What is your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Thread starter Badger Kitten
- Start date
- Status
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Azrael23 said:Can you give me a quote so I have some idea of what the hell your on about?
BTW editor your getting a little bit sad now....
Post 198, Bohemian Grove thread. Go read.
Azrael23 said:
But is Wikipedia?
If you don't recognise some of your own traits in that Wikipedia list (or in Donna Ferentes' list), then you're not just a conspiraloon, but a conspiraloon in denial ...
My 'favourite' conspiracy theory is the bundle of stories surrounding the sinking of the passenger steamer Lusitania by a U-boat in May 1915, with the loss of 1,200 lives.
Why was she sailing more slowly than ordered and not zigzagging in waters known to be infested with U-boats?
Why was there a 'second explosion' just after the torpedo hit her? Was this why she sank so quickly?
Just what was in her holds? Was her cargo all as declared, or were there munitions in there - as the German navy claimed afterwards?
Was she deliberately sacrificed - or risked - in the hope of bringing the United States into the war?
In point of fact, I don't believe most of the theories hold much water. Lusitania was taking risks, but that could just as easily be because of poor communications (a constant bugbear of British naval activity in WW1), ambiguous U-boat reports and complacency. There's no credible evidence there was anything volatile in her holds beyond a few shotgun cartridges as detailed on the cargo manifest. The 'second explosion' was most likely to have been a boiler or steampipe explosion, which would explain the clouds of steam reported by many survivors as having poured from the engine room vents. And several other ships of similar size to Lusitania sank equally quickly after hitting mines or being torpedoed: passenger steamers simply weren't designed to take the shock of a big explosion against the hull.
With the exception of the notion that she was deliberately risked in the hope of provoking a declaration of war from the US, although bringing the US into the war wasn't British government policy at the time, it seems to me that all of the conspiracy theories have been debunked. And yet, they keep being aired even now, 90 years after the sinking.
</random historical aside>
Why was she sailing more slowly than ordered and not zigzagging in waters known to be infested with U-boats?
Why was there a 'second explosion' just after the torpedo hit her? Was this why she sank so quickly?
Just what was in her holds? Was her cargo all as declared, or were there munitions in there - as the German navy claimed afterwards?
Was she deliberately sacrificed - or risked - in the hope of bringing the United States into the war?
In point of fact, I don't believe most of the theories hold much water. Lusitania was taking risks, but that could just as easily be because of poor communications (a constant bugbear of British naval activity in WW1), ambiguous U-boat reports and complacency. There's no credible evidence there was anything volatile in her holds beyond a few shotgun cartridges as detailed on the cargo manifest. The 'second explosion' was most likely to have been a boiler or steampipe explosion, which would explain the clouds of steam reported by many survivors as having poured from the engine room vents. And several other ships of similar size to Lusitania sank equally quickly after hitting mines or being torpedoed: passenger steamers simply weren't designed to take the shock of a big explosion against the hull.
With the exception of the notion that she was deliberately risked in the hope of provoking a declaration of war from the US, although bringing the US into the war wasn't British government policy at the time, it seems to me that all of the conspiracy theories have been debunked. And yet, they keep being aired even now, 90 years after the sinking.
</random historical aside>
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Well, some anti-semitic conspiracy theories are hilarious, especially when they involve lizards, paranormal powers, death rays, giant eyes and mind control. All the ingredients needed for an excellent and very entertaining theory 
Then there's the one about the Princess Alice which I found recently and is STILL being dredged up more than 150 years after it happened, and the one about the Titanic.
Historical conspiracy theories don't tend to work so well, but you'd be amazed how many people believe them...
As to the conspiracy theories I, myself, believe, well I have to admit to being sceptical about the official story of 9-11, (**runs**) and I also have my suspicions about the plane that was brought down in October and doubt it was an "accident" - it's more likely that it was a terrorist attack and they covered it up so the public weren't alarmed. I don't think that Diana died in an accident either, but I doubt that the royal family killed her or any bollocks like that - I think it's more to do with her campaigning with the landmine industry. and loads of others except I can't think of them all right now ...
I wouldnt call myself a "conspiracy theorist" though as I think the vast majority of theories out there are bollocks. I like making up my own
Then there's the one about the Princess Alice which I found recently and is STILL being dredged up more than 150 years after it happened, and the one about the Titanic. Historical conspiracy theories don't tend to work so well, but you'd be amazed how many people believe them...
As to the conspiracy theories I, myself, believe, well I have to admit to being sceptical about the official story of 9-11, (**runs**) and I also have my suspicions about the plane that was brought down in October and doubt it was an "accident" - it's more likely that it was a terrorist attack and they covered it up so the public weren't alarmed. I don't think that Diana died in an accident either, but I doubt that the royal family killed her or any bollocks like that - I think it's more to do with her campaigning with the landmine industry. and loads of others except I can't think of them all right now ...
