Do ye really believe in these theories?

TheIrishGrover

Now I don't mean to troll or upset anybody. I am not a conspiracy theorist/believer.

I am genuienly interested: Do ye actually believe that Gates and Rockerfeller are trying to take over the world and wipe out hundreds of millions/billions? That giant lizard men are running the world? That there is a planet X in opposite orbit to ours and the government is hiding it for some reason? That the government is controlling us with mindwaves etc?

I don't mean to p*ss anyone off and am not trying to raise an argument. I don't want replies from non CT slagging them off. I'm not interested in being converted or anything, I'm just curious.

If the mods concider this a troll please delete it.

Nailz

I believe in some, but alot of them are pretty logical if you actually aquired thought to them.

bonkey

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I don't want replies from non CT slagging them off.

Everyone please note that this will be strictly enforced.

Equally, slagging off people for not believing will be treated the same.

If the mods concider this a troll please delete it.

Lets give it a chance and see where it ends up.

Highly Salami

you forgot chemtrails.

My name is URL

I don't believe in any of the theories you mentioned.. although it could be said that in a world controlled by money, that the richest of people have the most control.. I guess whatever intent they have on exercising that control is what theories are built on.

About 90% of the stuff posted here, I'd have no interest in. Even some of the stuff I don't believe in is quite interesting to read however, for the most part.. until the invariable bickering starts =p

I definitely wouldn't class myself as a conspiracy theorist, nor would I a skeptic. I just read the stuff I'm interested in and ignore the rest

Undergod

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Now I don't mean to troll or upset anybody. I am not a conspiracy theorist/believer.

I am genuienly interested: Do ye actually believe that Gates and Rockerfeller are trying to take over the world and wipe out hundreds of millions/billions? That giant lizard men are running the world? That there is a planet X in opposite orbit to ours and the government is hiding it for some reason? That the government is controlling us with mindwaves etc?

I don't mean to p*ss anyone off and am not trying to raise an argument. I don't want replies from non CT slagging them off. I'm not interested in being converted or anything, I'm just curious.

If the mods concider this a troll please delete it.

I don't believe most of what is posted here, because I find most of them lack evidence. If sufficient evidence were provided I would probably accept it.

I do think that the nature of power will mean people will conspire to keep their control, and that people will lie about things or attempt to cover up facts if it will benefit them. On the other hand, I think that backstabbing and betrayal and general conflict of interests makes any kind of NWO group highly unlikely.

To address the main thrust of your question; No. I reckon I'm generally seen as a skeptic in these parts.

Torakx

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Now I don't mean to troll or upset anybody. I am not a conspiracy theorist/believer.

I am genuienly interested: Do ye actually believe that Gates and Rockerfeller are trying to take over the world and wipe out hundreds of millions/billions? That giant lizard men are running the world? That there is a planet X in opposite orbit to ours and the government is hiding it for some reason? That the government is controlling us with mindwaves etc?

I don't mean to p*ss anyone off and am not trying to raise an argument. I don't want replies from non CT slagging them off. I'm not interested in being converted or anything, I'm just curious.

If the mods concider this a troll please delete it.

Some are more believable than others i guess.
If you are not sure about something why not investigate.
There are patents for micro radiation type weapons and devices for controlling human body responses for an example so i believe they could possibvly be built already and tested somewhere.
Its all relative to me.Depends whats going on and what makes one thing more likely than another.
I dont believe in a planet X just yet or for 2012 but that isnt to say there is not such a planet either.
A bit of research will find your answers.
Try starting with bill gates or rockefeller and work from there.

nullzero

I believe that as a species we know fvck all about anything, particularly with regard to our own history and origins. Information flow is mostly controlled by big media companies who obviously have an agenda of their own (what you believe that to be is at your own discression) so if we want to understand "truth" we have to wade through a lot of things ourselves. Entertaining a theory doesn't mean you believe it and follow it blindly. Even the best of theories can be disproven so you can be too attached to these things.
As for Lizard men ruling the world, well there's more evidence that lizard men rule the world than there is to suggest that Jesus Christ existed, it hasn't stopped millions of people believing in that idea has it?

uprising2

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Now I don't mean to troll or upset anybody. I am not a conspiracy theorist/believer.

I am genuienly interested: Do ye actually believe that Gates and Rockerfeller are trying to take over the world and wipe out hundreds of millions/billions? That giant lizard men are running the world? That there is a planet X in opposite orbit to ours and the government is hiding it for some reason? That the government is controlling us with mindwaves etc?

