The illuminati

[amateur]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Can anyone point to a conspiracy theory that has latterly been found to be true?

Oh, but THEY would never tell you if it were true

[Scully]

24 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Can anyone point to a conspiracy theory that has latterly been found to be true?

I'm itching to say yes, but none of those I have in mind are definitive. Do we regard the WMD claims by Bush and Blair as a conspiracy? 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

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 
Edit, for your perusal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6s0Gam54mk

 

I'm not intending to ridicule at all, as I can understand your reluctance to accept 2. but do you not think the Russians would have been all over this like a rash, given the 'space race' between the two countries at the time? Weren't the Russians the first to put someone into space ( Yuri Gargarin ) and bring him back alive? The yanks didn't cast doubt on that, they simply upped their game. 

Concorde was built in the 1960's, an event some say that the Americans regarded as in the same league as putting a man in space. Apparently we've lost the technology (or the will ) to do that again.

Regarding 3. It is claimed structural engineers don't know how the pyramids were built, yet there they are. 

[Mungler]

Scully, Re: WMD - No, and for this reason (borrowed from elsewhere):

“Let's pick the WMD one at random. There WAS solid evidence Saddam had WMDs, so that's a link to A truth. As it happened, solid evidence or not, he didn't. Oops. But he had to be tackled, hence the use of A truth. But it wasn't THE truth. Because what we think of as WMDs are scary never used nerve agents or nukes, not aged mustard gas weapons, which is what they were, wrongly but genuinely, convinced he had.

So there was an elastic (it turned out to be incorrect) link to A truth (which is not the same as THE truth).  

There is something to be gleaned, normally, in what a western government says. In this case it was valueless, because they were wrong, but at least you could see what they actually thought, and if you saw through the obfuscation (Mustard gas is not terrifying nerve agent) you could see the flaw in the argument.

Compare and contrast with Putin's insisrance there were no Russian troops in the Crimea, and him handing them out medals a few weeks later. It was BS. No link in any way to the truth, no shame in the lie. Anything the Russians say is valueless because it is so unconnected to the truth.”

Edited April 16, 2018 by Mungler

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Can anyone point to a conspiracy theory that has latterly been found to be true?

https://www.rd.com/culture/conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true/

These aren't particularly good examples to be fair, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the Kuwaiti incubator babies story, are good examples of government and media 'misdirection' to create the desired mindset within the public. 

Mk ultra which people used to think was quite laughable, turned out to be true. 

The problem you have when trying to 'prove' a conspiracy theory is what you will accept as proof. Mungler gave a good example with his 'mother' hypothesis, he knows full well his mother is female, but... 

Do you? If you know and trust Mungler to tell the truth, no problem with his assertion. But what if I tell you different, and you don't know me from Adam? 

Obviously you won't be asking Mungler or his mother for proof, and you will dismiss me as a lunatic! 

You trust authority, government, and to an extent media, you generally 'go will the flow' so when someone comes out with an outlandish theory, you are automatically sceptical. 

Even if I give you a convincing piece of evidence and explain the whys and wherefores, you will still not want to believe, as it goes against mainstream thinking. 

https://www.livescience.com/56479-americans-believe-conspiracy-theories.html

There was probably a time when some things seemed outlandish, take the EU being hell bent on becoming a federal superstate for example, but now seem not so much? 

[Gordon R]

Quote

My tin foil hat is on , please feel free to ridicule away 

I am now ridiculing.  It must have been the US Government who rigged the towers with explosives and conspired with the plane hi-jackers to obligingly fly them into the towers. For every engineer that says it was a put up job, there are far more who are in touch with reality. I don't recall many pre-incident live tests (complete with fuel packed jets) to check what the collapse rate would be.

I genuinely worry about the sanity of people who see a conspiracy everywhere, it must be an unpleasant alternative world that they live in.

 

[Mungler]

Gordon, couldn’t agree more.

