Do ye really believe in these theories?

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.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

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

nail/head.

nullzero

meglome wrote: »

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.

I never said you had a go at me personally, I was talking about how you refered the people who take an interest in CT's. I aplogise if you feel I've offended you, but to be fair, after two days since since you lasted posted in this thread you came back quoting me having a go at some back seat modding in the process.

I know I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record, but if you've got such a problem with these theories why do you expend so much energy discussing them?
We all know they don't stand up when viewed through conventional logic and that so obvious it's hardly worth pointing out.

As you mentioned, there is a creative writing forum, there is also a sceptics forum, far be it from me to tell people which forums to post in.
I cant get my head around certain topics and those who believe in them (religion being my primary annoyance), but I don't take it upon myself to become a keyboard warrior in the war against other peoples differing beliefs.

I don't for one minute believe that everyone should agree with each other, I do however think that subjects should be discussed on merit as oppossed to whether or not they hold water.

As I said before if you've got a problem with me send me a PM instead of clogging the thread with this tit for tat crap.

profitius

meglome wrote: »

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.

Calling people sheeple isn't an insult. Its a funny word to describe the masses of people who are easily led.

meglome

nullzero wrote: »

I never said you had a go at me personally, I was talking about how you refered the people who take an interest in CT's. I aplogise if you feel I've offended you, but to be fair, after two days since since you lasted posted in this thread you came back quoting me having a go at some back seat modding in the process.

Again i didn't have a go at you whatsoever, although i hold up my hand on some potential back seat modding.

nullzero wrote: »

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

You seemed to feel hard done by when there had been repeated warnings not to do what you did. I simply pointed that out to you.

profitius wrote: »

Calling people sheeple isn't an insult. Its a funny word to describe the masses of people who are easily led.

So are we now saying 'funny' words for CT'ers are acceptable in here too? Cause I don't seem to recall them being acceptable to CT'ers before.

alastair

profitius wrote: »

Calling people sheeple isn't an insult. Its a funny word to describe the masses of people who are easily led.

:rolleyes:

When I ask if you're wearing your tinfoil hat, at least I'm being honest about the insult. Are you, by the way?

mcmoustache

profitius wrote: »

Calling people sheeple isn't an insult. Its a funny word to describe the masses of people who are easily led.

Like people who are easily lead by the nonsense of David Icke or Alex Jones?

profitius

mcmoustache wrote: »

Like people who are easily lead by the nonsense of David Icke or Alex Jones?

The difference is those people don't follow the crowds and actually think for themselves usually.

TalkieWalkie

A mere 33 conspiracy theories that came true, the likes of Alex Jones, David Icke warned about..

[URL="http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx"]http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx[/URL]

And you didn't even know it was a theory :rolleyes:

Go back to sleep...

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

A mere 33 conspiracy theories that came true, the likes of Alex Jones, David Icke warned about..

[URL="http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx"]http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx[/URL]

And you didn't even know it was a theory :rolleyes:

Go back to sleep...

Wow - the NWO 'turned out to be true'?! Stop the presses! :rolleyes:

And Bohemian Grove is a real rich oul' lads club in the forest? That's some proven conspiracy there!

The usual CT quality control on facts and supposition at play - what a surprise.

I also note that neither Alex Jones or David Icke feature in any sense in exposing those conspiracies that were actual, rather than imagined. Anyone got any evidence of either man actually exposing anything of proven value over their years of venting, or is hot air their sole stock in trade?

FREETV

Take a look at www.watcherfiles.com www. disclose.tv http://ufos-aliens-proof-evidence.50webs.com/best-ufo-quotes.html

I will believe it when I see it! Is it more utter s###e? You decide for yourselves. In your opinion is there anything to disclose? Are these ideas/theories/facts delusional or are people quoted on these sites out to make a fast buck?