I don't mean to p*ss anyone off and am not trying to raise an argument. I don't want replies from non CT slagging them off. I'm not interested in being converted or anything, I'm just curious.

If the mods concider this a troll please delete it.

I dont believe in lizard people, but could be considered mad because I believe in God, the creator, I believe an evil force is at work behind the scenes, maybe google the freemasons and see what pops up, and please explain why their angels nave hooved feet?


These filth control it all, look into it and discover the truth, don't be afraid of the things this implies, accept it then fight it, strange as it sounds, it is strange, it's not normal, they create wars, control more than your willing to accept.

UFO's reptilian stuff doesnt hit my buttons, the CIA took out JFK, pope John Paul the first was murdered in 1978 after just 33 days in power, the vatican is run by satanist/paedophiles, Diana was assasinated on the orders of Prince Philip, notice the admiration they show in this pic, she was wanted for her bloodline because they inbreed, then didn't do as was wanted, flash bang, gone



9/11 was carried out by the US chickenhawk cowards, food is not produced to keep the hungry hungry, AIDS was made in good old US of A and given as a "vacination" in NY and east Africa. Green monkey theory is bolllox.

There's a few others I can't think of now, hollow earth etc don't cut it with me, no offence to believers, man hasn't gone to the moon, and fact is stranger than fiction.

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

These filth control it all

Except quality photoshop work, it would seem.

uprising2

alastair wrote: »

Except quality photoshop work, it would seem.

Yea would seem a lot of photoshoppers out there.









How long is photoshop out anyway?, I started with photoshop 5, now it's CS5, and why do these respectable gents photoshop their own sites with these hooved angels?, a little stange a logo for fine upstanding citizens don't you think.

'Presiding in the East',
'Worshipful Master' Kenny Noye...

The life of Kenneth Noye has been one of malevolence and corruption. It is an example of how someone eagerly embracing crime as a profession can accumulate enormous wealth and frightening power.
Detectives untangling his network of corruption now believe that at least one prominent MP was in his pay. </STRONG>
Such was the apprehension and nervousness created by the extent of Noye's corruption of the police that during the investigation into Stephen Cameron's murder officers were given around-the-clock protection from their colleagues. Others changed their telephone numbers. The Noye file on the case was restricted to less than a dozen senior officers.
In 1977 after being arrested by Scotland Yard for receiving stolen goods Noye joined the Hammersmith Freemason's Lodge in west London. He was proposed and seconded by two Police Officers. He eventually rose to be the Master of the Lodge with the support of the membership of which the Police made up a sizeable proportion. Other Masons included dealers in gold and other precious metals. A little while later Noye was being helped out of an arrest by a detective who was a fellow Mason.
One of Noye's police contacts was prepared to intervene on his behalf not just with fellow officers, but other law agencies. The detective approached a Customs officer investigating Noye in the early 80s and pressured him to "lay off". April 13, 2000
The Independent, U.K.
By Kim Sengupta and Paul Lashmar

I know kenneth noye is serving life now, but look into his criminal history and how much he simply got a slap on the wrist for

http://www.irish-freemasons.org/ Click here and rest assured I didn't photoshop that image/logo.

digme

I most definitely believe in
9/11 was the work of the us government and if you think otherwise I would question your intelligence.

Di0genes

digme wrote: »

I most definitely believe in
9/11 was the work of the us government and if you think otherwise I would question your intelligence.

Considering in the near decade since 9/11 not one single credible conspiracy theory about how the US government carried out 9/11, as been put forward.

Could you please enlighten us?

alastair

uprising2 wrote: »

Yea would seem a lot of photoshoppers out there.

Ehh - I was referring to the quality of the photoshop work in the Irish Grand Lodge image - not exactly world controlling stuff.

What's your problem with hooves on cherubs anyway? There's no documented 'correct' way to portray the idea of either angels or devils, and if you want to be pedantic, satan was an angel anyway, so there's no physical difference implied between the two. Hooves, tentacles, fit-flops, it's all different flavours of the same guff.

profitius

Why do I believe in CT's. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck. Some things are just obvious.

Its like a jigsaw. Look at 1 piece and it won't make much sense. Start putting all the pieces togethar and a picture starts to form.

There are some theories I don't believe in but I'll always have an open mind. If theres no evidence that they're wrong it would be ignorant of me to say they're wrong.

digme

Di0genes wrote: »

Considering in the near decade since 9/11 not one single credible conspiracy theory about how the US government carried out 9/11, as been put forward.

Could you please enlighten us?

