Of course you won’t answer the question.
You are arguing about the lab leak theory but won’t say what you believe it to be.
That position has no credibility.
Lol dodging questions again. I won't bother answering yours.
Maybe don't accuse people of your own actions. It doesn't help your case of why you conspiracy theorists should be consider credible.
What do you understand the lab leak theory to be because you seem confused or deliberately misrepresentative.
You jumped into this thread accusing me of claiming the virus came from a pangolin.
Did conspiracy theorists claim that the virus was artificially created or deliberately released?
Is this a conspiracy theory? Is it credible?
No. What was not ridiculed as conspiracy theory is not what is being stated by the FBI.
The FBI is not suggesting the virus is man made. They are not stating that the virus was released on purpose. They are not suggesting that the virus is part of a plot to push vaccines.
Do you agree that all of these claims are false and should be dismissed? Are those credible conspiracy theories?
You do this all the time. Tell other posters what they are claiming with no evidence.
The king of straw men!
It might be not your recollection.
How so? How do you define the lab leak theory?
So you are claiming that no conspiracy theorists on this forum were claiming that the virus was artificially created or deliberately released?
What was that about gaslighting?
Also notice how not a single attempt is being made to explaining the contradiction? Why is that you think?
Seems like you're gaslighting people by claiming they are gaslighting.
Have you not seen the "covid 19 was man made" thread??
I don't know all the variations of conspiracies there are. It's how long is a piece of string question.
You're too fixated putting people into boxes you don't realize you've put yourself in that same box.
This is a complete rewriting of what actually happened.
The jury's still out on the origin of the virus. It's not the slam dunk you think it is. That's not saying it's definitely from a lab either. That's simply saying we don't know. Even the scientists are still arguing about it.
It is gaslighting by some people who ridiculed the idea that the pandemic started as the result of an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
No the two different versions of lab leak did not get equally ridiculed.
Just the version based on accident and China made it difficult to investigate wasn't the version being pushed. When people were referring to a lab leak and using terms such as China virus they are meaning some big nefarious scheme to have set the virus free deliberately.
Unless they explicitly stated something along the lines of "accidental release of naturally occurring virus". Nobody was ridiculing the idea of an accident happening.
I actually quoted you directly stating what the conspiracy was.
Or did you just fail to mention the other options because it didnt suited your narrowminded groupthink narrative ?
I never claimed those where the only conspiracy theories. That goal post is in your head.
The mind boggles
Its a CT on its own.. Its what happens in group think .... They are just the other side of the same coin
What statement? It's just describing some of the conspiracies.
Problem is that both theories got ridiculed to the same extend ... What is happening now, as is evidently shown in the last few posts is shifting the goalposts claiming the only conspiracy theory was the second option in your posts regarding the bio weapon.
Do you agree that what is stated as most likely by US officials and law enforcement got ridiculed as CT nonsnense not so long ago ?
I think some people genuinely believe that believing the lab leak theory equals belief in deliberate release of a man made bio weapon.
No you stated "The conspiracy was that it was deliberately set off from a lab, possibly from the us and planted in China. Or set off from China deliberately."
I pointed out with examples that your statement was complete waffle.
Someone could simply have been paid off or threatened to influence the case.
I didn't say it was made in a lab I said theres a lab near by. We don't know the origins as the investigation was delayed and deliberately frustrated. Nothing in this comment contradicts mine.
But you only heard what you wanted you wanted to hear.
Per Wikipedia, Marks (great story, hadn't heard of him), was acquitted of drug smuggling the first time, and got a light sentence for false passports. Eventually the US Government got ahold of him and he got more serious time for smuggling.
What's interesting is that the Jury believed Marks was working with MI6, but at the time of his trial he'd not worked with them (by whatever definition he used) for nearly 10 years. So, I'd say Marks and his lawyers duped the Jury, though who knows what instructions they were given and what they believed.
No. Again, misrepresentation of people's stances. Completely unfair and a total mischaracterisation.
A conspiracy theory is credible if it's suggesting something reasonable, makes logical, consistent sense and can stand up to at least a basic level of questioning.
We don't need the FBI to know it likely came from where it started. That there's a lab near by. That its in police state that deliberately made investigating it impossible. Those are the known facts.
There were multiple theories doing the rounds regarding the CT that covid came from a lab.
a 2 seconds Google search came up with this
So stop moving the goalposts and do your research before posting nonsense
It seems to me that the basic stance of a lot of regulars here is that a conspiracy theory is not 'credible' until after it has been definitively proved. Is that fair or is it a mischaracterisation? If so, its basically saying there are no credible conspiracy theories, as long as they are still at the theory stage.
My credible conspiracy theory is that when you see a judge hand down no sentence for a serious crime, and the Guards are as baffled as the victim's family, there's a chance the guilty person is an intelligence asset in some cases. The drug smuggler Howard Marks was acquitted of drug charges in 1981 in England after the jury was told he was an MI5 agent.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