Those conspiracy examples offered are terrible and they are not true conspiracy theories because there was no real attempt to cover the truth ie no real conspiracy (except for the Woodrow Wilson one where the circumstances weren’t even created for the purposes of subterfuge ie it’s not that anyone caused the President to have a stroke with the objective of placing his wife in charge).

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Mungler

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Scully said:

I'm not intending to ridicule at all, as I can understand your reluctance to accept 2. but do you not think the Russians would have been all over this like a rash, given the 'space race' between the two countries at the time? Weren't the Russians the first to put someone into space ( Yuri Gargarin ) and bring him back alive? The yanks didn't cast doubt on that, they simply upped their game. 

Concorde was built in the 1960's, an event some say that the Americans regarded as in the same league as putting a man in space. Apparently we've lost the technology (or the will ) to do that again.

Regarding 3. It is claimed structural engineers don't know how the pyramids were built, yet there they are. 

Like I say, the moon is not something I'm sure of, I'll give them the benefit if the doubt on that one 

But 9/11, yes I see the pyramid thing, but when you have one plane (being piloted by someone who could barely fly a Cessna) perform a virtual barrel roll, then fly it at 400 mph at 15 ft into the side of the pentagon, leaving a hole the size of Cessna, and virtually no debris, you have to ask some questions. 

4 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

I am now ridiculing.  It must have been the US Government who rigged the towers with explosives and conspired with the plane hi-jackers to obligingly fly them into the towers. For every engineer that says it was a put up job, there are far more who are in touch with reality. I don't recall many pre-incident live tests (complete with fuel packed jets) to check what the collapse rate would be.

I genuinely worry about the sanity of people who see a conspiracy everywhere, it must be an unpleasant alternative world that they live in.

 

I certainly don't see them everywhere, I just tend to question everything, I still manage to lead a normal life ect  the problem is, to rig those buildings for demolition would have took WEEKS. 

So if building 7 was blown up, there's a high probability 1 and 2 were too, or you can think they just fell down because all the high grade steal supports all melted, even though its been proven, there was no way this could happen. 

10 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Those examples are terrible and they are not true conspiracy theories because there was no real attempt to cover the truth ie no real conspiracy (except for the Woodrow Wilson one where the circumstances weren’t even created for the purposes of subterfuge ie it’s not that anyone caused the President to have a stroke with the objective of placing his wife in charge).

 

I did say they weren't great. 

At the end of the day, I don't go about my daily business thinking about all this kind of stuff, it won't help to know, or not to know the truth. 

And most people think I'm reasonably sane, I just find it interesting. 

[Scully]

25 minutes ago, Mungler said:

Scully, Re: WMD - No, and for this reason (borrowed from elsewhere):

“Let's pick the WMD one at random. There WAS solid evidence Saddam had WMDs, so that's a link to A truth. As it happened, solid evidence or not, he didn't. Oops. But he had to be tackled, hence the use of A truth. But it wasn't THE truth. Because what we think of as WMDs are scary never used nerve agents or nukes, not aged mustard gas weapons, which is what they were, wrongly but genuinely, convinced he had.

So there was an elastic (it turned out to be incorrect) link to A truth (which is not the same as THE truth).  

There is something to be gleaned, normally, in what a western government says. In this case it was valueless, because they were wrong, but at least you could see what they actually thought, and if you saw through the obfuscation (Mustard gas is not terrifying nerve agent) you could see the flaw in the argument.

Compare and contrast with Putin's insisrance there were no Russian troops in the Crimea, and him handing them out medals a few weeks later. It was BS. No link in any way to the truth, no shame in the lie. Anything the Russians say is valueless because it is so unconnected to the truth.”

Fair enough. I didn't know whether it was regarded as a conspiracy or not. 

[Scully]

I think the only conspiracy theory that truly fascinates me are those surrounding the assassination of JFK, but I don't lose sleep over it.  

[Rewulf]

52 minutes ago, Scully said:

I think the only conspiracy theory that truly fascinates me are those surrounding the assassination of JFK, but I don't lose sleep over it.  