It happened as you saw it on tv,nothing fancy about it really.

Undergod

Di0genes wrote: »

Considering in the near decade since 9/11 not one single credible conspiracy theory about how the US government carried out 9/11, as been put forward.

Could you please enlighten us?

In the interest of playing devil's advocate; the US government being behind the attacks doesn't require thermite, or controlled missiles, or holograms, or anything. The fact that planes flew into the targets doesn't stop the US government from being responsible.

bonkey

Digme infracted for ignoring my warning in post 3

Di0genes

Undergod wrote: »

In the interest of playing devil's advocate; the US government being behind the attacks doesn't require thermite, or controlled missiles, or holograms, or anything. The fact that planes flew into the targets doesn't stop the US government from being responsible.

And yet no credible evidence has been put forward to support this either.

old_aussie

I think there is a group of people trying to influence events to reduce the worlds population and at the same time keep themselves in a safety zone.

They would have to "play the game" in another country/continent by remote control from where they live.

Not sure what benefit it would be as they seem to have all the money they need already, not sure what they would gain by doing this.

Di0genes

old_aussie wrote: »

I think there is a group of people trying to influence events to reduce the worlds population and at the same time keep themselves in a safety zone.

They would have to "play the game" in another country/continent by remote control from where they live.

Not sure what benefit it would be as they seem to have all the money they need already, not sure what they would gain by doing this.

So you believe there's a sinister cabal trying to commit genocide, but you cannot figure out their motive or method?

bonkey

can we try and stay on topic please?

This isn't a "challenge what someone else believes" thread....its a question about whether or not people believe in the content posted here, and if so, what.

Yitzhak Rabin

I don't believe in 99% of the theories here.

However, I do think there is a grain in truth in a lot of them.

Say, the ones about the NWO controlling the world, eating babies, lizards etc. Clearly ridiculous. Absurd. IMO anyway. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I mean, the most powerful elite do conspire with each other at the tri-lateral commission, Bilderberg meetings etc. That is still a long way to go, to proving that there is something sinister going on. I would imagine, they meet in the same way as scientists from different fields meet to exchange research, make contacts and generally just brainstorm.

However, should our elected world leaders, policy makers, media moguls, banking elites, etc. allowed to hold these type our meetings in private? In one sense, its their right like everyone else's right to hold a private meeting, but then again, if these meetings are where the agenda is set, we should be allowed to know what happens.

Things like if 9/11 was an inside job. I highly doubt it. I would imagine, the closest that it could be to that, is that it may have been "allowed to happen" by some of the extreme right wing elements within the CIA. But even still I doubt that too, just would be willing to accept that fairly easily with evidence.

One thing I have come to see, and can't believe I never noticed before, is how hopelessly biased the 'mainstream news' can be. All you have to do is cycle through the news stations on sky from sky news through russia today, france 24, bbc, fox, cnn, press tv, and al jazeera to see how biased they all are. The same story can be reported completely differently depending on what the agenda of the station is. The flotilla attack was a prime example of this. I find the BBC and Channel 4 to be the most unbiased(still biased though).

So in a nutshell, I think that the NWO kinda exists, but its far less organised and sinister than alot of the theories here would have you believe.

Undergod

Di0genes wrote: »

And yet no credible evidence has been put forward to support this either.

That's a fair point. I just wanted to address the notion that disproving the former also disproves the latter.

profitius

The question I'd like to know is why are the skeptics so passionate in their views. Why are they interested in this forum at all.

Yitzhak Rabin

profitius wrote: »

The question I'd like to know is why are the skeptics so passionate in their views. Why are they interested in this forum at all.

Can't speak for the others, but

I am passionate about finding out the truth when it comes to almost every topic. Ct'ists don't have a monopoly on the word truth-seeker. I dislike when I see obvious mis truths being perpetuated. This is particularly the case when I see threads dismissing modern medicine out of hand. Or others that promote bogus cures, like spiritual healing, vitamin cures for cancer etc.

I think the question you should ask is why CT'ists get so indignant when their theories are questioned. I think, a lot of the time, its because deep down they know it is untrue. Anyone who is genuinely looking for the truth will welcome criticism. If there theory is truly correct, then criticism can only refine it and make it stronger.

Basically, I am passionate about these topics, because I am passionate about the truth, and do no like to see mis information being introduced.

