Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Bill Gates Conspiracy

1235

Comments

  • #122
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    event 201 predicted 65 million deaths. have we had 65 million deaths?

    That's one of the few differences between the actual pandemic and the simulated one.


  • #123
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    none more so than the one you posted with the Max Headroom editing.

    Fair enough. You're right. I didn't realise that the clip was taken out of context.


  • #124
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    That's one of the few differences between the actual pandemic and the simulated one.

    s o not identical then. how many points of difference are required before you can no longer say that event 201 predicted Covd19?


  • #125
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    s o not identical then. how many points of difference are required before you can no longer say that event 201 predicted Covd19?

    I'm not saying Event 201 predicted it. But Mike Ryan practising saying 'this is the new normal' during Event 201 is worrying.


  • #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Politifact, for example, is owned by the Poynter Institute, which has received substantial funding from Google and the Gates' Foundation.
    Ok. So that's one, according to you and if we accept that as true.

    Is that the only one?
    If not, which others?
    Dionaibh wrote: »
    I'm not saying Event 201 predicted it. But Mike Ryan practising saying 'this is the new normal' during Event 201 is worrying.
    So then what are you saying that this Event 201 did?
    How does it show a conspiracy?


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok. So that's one, according to you and if we accept that as true.

    Is that the only one?
    If not, which others?


    So then what are you saying that this Event 201 did?
    How does it show a conspiracy?

    they used the phrase "new normal" is what it seems to boil down to.


  • #128
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    I'm not saying Event 201 predicted it. But Mike Ryan practising saying 'this is the new normal' during Event 201 is worrying.

    He's not practising anything. Use your head. He's just continuing to use information gained during a simulation.


  • #129
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Major news media reliable? Considering Gates funds most of the media trying to find any reference to Event 201 in MSM is impossible.

    This is blatant nonsense. There is plenty of reference to this and the many other simulations.


  • #130
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Major news media reliable? Considering Gates funds most of the media trying to find any reference to Event 201 in MSM is impossible.

    The Gates Foundation raises awareness of issues by funding journalism and studies on certain issues e.g. poverty in Africa, or helping train journalists to cover those matter or funding specials on those particular issues.

    So if you open up the e.g. Guardian newspaper, you may find an editorial on page 15 on vaccines developments in some poor country that was funded by the Gates foundation.

    So no, he's not "controlling the media". It's even more absurd to suggest that news and current affairs from countless credible outlets around the world are "unreliable" due to him.


  • #131
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    ...So if you open up the e.g. Guardian newspaper, you may find an editorial on page 15 on vaccines developments in some poor country that was funded by the Gates foundation.

    So no, he's not "controlling the media". It's even more absurd to suggest that news and current affairs from countless credible outlets around the world are "unreliable" due to him.

    Agree, the Guardian for a change did/does have a wide range of topical stories on the various Gates-funded projects, e.g. here is one of theirs from a couple of years ago.

    Remote-controlled contraceptive microchip could launch by 2018
    Developed by researchers at MIT {gates funded}, the 'digital pill' 'implant' could revolutionise birth control, allowing women to switch hormones on and off at the touch of a button

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018
    It's an interesting story on the topic of population/fertility control, wouldn't however fancy placing 16yrs worth of a remote control hormone drug reservoir under anyone's skin however.
    The chip is implanted under the skin and releases small doses of the contraceptive hormone levonorgestrel on a daily basis, with enough capacity to last 16 years

    To be fair the population of Africa is set to double by 2050, so may well need some direct intervention of family planning, don't think this particular project took off for the 500million females there as intended.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    r439z5ifwt8soq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭r439z5ifwt8soq


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    That's one of the few differences between the actual pandemic and the simulated one.

    There are many similarities and many differences between that event and what actually happened. It would help to read these things with a mind to form an objective view, instead of reading it in order to make it fit the narrative you're subscribed to.


  • #133
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Heidi Defeated Barber wrote: »
    Agree, the Guardian for a change did/does have a wide range of topical stories on the various Gates-funded projects, e.g. here is one of theirs from a couple of years ago.

    Remote-controlled contraceptive microchip could launch by 2018
    Developed by researchers at MIT {gates funded}, the 'digital pill' 'implant' could revolutionise birth control, allowing women to switch hormones on and off at the touch of a button

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018
    It's an interesting story on the topic of population/fertility control, wouldn't however fancy placing 16yrs worth of a remote control hormone drug reservoir under anyone's skin however.



    To be fair the population of Africa is set to double by 2050, so may well need some direct intervention of family planning, don't think this particular project took off for the 500million females there as intended.

    what is the conspiracy?


  • #134
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Heidi Defeated Barber wrote: »
    Agree, the Guardian for a change did/does have a wide range of topical stories on the various Gates-funded projects, e.g. here is one of theirs from a couple of years ago.

    Remote-controlled contraceptive microchip could launch by 2018
    Developed by researchers at MIT {gates funded}, the 'digital pill' 'implant' could revolutionise birth control, allowing women to switch hormones on and off at the touch of a button

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2014/jul/11/design-futures-remote-controlled-contraceptive-microchip-launch-by-2018
    It's an interesting story on the topic of population/fertility control, wouldn't however fancy placing 16yrs worth of a remote control hormone drug reservoir under anyone's skin however.

    And what's your point? what's the conspiracy?

    The purpose of that thing is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, nothing nefarious. It just does so in a technological way. If it became available, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't.


  • #135
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,102 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And what's your point? what's the conspiracy?

    The purpose of that thing is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, nothing nefarious. It just does so in a technological way. If it became available, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't.