Exactly! 

We aren't going to DO anything about it, so no point getting uptight about it. 

But it is a strange one is JFK, 3 shots, 2 on target, at 80 yards moving target , from a bolt action rifle, from a man with virtually no training. Try it on a static target in that time. 

[PPP]

Brilliant discussion, I like the jfk point rewulft but then if you had witnessed me shooting clays you would realise that flooks do happen..

im in no doubt that the media and various political and financial leaders share with all of us plebs the information in an effort to make us think what they wish us to think in order that we act as they wish, more so since the advent of social media

i don’t buy that the earth is flat, but equally I struggle to buy the idea of the moon landings when the ‘evidence’ Is so poor and looks like a TV studio.

Equally I don’t buy that Dr David hung himself because I’m sure Blair and cronies never ever told the truth..

i don’t know enough about 9/11 to have a view, but I hope it was at the hands of Bin Laden rather than anything else.

I don’t think that people need to be blind sheep or crack pot loonies, I would like to hope that people are free to make their own minds up, but to be derided by one or other is a a basic control mechanism.

Edited April 17, 2018 by PPP

[JDog]

Mungler, your intellect has left me way behind on this one. 

[Mungler]

It’s all a matter of probability.

Take the Twin Towers for example, the various conspiracies that have been put forward are just so incredible; they would require the involvement of hundreds of people, financing, equipment and the organisational skills of a crack squad of 50 Fred Dibnahs. To suggest that would go unnoticed given that all counties spy on one another and intercept communication chatter and moreover people inherently are always the weakest link.

Similarly if the moon landings were faked one would have thought that the Russians (who at the height of the Cold War were in a race with the Yanks) would have put the balloon up.

Probability is your friend. When the words of a you tube conspiracy blogger who is best mates with David Ike are accepted over probability then that’s just bonkers.

But hey, we’ve all watched and enjoyed the X-files and a bit of 24, we welcome and enjoy a juicy conspiracy.

[Thunderbird]

A lot of the reason why people take refuge in conspiracy theories is that it means they don't have to handle the uncomfortable truth that bad things happen, there isn't a lot we can do to prevent it, and that when Governments intervene in situations the outcome is hardly ever what they expected or wanted. 

Perhaps for many it's easier to blame some global conspiracy than accept the (often bleak) realities of life. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Thunderbird

[TIGHTCHOKE]

8 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

A lot of the reason why people take refuge in conspiracy theories is that it means they don't have to handle the uncomfortable truth that bad things happen, there isn't a lot we can do to prevent it, and that when Governments intervene in situations the outcome is hardly ever what they expected or wanted. 

Perhaps for many it's easier to blame some global conspiracy than accept the (often bleak) realities of life. 

That sums it up nicely.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

A lot of the reason why people take refuge in conspiracy theories is that it means they don't have to handle the uncomfortable truth that bad things happen, there isn't a lot we can do to prevent it, and that when Governments intervene in situations the outcome is hardly ever what they expected or wanted. 

Perhaps for many it's easier to blame some global conspiracy than accept the (often bleak) realities of life. 

You could just as easily turn that round and say, most people dont believe conspiracies because they cant handle the uncomfortable truth that their government ,their leaders, the people elected and paid to 'look after them' are not acting within their best interests ,and often lie to them.
I always find it interesting that some who accuse the government of lying about one thing, flat out refuse to believe they may be lying about something else.
Its a trust issue, a liar is a liar.

I will reiterate this again, it doesnt matter, because not one of us is going to get up and do something about it.
There was a large 'truther' movement in the States, mostly made up of friends and relatives of the dead and injured in the 9/11 attack, who were extremely unhappy with the official story, and pursued answers, they got no where, why would anyone else ?

[Thunderbird]

I'm not saying that Governments don't lie and that the official story is always the truth, but then the official story sometimes is the truth, even given that Governments lie, or at best act on what they persuaded themselves to believe was 'a' truth at the time. 