Sea Sharp

As I see it, on one end of the spectrum we have people believing that America invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to spread peace and love in order to make the world a better place. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have people believing that some sort of evil lizard men villains are conspiring with the Jews to enslave humanity. Reality is somewhere in between and I like spending time figuring it out.
But no, I don't believe in any of the conspiracies mentioned in the OP.

joe12345

First of all I hate the word 'conspiracy theory' ...it's the new form of
predjudice IMO. Think something different from the 'norms' or the official
verison of anything and your a conspiracy theroist nut. I spent years
listening to the mainstream telling me one lie after another. I don'd watch
it anymore becuase of that, and personally I don't think i'm missing much.
There is very little what I would call 'proper journalism' ...where there is
independant research into these subjects. The UFO subject for example
is mostly made fun of and no journalist gives a crap to look any deeper
into it. :rolleyes: A lot of it not theory its fact. As as recommendation
try to get your hands on James Foxx's documentary 'I Know What I Saw'

It is my opinion that most average joe publics havent got much time to
research anything in detail so they rely on a few 30 second soundbytes
coming from their tv, as its all they have time for in the busy world we
live in. Most (not all) people who ridicule and diss a certain subject or
viewpoint have probably just spent less than 5 minutes looking into it.
They mostly say 'sur everyone knows that' because a certain line has
been repeated over and over until it's ingrained in the human physic of
the masses.

Look into a subject in detail before you make comment. Most of the
ridicule and dissing of alternate subjects is just a knee jerk reaction as
it is not inline with your belief system. Read the book 'The True Story of
The Bilderberg Group' by Danial Estulin' or 'Human Race Get Off Your Knees'
by David Icke. Read the books and then feel free to disagree but don't
just look up the open source 'wikipedia' for the official version of everything.


It's up for everyone to think for themselves and not just believe what
they are told. Look into the dangers of 'Aspartame' and 'Flouride' for
a start!

I have been studying these alternate subjects for years and I am 100%
convinced of the following to name a few:
1. the UFO phenomenon is very REAL
2. JFK was killed by a conspiracy
3. Their is a power elite that are guiding world affairs
4. The offical story of 9-11 is a fairytale

For anyone who goes along with the 'too many people need to be involved' line,
can I advise to look up 'compartmentalization'...

alastair

joe12345 wrote: »

For anyone who goes along with the 'too many people need to be involved' line, can I advise to look up 'compartmentalization'...

And while they're at it - 'Occam's Razor'.

Anyone that references David Icke as an authoritive source on anything is grasping at straws imo - but maybe that's just me.

nullzero

profitius wrote: »

The question I'd like to know is why are the skeptics so passionate in their views. Why are they interested in this forum at all.

Boredom perhaps?
I really couldn't care less if no one agreed with my views.
Some "skeptics" here seem to be quite the opposite in that regard, you know, beating you over the head until you agree with them.

nullzero

alastair wrote: »

And while they're at it - 'Occam's Razor'.

Anyone that references David Icke as an authoritive source on anything is grasping at straws imo - but maybe that's just me.

Occam's razor, quite a tired argument in regard to CT's don't you think? Occam's razor is fine in itself, you know if you hear a noise coming from the attic, it probably is just the timbers being affected by the temprature and not gremlins or ghosts.
Sometimes the simplest answer isn't the correct one, thats what we CT nut's are interested in.
If you're not interested, or you consider yourself too intelligent to even consider these ideas then perhaps this isn't the place for you.

Joshua Jones

Some of the best investigative journalism in the world takes place on forums like this one.

IMO- There's the official story and then there's the truth, rarely are they the same.

joe12345

alastair wrote: »

And while they're at it - 'Occam's Razor'.

Anyone that references David Icke as an authoritive source on anything is grasping at straws imo - but maybe that's just me.

Well I would have agreed with about Icke up until about 1 year ago...
but when I dared to looked deeper I found a very brave man who has
done a serious amount of research into his books which are incredibly
detailed. He's talks are sell-outs so I mustn't be the only person to think
this. He has a great sense of humour too and I feel his heart is in the
right place. Certainly far from nuts.

As for one of his (many) opinions regarding 'reptiles' from the fourth
dimension well I can just say 'i dont know' ... I am convinced that the
UFO phenomenon is real , so as to whether their secret military
technology or ETs - greys, repltiles or whoever else , I keep an open
mind ! Keep in mind that Icke isnt the only researcher who had advocated
the reptile theory.... John Rhodes for example is another. To think that
its a possibility you need to study the works of Zakariah Sitchin and
Erich Von Daniken, the ancient astronaut theory and understand who
or what were the 'annunaki'...:D

I am not one who always agrees with 'Occams Razor' for example if a
relationship breaks up and you hear one side of the story , its usually
a very small synopsis of the bigger picture .... in other words its probably
a lot more complicated and definitely not in line with occams razor!...

bonkey

One last warning....

