otherwise.
I always find it amusing when flat earthers struggle with the basic arguments for round earth, ie - the arctic 'wall' or the round plane windows making flat earth round.
Very very silly people.

2.I always struggle with this because I want to believe we did, But part of me says we simply lacked the technology to pull off putting a man on the moon, and more importantly, to bring him back alive.
When NASA are asked why we do not attempt to go back, the answer is invariably 'We lack the funds' or 'we dont have that technology anymore' 
We have 10 x the tech and resources we had in the late 60 s !!

3.Oh dear...leave reality at the door and enter at your peril.
In history no steel framed skyscraper ever collapsed due to fire, on 11.9.2001 , 3 did.
'Oh but they got hit by planes fully loaded with jet fuel' I hear you say .
Well 2 of them did, 1 of them was hit by some light debris, and had a few fires on the upper floors (WT7)
After the owner said it had to come down, and the BBC said it already had, it demolished itself into its own footprint, just like WT1 and 2 had hours earlier.
All 3 buildings fell at near free fall rate (around 9 seconds) thats how fast they would fall if they had no framework resistance internally.
There is no structural engineer that can adequately explain how this could happen, without the buildings being pre rigged with explosives (probably thermite)

My tin foil hat is on , please feel free to ridicule away :lol:
Edit, for your perusal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6s0Gam54mk

 

Edited by Rewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Well, it's either an empirical scientific test (i.e. going definitive) of it is the balance of probability.

No, I have not been into space and seen the earth for myself but given the wealth of scientific knowledge starting with Pythagoras in 6BC and now space imagery, the probability that the world is anything but round is staggeringly unlikely.

However, whilst there is empirical scientific evidence that the world is round, no, I have never met Pythagoras, Stephen Hawkins nor any of his fellow scientists and even if I did I would not be able to understand their raw data or the equations which they have used to reach their conclusions and so would not be able to check for myself what they say.

Indeed, it could be that these scientists are not real - whilst I have seen their images on television they could have been actors, clones created by aliens or generated by advanced CGI, or it could be that I am in a pod in the Matrix and none of this is real. Again, probability is my friend. 

Lastly, just conjuring up any possible (but highly improbable) counter set of circumstances or argument does not actually make the original proposition any more or less true. For example, if a scientist says "the world is round" and the counter argument is "the illuminati told you to say that", does just saying "the illuminati told you to say that" alter the original statement? No, it doesn't make it any less true, it just throws some BS at it and any old loon can do that.

 

Looks like their cunning plan is working. On you anyway. :lol:

As I say, I'm not one for conspiracy theories. Just saying, "more probable" doesn't equal proof or fact, so who are we to decry the loonies as having no proof, when generally we don't either.

They think conspiracy theories are true. We think they are false. The truth could be somewhere in between.

Edited by walshie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stevo

They worked centuries ago the Earth was round just buy watching incoming tall ships on the horizon, you see the tops of the sails first ........

If the earth was flat the ship would just get bigger .

anyway why would the moon and the sun and all the other planets we can see through a telescope be round and just earth be flat haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walshie said:

Just saying, "more probable" doesn't equal proof or fact, so who are we to decry the loonies as having no proof, when generally we don't either

 

But that’s the point, probability is your friend.

When I say my mother is female, I don’t need to see her lady garden to claim that as a fact.

Saying that because I have not seen her lady bits first hand somehow undermines my position or gives credence to any counter argument that she is a man is just throwing BS at it.

Indeed, suggesting that the truth is somewhere between my stated position and the counter argument that my mother is a man, is just utter nonsense - and that is where all of these internet conspiracy theories are based.

Edited by Mungler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

 

But that’s the point, probability is your friend.

When I say my mother is female, I don’t need to see her lady garden to claim that as a fact.

Saying that because I have not seen her lady bits first hand somehow undermines my position or gives credence to any counter argument that she is a man is just throwing BS at it.

Indeed, suggesting that the truth is somewhere between my stated position and the counter argument that my mother is a man, is just utter nonsense - and that is where all of these internet conspiracy theories are based.

I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. I don't disagree with any of that. I'm saying probability isn't cast iron evidence. Not to mention the different levels of probability, from highly likely to just possible. I know my wife gave birth to my son so I'm 100% sure she is his mother. He is 100% sure she is too, but we might have adopted him, so his assumption based on probability would be incorrect.

By saying the truth is somewhere in between, I didn't mean in every case - like the earth is a bit flat and a bit round. :lol: I meant in the vast majority of cases of conspiracy theory, the official version is the most likely and the conspiracy theories thought up by whack-jobs. However as the internet is a breeding ground of countless implausible counter-theories we are inclined to poo-poo them all whereas among all that rubbish, there might be a genuine person with genuine proof.

I genuinely do not believe that 100% of these theories are wrong. 99% maybe, just not all.

Edited by walshie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...