I wouldnt call myself a "conspiracy theorist" though as I think the vast majority of theories out there are bollocks. I like making up my own
fractionMan
Custom Title
It's a conspiracy.Azrael23 said:I was supposed to be on question time.
They wouldn`t let me ask a question on the debt based credit creation system because it wasn`t in the news.....
Teepee
like livewire voodoo
AverageJoe said:
That one's true
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1470
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
ATOMIC SUPLEX
Member Since: 1985 Post Count: 3
Moon landing and lizards
Louloubelle
Well-Known Member
Today my favourite conspiracy is ...
That Amazon is run by a cartel of paedophile republicans.
The proof?
Well there is no proof of course
however, if you enter NAMBLA (as in north american boy love association) into Amazon search you'll find that they sell books by NAMBLA
If you enter House of Bush, House of Saud into amazon.co.uk you get nothing, even though the book is widely available on other internet sites.
Well actually you don't get nothing you get a list of unrelated books, the first one on (gasp) conspiracy theories
That Amazon is run by a cartel of paedophile republicans.
The proof?
Well there is no proof of course
however, if you enter NAMBLA (as in north american boy love association) into Amazon search you'll find that they sell books by NAMBLA
If you enter House of Bush, House of Saud into amazon.co.uk you get nothing, even though the book is widely available on other internet sites.
Well actually you don't get nothing you get a list of unrelated books, the first one on (gasp) conspiracy theories
Bomber said:Can't be arsed to read the whole thread so apologies if this a repeat, but I still love reading about the Kennedy assasination, surely something fishy went on there, I mean come on !!
In other words ...
"The Kennedy assassination, it just must have been dodgy, the established explanations were so dull and boring, the reality had to be so much more exciting, so I have decided that it was ..."
Best way to assess whether there's any validity whatsoever in an 'Alternative Version' : have a good look at which people and which websites are most active in proposing said theories.
If the people are clearly obsessive bonkers looncakes and the websites are prisonplanet, Vialls, Rense, or anything remotely similar,. then you can be pretty damned sure that the whole farrago is a complete load of bollocks
And if, on pointing this out, the CTer then reponds by calling you 'narrow minded' or by asking you 'have you actually READ all 37 of my disparate, subrelavant, random and various dodgy links? Well come on? HAVE YOU? Do the RESEARCH!!!!' or by accusing you of being a gullible dupe of establishment propoganda, then you have proof positive that your sceptical instincts were entirely correct ...
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
I was wondering if anyone knew how to overlay a map of those death camp things with a map of where the high population density of "migrant workers".
hmmm - maybe our "alarmists" are on to something here.
Disarming the local population has been covered = the minute men.
The plot thickens.
hmmm - maybe our "alarmists" are on to something here.
Disarming the local population has been covered = the minute men.
The plot thickens.
Relahni said:I like the one about 7/7.....
Something was rotten in Denmark because the Northern Line wasn't working well on that day!!!!!!!
Yup, Netenyahu was warned of the bombings before they even happened but not the UK public. No, even after the first bomb, we were told the first explosion was just a power surge.....
Meaning people were riding to their deaths when they could have been saved.
But its good to shut up right?
Teepee said:
Oooh don`t forget to mention sound cannons...
I love the non lethal weapons around.....The police are so nice to us thesedays.
Instead of beating you with a truncheon they just point a gizmo at you and you drop with massive brain-pain and vomiting.....yay....
Teepee
like livewire voodoo
Azrael23 said:Oooh don`t forget to mention sound cannons...
I love the non lethal weapons around.....The police are so nice to us thesedays.
Instead of beating you with a truncheon they just point a gizmo at you and you drop with massive brain-pain and vomiting.....yay....
It's got it's plus sides, less permanent damage if they address the burning cornea issue, and it wouldn't injure people as much as a battering with a truncheon. IMO, if deployed responsibly, it's a nice solution to crowds of rioting lunatics. Of course whether I trust the police to use it responsibly is a whole other issue. (I don't)
Azrael23 said:
Proof? Evidence? Which sites are 'proving' this? Do they also talk about 'Zionist' conspiracies?
(I shouldn't have to say this, but. I'm no particular fan of the policies of the stsate of Israel. Still, I might be able to recognise a dodgy agenda -- are you testing this 'Netenayhu knew!' theory against the people who are promulgating it, and THEIR possible agenda?)
Questions on this :
1. Exactly how long for was the 'power surge' line (which I do remember) maintained in BBC and other reports, before these were changed to reflecting that there was a bomb? Who fed them that line? Any idea? For what reason? Why did that reason cease to be valid later, when the story was changed? Have you documented the exact timelines? Has anyone else? Where?