People who start/continue making negative comments about "the other side" will be banned.

Bog Warrior

I'm not sure about a lot of these theories.

The thing that keeps bringing me back to such topics is my firm belief that the official 9/11 explanation was a pack of lies. I won't go into the evidence but the quality of analysis is improving with some excellent scholars working on the subject.
Many families, survivors, Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, Engineers and Architects, Pilots and Aviation Professionals question the official account :
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

The belief that the official 9/11 account is lies, opens up a can of worms

meglome

I can't think of any theory I've seen in here that added up to a hill of beans once looked at in detail. How many times do we hear something is happening in days, or weeks or in x year and so far not one of these things has come to pass, not even one. How many times have CT's been outlined without any evidence, without any real science but worse than that they often contradict each other. I may be seen as a sceptic but I'm really am willing to believe quite a lot of things if there is any evidence.

Like yekahs said too I hate to see some of the 'truth' that gets pushed in here. Some it makes no sense and doesn't stand up to even light scrutiny so it should be challenged. I think that every theory or submission by everyone in here should be challenged to show it's bona fides. I've been called names on a number of occasions for that approach but I couldn't care less as I'll never just blindly believe some stranger on the internet, more fool if you do. Even if that person is telling you something you suspect to be true, they still could be lying or bullshítting.

Did the US carry out 911? I very much doubt it and I've seen no evidence for that. Could they have turned a blind eye to it happening? possible but I've seen no evidence for that either. Was JFK killed by Oswald? Very likely. Would Oswald be a terrible person to use in a conspiracy? Yes. Did they go to the moon? Yes, there is lots of evidence.

I know that every media organisation will have some sort of bias, after-all they all have a target audience. That said some of the worst bias I have ever seen is what appears on many CT sites. CT sites are very liberal with this truth they proclaim so loudly they want which makes me very suspicious of their motives. I see them as no better or even worse than the likes of Fox News.

Diabhal Beag

To be honest I don't believe in a lot of conspiracies. I do believe that 9/11 has a bigger story behind it than what we are told.

Not all of it maybe true but they are still interesting to me. I love reading about NWO and the Illuminati.

I do hate how Jim Corr is looked down upon though by Irish media. It shows people aren't willing to think beyond the apparent truth.

joe12345

Did the US carry out 911?

Its not so much that IMO. Its the holes in the official story.
Im not talking about the loose change ****. There are a lot of
architects that question how those buildings fell. Too many things
dont add up to me such as how NORAD were so inept that day
and how building 7 fell. How witnesses heard explosions before
the planes hit...William Rodriguez for example....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi0bDy-6m3o

Was JFK killed by Oswald? Very likely. Would Oswald be a terrible person to use in a conspiracy? Yes.

There is a ton of evidence to show more than one gunman. Was Oswald
involved? almost certainly...Did he fire the fatal shot? Very doubtful.
There are at least half a dozen witnesses who specified behind the
picket fence in the grassy knoll was gunfire and smoke.
The testimonys of Holland, Hoffman,
Bowers, Arnold, Symmons, and Dodd are good enough for me.
Put it like this. Either someone fired a shot from behind that picket fence
or there was someone smoking one huge cigar behind that picket fence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpsDrzzGjfc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSQdnAcCbXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXJJsZs7LE

Did they go to the moon? Yes, there is lots of evidence.

Im not one who believes that we never went to the moon .

bonkey

joe12345 wrote: »

Its not so much that IMO. Its the holes in the official story.

Again, let me remind that this is not what we're discussing here.

Stay on topic please.

profitius

meglome wrote: »

Did the US carry out 911? I very much doubt it and I've seen no evidence for that.

Theres plenty of architects and demolition experts out there that believe the US did indeed carry it out.


So it raises another point. What is evidence for one person might not be for another.


Some people say the moon landing was fake. I disagree with those I think it happened. Reptilians, I find that hard to believe too but its not to say everything David Icke says is wrong.


One trend that is happening these days is the amount of people interested and believing in CT's. The world is getting so fcuked up its getting obvious that all is not right at the top.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

I can't think of any theory I've seen in here that added up to a hill of beans once looked at in detail. How many times do we hear something is happening in days, or weeks or in x year and so far not one of these things has come to pass, not even one. How many times have CT's been outlined without any evidence, without any real science but worse than that they often contradict each other. I may be seen as a sceptic but I'm really am willing to believe quite a lot of things if there is any evidence.