The moon landings are a case in point. The high probability that at least one individual would have blown the gaff in all the decades afterwards (even without taking the USSR angle into account) is much greater than the chances of the whole thing actually being a conspiracy. 

[sierra 11]

" But it is a strange one is JFK, 3 shots, 2 on target, at 80 yards moving target , from a bolt action rifle, from a man with virtually no training. Try it on a static target in that time. 

" There is no way to precisely know what Oswald's shooting skills were like in November of 1963, but his history shows that he had acquired very strong shooting skills with a rifle.

The Marines - as Mike mentioned - had three qualifications for rifle proficiency: Marksman (190 to 209 points), Sharpshooter (210 to 219 points) and Expert (220 to 250 points). In December of 1956, Oswald scored 212 points on a test...two points over the "Sharpshooter" minimum and eight points short of "expert." In earning that score, he hit 48 of 50, then 49 of 50, in shots taken at a target 200 yards away. Later, in 1959, he qualified as a "Marksman."

[Scully]

Personally I think most people are indifferent to conspiracy theories, thankfully. They’re not daft; they may have their suspicions that they are being lied to but simply don’t care. There’s nothing they can do about it, and they’re far too busy getting on with their own lives to find the time to be concerned about things they have no power to change, influence or stop. 

We’ve all witnessed war ravaged cities etc etc via which ever news media we choose to view, but the fact is that there’s not a lot we as individuals can do about it, so we shake our heads and despair, and then we cherish our loved ones; thank our lucky stars it isn’t us, lose a little more faith in humankind and politicians in particular,  and then get on with our lives. And who’s to say that isn’t as it should be? 

The only time I sit up and take notice beyond indifference, is when I think it will effect me or mine. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Scully

[Rewulf]

8 minutes ago, sierra 11 said:

" But it is a strange one is JFK, 3 shots, 2 on target, at 80 yards moving target , from a bolt action rifle, from a man with virtually no training. Try it on a static target in that time. 

" There is no way to precisely know what Oswald's shooting skills were like in November of 1963, but his history shows that he had acquired very strong shooting skills with a rifle.

The Marines - as Mike mentioned - had three qualifications for rifle proficiency: Marksman (190 to 209 points), Sharpshooter (210 to 219 points) and Expert (220 to 250 points). In December of 1956, Oswald scored 212 points on a test...two points over the "Sharpshooter" minimum and eight points short of "expert." In earning that score, he hit 48 of 50, then 49 of 50, in shots taken at a target 200 yards away. Later, in 1959, he qualified as a "Marksman."

I can tell you what his shooting skills  were like in 1963 ,pretty poor !

Edwin Walker assassination attempt

Main article: John F. Kennedy assassination rifle

In March 1963, Oswald used the alias "A. Hidell" to make a mail-order purchase of a secondhand 6.5 mm caliber Carcano rifle for $29.95.^[79] He also purchased a .38 Smith & Wesson Model 10 revolver by the same method.^[80] On April 10, 1963, Oswald attempted to kill retired U.S. Major General Edwin Walker. He fired the Carcano rifle at Walker through a window from less than 100 feet (30 m) away as Walker sat at a desk in his Dallas home. The bullet struck the window-frame and Walker's only injuries were bullet fragments to the forearm.^[81] The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations stated that the "evidence strongly suggested" that Oswald carried out the shooting.^[82]

General Walker was an outspoken anti-communist, segregationist, and member of the John Birch Society. In 1961, Walker had been relieved of his command of the 24th Division of the U.S. Army in West Germany for distributing right-wing literature to his troops.^[83][84] Walker's later actions in opposition to racial integration at the University of Mississippi led to his arrest on insurrection, seditious conspiracy, and other charges. He was temporarily held in a mental institution on orders from President Kennedy's brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, but a grand jury refused to indict him.^[85]