    135 posts in and the closest we have come to a conspiracy is that he smiled in an interview


  • #136
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    And what's your point? what's the conspiracy?

    The purpose of that thing is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, nothing nefarious. It just does so in a technological way. If it became available, maybe people would use it, maybe they wouldn't.
    And what is your point?
    I was simply agreeing with your point, that the Guardian isn't bad all the times, and sometimes gives an interesting perspective.

    Somewhat agree with you, the concept of a remote-controlled contraceptive implanted microchip storing an embodiment of 16yrs worth of hormones sounds fine if a localised population is deemed to be spiraling out of control, sure what could go wrong?


  • #137
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Heidi Defeated Barber wrote: »
    Somewhat agree with you, the concept of a remote-controlled contraceptive implanted microchip storing an embodiment of 16yrs worth of hormones sounds fine if a localised population is deemed to be spiraling out of control, sure what could go wrong?

    What could go wrong?

    Let's say the tech exists, has passed all the trials, etc and women can go to a GP and get the procedure

    What nefarious thing is going to happen according to you?


  • #138
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    What could go wrong?
    Can't see anything going wrong* with this Gates funded remote-controlled contraceptive implanted microchip, storing (in this embodiment), 16yrs worth of hormones to prevent fertility.

    (*IF), very large scale, long duration (e.g. 16yr product lifespan) trials take place, and these prove there is zero risk to long term health or sterility.

    What according to you, are any potential nefarious things with such a project?
    If none, you clearly reckon there is zero risk.


    Bear in mind this implant was planned for 500million, and for 2018 (without any 16yr duration trials), but was pulled for some strange reason.

    Of course various female operations such as silicone breast implants or vaginal mesh surgery were all trialled and certified safe, but yet strangely seem to be making headlines of late.


  • #139
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,747 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Heidi Defeated Barber wrote: »
    Somewhat agree with you, the concept of a remote-controlled contraceptive implanted microchip storing an embodiment of 16yrs worth of hormones sounds fine if a localised population is deemed to be spiraling out of control, sure what could go wrong?

    Anything we use or eat or take has risk, whether it's water, aspirin, a burger, whatever. When it comes to medical stuff, risk can be relatively higher, which is why we have medical trials, tests, etc.

    You however are on a conspiracy forum, and you often suggest at some nefarious conspiracy behind these things, without saying what it is, a bizarre "on the fence" stance.

    In this case, with this tech, and what you have written above, explain what you think the conspiracy or nefarious thing you keep hinting at is? and how is that linked to Bill Gates?

    If you can't detail what you keep alluding to, it's just mindless paranoia.


  • #140
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Anything we use or eat or take has risk, whether it's water, aspirin, a burger, whatever. When it comes to medical stuff, risk can be relatively higher, which is why we have medical trials, tests, etc.

    You however are on a conspiracy forum, and you often suggest at some nefarious conspiracy behind these things, without saying what it is, a bizarre "on the fence" stance.

    In this case, with this tech, and what you have written above, explain what you think the conspiracy or nefarious thing you keep hinting at is? and how is that linked to Bill Gates?

    If you can't detail what you keep alluding to, it's just mindless paranoia.

    Its the CT equivalent of saying the name "Bill Gates" followed up with a wink and a nudge.


  • #141
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    runawaybishop wrote: »
    He's not practising anything. Use your head. He's just continuing to use information gained during a simulation.

    He practised saying it during Event 201 and has carried on saying it.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    135 posts in and the closest we have come to a conspiracy is that he smiled in an interview

    But you left out the bit about him smiling and smirking after saying 'the next one will get people's attention".

    If I said "there's going to be a gigantic earthquake next week" and then smiled and smirked after saying it, would you find it a bit perturbing?


  • #143
    r439z5ifwt8soq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭r439z5ifwt8soq


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    He practised saying it during Event 201 and has carried on saying it.

    So he used something he learned through a training exercise in real life?


  • #144
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    But you left out the bit about him smiling and smirking after saying 'the next one will get people's attention".

    If I said "there's going to be a gigantic earthquake next week" and then smiled and smirked after saying it, would you find it a bit perturbing?

    Thats all you have, body language:pac:

    This has to be the most stupid evidence for a conspiracy that I have ever seen and believe me, I never thought the massive magic mirror that survived the twin towers falling would ever be beaten but you sir have taken that baton and gone into a very clear lead :D


  • #145
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Thats all you have, body language:pac:

    This has to be the most stupid evidence for a conspiracy that I have ever seen and believe me, I never thought the massive magic mirror that survived the twin towers falling would ever be beaten but you sir have taken that baton and gone into a very clear lead :D

    But I never said it was evidence of anything. I just said that it perturbed me.


  • #146
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Douglas Gifted Flashlight wrote: »
    So he used something he learned through a training exercise in real life?

    Could be. But all the world leaders started saying it in March.


  • #147
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    But I never said it was evidence of anything. I just said that it perturbed me.

    People smiling perturb you?


  • #148
    Dionaibh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 734 ✭✭✭Dionaibh


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    People smiling perturb you?

    Two very powerful people smiling after saying that the next pandemic would get people's attention perturbed me.


  • #149
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    But I never said it was evidence of anything. I just said that it perturbed me.

    Stop being facetious. You deliberately brought it up here as part of your conspiracy theory.


  • #150
    runawaybishop
    Registered Users Posts: 9,499 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    He practised saying it during Event 201 and has carried on saying it.

    Isn't that the point of a simulation? To learn and apply that learning to real events


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,396 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dionaibh wrote: »
    Two very powerful people smiling after saying that the next pandemic would get people's attention perturbed me.

    You're easily "perturbed" so.


Advertisement