Like yekahs said too I hate to see some of the 'truth' that gets pushed in here. Some it makes no sense and doesn't stand up to even light scrutiny so it should be challenged. I think that every theory or submission by everyone in here should be challenged to show it's bona fides. I've been called names on a number of occasions for that approach but I couldn't care less as I'll never just blindly believe some stranger on the internet, more fool if you do. Even if that person is telling you something you suspect to be true, they still could be lying or bullshítting.

Did the US carry out 911? I very much doubt it and I've seen no evidence for that. Could they have turned a blind eye to it happening? possible but I've seen no evidence for that either. Was JFK killed by Oswald? Very likely. Would Oswald be a terrible person to use in a conspiracy? Yes. Did they go to the moon? Yes, there is lots of evidence.

I know that every media organisation will have some sort of bias, after-all they all have a target audience. That said some of the worst bias I have ever seen is what appears on many CT sites. CT sites are very liberal with this truth they proclaim so loudly they want which makes me very suspicious of their motives. I see them as no better or even worse than the likes of Fox News.

How does somebody saying something will happen on a certain day or in a certain year qualify as a conspiracy? That's more in the field of the supernatural or clairvoyance and I'm not sure how it relates to general CT discussion.
Anyone who analyses current affairs can make predictions based on cause and effect. Plenty of people had predicted that 9-11 would happen in or around the time it did, it doesn't make them clairvoyant or some sort of new age guru peddling BS to slack jawed morons who hang on their every word.

As for Ct's not using "real science", I'd agree that a lot of so called conspiracy research (especially on poorly made YouTube videos) is based on little more than opinion. However that doesn't extend to all conspiracy research. If you're going to discuss the world under the premise of nothing being how it seems, ie most or all institutions (political, religious, scientific etc...) all being corrupt then you can begin to see how a lot of CT's begin to make sense.
If you believe that everything is perfectly up front, that there is no hidden agenda and that all major scientific output is up front then you will obviously reach the conclusion that most conspiracies are the work of mad men.
I am assuming that this is the point of view you come from, therefore it's understandable that you would feel the way you do about these topics.

As for theories needing to be scrutinized, I agree with you there. However I feel that the approach taken in securitization is less than productive a lot of the time and it often descends into something that is more akin to bullying. We all have the right to hold beliefs that may not sit easily with others regardless of their more tangible merits or lack thereof.
I myself have been on the receiving end of this sort of abuse on this forum in the past and I find your assertion that you have been "called names" laughable in retrospect as you have often been guilty of such actions yourself. Why misrepresent yourself as some sort of moral arbiter when you yourself indulge in the dark arts of name calling and mud slinging?

As for blindly believing something said by someone on the internet? Well I take an interest in a lot of things, many of them out side the norm so to speak, that doesn't mean I believe everything blindly. By that token why should anyone believe what your saying?
People's beliefs and opinions are their own, as much as it might upset some people, we're all free to believe whatever we like, regardless of how illogical that may seem to some(religion anyone?).

I won't even attempt to discuss 9-11 with you. You're mind is made up and that’s your right, no point in clogging up another thread with the same old crap.
If you want to believe the Warren commission report regarding the Kennedy assassination then that’s your business also. I'm not one for beating people over the head until they agree with me.

As for the media. Regardless of how controlled mainstream media is, I find it laughable that you should cite CT websites as being more biased and less factual than mainstream media. People who look at CT sites go looking for them and are making a conscious decision about what they’re looking at. Mainstream media is beamed into almost everybody's homes on a daily basis, there's quite a disparity there I'm sure you'd agree. As for mainstream media having target audiences? We're all the target, all the news on all the channels regurgitates the same news from the same sources, I'm not even making a point about anything relating the CT's when I say that.

joe12345

nullzero wrote: »

How does somebody saying something will happen on a certain day or in a certain year qualify as a conspiracy? That's more in the field of the supernatural or clairvoyance and I'm not sure how it relates to general CT discussion.
Anyone who analyses current affairs can make predictions based on cause and effect. Plenty of people had predicted that 9-11 would happen in or around the time it did, it doesn't make them clairvoyant or some sort of new age guru peddling BS to slack jawed morons who hang on their every word.