Marina Oswald testified that her husband told her that he traveled by bus to General Walker's house and shot at Walker with his rifle.^[86][87] She said that Oswald considered Walker to be the leader of a "fascist organization."^[88] A note Oswald left for Marina on the night of the attempt, telling her what to do if he did not return, was not found until ten days after the Kennedy assassination.^{[89][90][91][92]}

Before the Kennedy assassination, Dallas police had no suspects in the Walker shooting,^[93] but Oswald's involvement was suspected within hours of his arrest following the assassination.^[94] The Walker bullet was too damaged to run conclusive ballistics studies on it,^[95] but neutron activation analysis later showed that it was "extremely likely" that it was made by the same manufacturer and for the same rifle make as the two bullets which later struck Kennedy.^{[n 7]}

3 minutes ago, Scully said:

Personally I think most people are indifferent to conspiracy theories, thankfully. They’re not daft; they may have their suspicions that they are being lied to but simply don’t care. There’s nothing they can do about it, and they’re far too busy getting on with their own lives to find the time to be concerned about things they have no power to change, influence or stop. 

We’ve all witnessed war ravaged cities etc etc via which ever news media we choose to view, but the fact is that there’s not a lot we as individuals can do about it, so we shake our heads and despair, and then we cherish our loved ones; thank our lucky stars it isn’t us, lose a little more faith in humankind and politicians in particular,  and then get on with our lives. And who’s to say that isn’t as it should be? 

Exactly 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Rewulf

[Thunderbird]

There are real conspiracies mind, and they're hardly hidden, and many Governments are complicit, either because they agree or because they think it will make them popular. 

For example,  certainly in Western democracies, the radical 'social justice warrior' left wants to control language and thought (for example bill C16 in Canada, in the case of compelled speech, and the law society in the same place being forced to make law firms admit to institutional racism, in the case of 'group guilt' with no real basis), and if it got it's way would ban free speech and neutralise any dissenting voice and those that give them a platform. 

The thing to watch for is when anyone appends the word 'phobic' to another word and then accuses you of it. 

Here's how it goes; 

1. Of course free speech is OK, but not hate speech. Everyone OK with that?

2. Yes. 

3. Here is the new list of what we are now calling hate speech... 

4. Oops. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Thunderbird

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Thunderbird said:

There are real conspiracies mind, and they're hardly hidden, and many Governments are complicit, either because they agree or because they think it will make them popular. 

For example,  certainly in Western democracies, the radical 'social justice warrior' left wants to control language and thought (for example bill C16 in Canada, in the case of compelled speech, and the law society in the same place being forced to make law firms admit to institutional racism, in the case of 'group guilt' with no real basis), and if it got it's way would ban free speech and neutralise any dissenting voice and those that give them a platform. 

The thing to watch for is when anyone appends the word 'phobic' to another word and then accuses you of it. 

Here's how it goes; 

1. Of course free speech is OK, but not hate speech. Everyone OK with that?

2. Yes. 

3. Here is the new list of what we are now calling hate speech... 

4. Oops. 

Whether they are hidden, or not hidden ,I dont think there are any governments who actually CARE about who is 'woke' 
Because ,quite rightly, they know full well we are going to do nothing about it.

And what you say about free speech is absolutely correct, its that little bit of erosion at a time ,so you dont notice it.
Eventually we will have a world totalitarian society, its not if ,its when.
The best bit is, unless you are old enough to remember, we will not even notice the difference.

[39TDS]

14 hours ago, Rewulf said:

But it is a strange one is JFK, 3 shots, 2 on target, at 80 yards moving target , from a bolt action rifle, from a man with virtually no training. Try it on a static target in that time. 

 Many reports of long range shots by newbies appear on this very site yet rarely are they believed. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Rewulf]

33 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

 Many reports of long range shots by newbies appear on this very site yet rarely are they believed. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Of course it doesnt, it also doesnt mean they can do it all the time either.

Try it, set up a 12 inch target at 80 yards,  scope on 4xmag ,8 seconds , see how many you can put on target, then imagine it moving.
Its not impossible, its just improbable.