2. Was this power surge story publicised after the first bomb, or did it continue to be publicised after the others as well?
3. Was that period long enough to stop people getting onto tubes that were not yet affected, but were later?
4. How did Transport for London know that there were going to be other bombs? Did they know? Were they in on the 'conspiracy'? What 'conspiracy'?
5. At exactly what stage were relavant parts of the tube network closed down?
6. Exactly why are you ascribing sinister/conspiranoid motives to what could very easily have been a result of chaos/confusion/some misplaced wish (somewhere) to avoid generating unnecessary excess panic? Is it because you WANT there to have been a conspiracy?
I'm asking questions. Have you asked them? Why aren't you asking them? Might it be because the answers (or even the questions!) might be inconvenient to your assumptions? What ARE your assumptions?
(And please don't pretend you're not making any, that you're just 'openmindedly' asking questions, because I won't believe you)
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying ....
Exhibit A in Conspiraloon Logic : come out with a speculative one liner suggesting a possible conspiracy, unspecified, then, before people have even started to respond to this with the doubt/questions/scepticism/requests for expansion/evidence/reasons for the suggestion that you undoubtedly anticipate, accuse them in advance of colluding with a cover up!!
Way to go on the persuasiveness front ....
Do you ever wonder about the REAL reasons why so many sceptics greet your speculative theories with such impatience?
No doubt it's because 'we' are 'all' gullible dupes of establishment propaganda ...
When CTers like you start asking questions of your own CTs that are equally sceptical and questioning (clue : the ones I ask above might be a good guide) to the ones you are so eager to ask of the 'official' versions, and when you start treating the sources you probably favour with as much scepticism as you treat the 'official' ones, then a little -- just a little -- more notice might be taken of you.
Unless you can come up with something with more proof, that's more evidence backed, that's more sceptical of your own theory, that's less insultingly accusatory of anyone who doesn't fall in line with your theories, then the answer is ...
YES!!!
Conspiracy Theorists -- arrogant wankers! 
Errr the FACT that Netenyahu was warned before the bombs went off wasn`t gleaned from a zionist website but from this strange device known as a newspaper.
See you may like to tell me all my evidence comes from propagandised websites but thats just a lie.
A LIE.....
It was in various papers following 7/7 that prominent people had been warned beforehand.
Get your facts right you condescending fool.
BTW how much of this rhetoric-filled semantically driven tripe do you plan to post. REFER TO MY SOURCES, QUESTION MY SOURCES. If i`ve misinterpreted an article say so, if you think i`m being selective about what someone said in an interview, say so.
But don`t gimme verbal abuse because you don`t know how to respond in a real debate. Your just lowering yourself my friend. The post directly above is a brilliant example of why no one should think your opinion is any less "loon" than mine. Look at you, frothing at the mouth like a rabid stoat....its PATHETIC.
See you may like to tell me all my evidence comes from propagandised websites but thats just a lie.
A LIE.....
It was in various papers following 7/7 that prominent people had been warned beforehand.
Get your facts right you condescending fool.
BTW how much of this rhetoric-filled semantically driven tripe do you plan to post. REFER TO MY SOURCES, QUESTION MY SOURCES. If i`ve misinterpreted an article say so, if you think i`m being selective about what someone said in an interview, say so.
But don`t gimme verbal abuse because you don`t know how to respond in a real debate. Your just lowering yourself my friend. The post directly above is a brilliant example of why no one should think your opinion is any less "loon" than mine. Look at you, frothing at the mouth like a rabid stoat....its PATHETIC.
Azrael23 said:
No different from many conspiracists' assumptions that sceptics are gullible propoganda swallowers. Not so VERY different from your somewhat condescending question 'But it's good to shut up right?'
I was asking, not assuming. I was understandably SCEPTICAL about my source (you) given that you provided no links ... You can't deny that there are some CTs around that are based on ultra-ANTI-Zionism of the World Conspiracy type. Not that I'm saying you're in this category, and not that I'm a Zionist myself at all, indeed I'm rationalist-anti if anything, but you get what I'm saying - see frogwoman's posts (just for example!) for examples.
Surprise me with a link or two ...
And my answers to my other questions? Shall I condescend to you with the suggestion that you just MIGHT be conveniently ignoring them?
Your trackrecord around this forum scarcely helps your credibility here ... just putting up an unsubstantiated, unlinked couple of lines suggesting all sorts but substantiating nothing, followed by the sneer 'But it's good to shut up right?' isn't helping you is it?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
Azrael23 said:Oooh don`t forget to mention sound cannons...
I love the non lethal weapons around.....The police are so nice to us thesedays.
Instead of beating you with a truncheon they just point a gizmo at you and you drop with massive brain-pain and vomiting.....yay....
When have they ever been used in the UK?
- Status
Similar threads