As for Ct's not using "real science", I'd agree that a lot of so called conspiracy research (especially on poorly made YouTube videos) is based on little more than opinion. However that doesn't extend to all conspiracy research. If you're going to discuss the world under the premise of nothing being how it seems, ie most or all institutions (political, religious, scientific etc...) all being corrupt then you can begin to see how a lot of CT's begin to make sense.
If you believe that everything is perfectly up front, that there is no hidden agenda and that all major scientific output is up front then you will obviously reach the conclusion that most conspiracies are the work of mad men.
I am assuming that this is the point of view you come from, therefore it's understandable that you would feel the way you do about these topics.

As for theories needing to be scrutinized, I agree with you there. However I feel that the approach taken in securitization is less than productive a lot of the time and it often descends into something that is more akin to bullying. We all have the right to hold beliefs that may not sit easily with others regardless of their more tangible merits or lack thereof.
I myself have been on the receiving end of this sort of abuse on this forum in the past and I find your assertion that you have been "called names" laughable in retrospect as you have often been guilty of such actions yourself. Why misrepresent yourself as some sort of moral arbiter when you yourself indulge in the dark arts of name calling and mud slinging?

As for blindly believing something said by someone on the internet? Well I take an interest in a lot of things, many of them out side the norm so to speak, that doesn't mean I believe everything blindly. By that token why should anyone believe what your saying?
People's beliefs and opinions are their own, as much as it might upset some people, we're all free to believe whatever we like, regardless of how illogical that may seem to some(religion anyone?).

I won't even attempt to discuss 9-11 with you. You're mind is made up and that’s your right, no point in clogging up another thread with the same old crap.
If you want to believe the Warren commission report regarding the Kennedy assassination then that’s your business also. I'm not one for beating people over the head until they agree with me.

As for the media. Regardless of how controlled mainstream media is, I find it laughable that you should cite CT websites as being more biased and less factual than mainstream media. People who look at CT sites go looking for them and are making a conscious decision about what they’re looking at. Mainstream media is beamed into almost everybody's homes on a daily basis, there's quite a disparity there I'm sure you'd agree. As for mainstream media having target audiences? We're all the target, all the news on all the channels regurgitates the same news from the same sources, I'm not even making a point about anything relating the CT's when I say that.

Excellent post. The only thing i'd add regarding just beliving anything you
read on the internet 'blindly', for eveyone to check the source and
double check.....

plus not to be afraid to admit you are wrong. we are all human and can
be wrong. sometimes its human nature to hold fast to a point of view.
i am talking about both sides. at the end of the day differences of
opinion make the world go round

also remember that the wikipedia is a first - stop - shop for most people
regading anything. And it is open source and anyone can update it. its
not a valid source IMO. but yet so many people use it to look up alternate
take on events that are different to the norms. I know a few friends
of mine who at first were interested in some conspiracies but then looked
up the wiki and came back saying it was all explained nicely on the
wiki or it is just a theory.

the conspiracies menionted in the first post are the most far out and
personally i wouldnt believe any of them particular theories are true.

areu4real?

I don't post here but some of the ct's have elements of truth and that means the whole story is not being told. eg. UFO's,9/11,JFK. People can't help but ask questions when you see things like Bush's reaction when told about the planes or the fact that the buildings turned to dust in the collapse but an FBI agent found a passport in the rubble. Things like that make chins wag.
I'd rather be a bit paranoid and wrong most of the time than be completely naive and miss something important

reverenddave

old_aussie wrote: »

I think there is a group of people trying to influence events to reduce the worlds population and at the same time keep themselves in a safety zone.

Not sure what benefit it would be as they seem to have all the money they need already, not sure what they would gain by doing this.

it's not about just money. it's power, control, being on top if the 'pyramid'
or greed as some call it

daveyboy_1ie

alastair wrote: »

Anyone that references David Icke as an authoritive source on anything is grasping at straws imo - but maybe that's just me.

Whilst I disagree with a lot of his theories, you cannot dispute the fact he is a very well researched man, albeit one I find who makes a very healthy career out of alternative histories (I hate the CT term, its one deliberately used to class anyone who is not a sheep to the norm as a tinsel hat wearing, Elvis is alive believing nut job). What I don't believe is a lot of his theories and interpretations of events, however I admire his research and draw my own conclusions from them.

WakeUp

nullzero wrote: »

How does somebody saying something will happen on a certain day or in a certain year qualify as a conspiracy? That's more in the field of the supernatural or clairvoyance and I'm not sure how it relates to general CT discussion.
Anyone who analyses current affairs can make predictions based on cause and effect. Plenty of people had predicted that 9-11 would happen in or around the time it did, it doesn't make them clairvoyant or some sort of new age guru peddling BS to slack jawed morons who hang on their every word.

As for Ct's not using "real science", I'd agree that a lot of so called conspiracy research (especially on poorly made YouTube videos) is based on little more than opinion. However that doesn't extend to all conspiracy research. If you're going to discuss the world under the premise of nothing being how it seems, ie most or all institutions (political, religious, scientific etc...) all being corrupt then you can begin to see how a lot of CT's begin to make sense.
If you believe that everything is perfectly up front, that there is no hidden agenda and that all major scientific output is up front then you will obviously reach the conclusion that most conspiracies are the work of mad men.
I am assuming that this is the point of view you come from, therefore it's understandable that you would feel the way you do about these topics.

As for theories needing to be scrutinized, I agree with you there. However I feel that the approach taken in securitization is less than productive a lot of the time and it often descends into something that is more akin to bullying. We all have the right to hold beliefs that may not sit easily with others regardless of their more tangible merits or lack thereof.
I myself have been on the receiving end of this sort of abuse on this forum in the past and I find your assertion that you have been "called names" laughable in retrospect as you have often been guilty of such actions yourself. Why misrepresent yourself as some sort of moral arbiter when you yourself indulge in the dark arts of name calling and mud slinging?

As for blindly believing something said by someone on the internet? Well I take an interest in a lot of things, many of them out side the norm so to speak, that doesn't mean I believe everything blindly. By that token why should anyone believe what your saying?
People's beliefs and opinions are their own, as much as it might upset some people, we're all free to believe whatever we like, regardless of how illogical that may seem to some(religion anyone?).

I won't even attempt to discuss 9-11 with you. You're mind is made up and that’s your right, no point in clogging up another thread with the same old crap.
If you want to believe the Warren commission report regarding the Kennedy assassination then that’s your business also. I'm not one for beating people over the head until they agree with me.

As for the media. Regardless of how controlled mainstream media is, I find it laughable that you should cite CT websites as being more biased and less factual than mainstream media. People who look at CT sites go looking for them and are making a conscious decision about what they’re looking at. Mainstream media is beamed into almost everybody's homes on a daily basis, there's quite a disparity there I'm sure you'd agree. As for mainstream media having target audiences? We're all the target, all the news on all the channels regurgitates the same news from the same sources, I'm not even making a point about anything relating the CT's when I say that.

Just to second what Joe said thats an excellent post Null:)

nullzero

WakeUp wrote: »

Just to second what Joe said thats an excellent post Null:)

Thanks my friend, sadly it wasn't a sentiment echoed by the powers that be.

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

Thanks my friend, sadly it wasn't a sentiment echoed by the powers that be.

Sadly you didn't read the repeated warnings on what the thread was about. The thread should be about what you think on CT's not what you think about me.

Then maybe I've just done something similar.

WakeUp

I dont know if the Mod's have been pm-ing you or Null over that post or whatever Im not getting involved in that obviously is none of my business, but I do think he made some good points in general I have to say. Null not wanting to disucss certain things is between you and him but away from that I believe he has some very vaild points. Hardly worth falling out over either way.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

Sadly you didn't read the repeated warnings on what the thread was about. The thread should be about what you think on CT's not what you think about me.

Then maybe I've just done something similar.

Meglome, give it a rest. You had a go I had a go back, at least I'm intersted in discussing the topics in this forum on their merits and not just slagging them off.
You're hardly a beacon of morality yourself.
If you've got anything else to say to me use the PM function.

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

Meglome, give it a rest. You had a go I had a go back, at least I'm intersted in discussing the topics in this forum on their merits and not just slagging them off.
You're hardly a beacon of morality yourself.
If you've got anything else to say to me use the PM function.

You know I've really tried to ignore the shots you had at me, i really have. I haven't had any sort of 'go' at you whatsoever. I simply pointed out the fact that you made that response about what i said and less about what you thought about CT's generally.

I get so ****ing tired to listening to being told I'm just slagging off and not discussing. If I give my opinion on something I don't start to cry if someone disagrees with it, I don't assume they are paid to disagree with me, I don't call them sheeple etc. Some people need irony lessons.

If something makes no sense then it makes no sense. If something has no evidence then it has no evidence. I mean a weather control device that cannot be shown to work on the weather is then responsible for an earthquake that was expected on a known fault line... give me a ****ing break. There's a creative writing forum if people wanna tell a nice story that has no basis in reality but don't expect me to sit here and take it as fact, when it clearly isn't. And believe me I've noticed this is a conspiracy theory's forum but they should still make a lick of sense.

And the greatest irony is the people who shout loudest for the truth seem to want it the least.