Conspiracy Theories

[Redapplecigz]

It’s illogical how many people tend to dismiss conspiracy theories just because they are theories.

The word “conspiracy” just means that 2 or more people conspired together to do something…but people always try to misconstrue the definition as meaning something like “some improbable theory with no substantial evidence”… which is not what it means at all.

Sure, some are ridiculous but There are also many conspiracy theories out there that are true.

Is it really so hard to believe that people Would conspire to screw other people over for their own political or financial gain ????

Say it ain’t so !

[Citizen Rules]

Most of the 'tin foil hat' conspiracies are fueled by people who are driven by their overwhelming: paranoia, fear & mistrust of governmental authority, that then causes them to buy into their own self-made belief system, which comforts them in the same way religion comforts millions. It's all about the need to believe, not logical reasoning.

[Yoda]

It’s illogical how many people tend to dismiss conspiracy theories just because they are theories.
While I'm sure some people dismiss conspiracy theories for that reason, I think most skepticism is simply a common sense demand for evidence commensurate with the size of the claim(s).

It's also illogical how, when asked for evidence, many conspiracy theorists will spend time simply trying to establish a general distrust for authority, as if that transfers cleanly to completely different times and situations.

The word “conspiracy” just means that 2 or more people conspired together to do something…but people always try to misconstrue the definition as meaning something like “some improbable theory with no substantial evidence”… which is not what it means at all.
The dictionary definition of "conspiracy" does not enhance our understanding here, since I've yet to hear anyone posit a conspiracy on the Internet that involved just two people. Making out that this is the actual threshold is a clear example of motte-and-bailey.

Is it really so hard to believe that people Would conspire to screw other people over for their own political or financial gain ????
No, that's not the part that's hard to believe, and if you actually think this is the question I'd have to wonder if you've ever really heard a decent counterargument to this stuff. The objection is usually about the implausibility of those same people successfully keeping those efforts secret over long periods of time.

[CringeFest]

I think the CIA purposely throws out all the ridiculous crap (90% of the theories) to discredit all the legitimate ones. After all, they weaponized that word after the JFK assassination. But it works, and the "tin-foil" baloney. Has anyone ever seen someone with a "tin-foil hat"? I doubt it. Does anyone really think only ONE guy can take over a country (Guatemala, Iran in the 50s for example)? It's impossible. I'm sure there are a lot of things done by one guy, but nothing major.


i think that people in the pentagon and defence related ministries have been purposefully doing that with recent "UFO" footage, but i think for the most part you are full of crap (no offense...), you underestimate the human imagination. For example, reptilians were invented by a couple and people and a fairly harmless cult.


I tend to believe that UFO's are always explainable given enough time and questioning. Sorry to believers: but an alien spacecraft visiting earth is astromically improbably. If humans can only launch spacecrafts that travel at 16,000 mph through space, then it becomes hard to fathom how some alien creature can create machines that travelers at thousands of lightyears. This is not a commentary on how smart we are, this is a commentary on how difficult achieving that type of velocity actually is. Everything is theoretically possible, but i don't think that our species will ever be living on other planets. In a few thousand years, it might be possible to terraform mars given enough effort by NASA and SpaceX (in theory all we would have to do is pump greenhouse gases into the mars atmosphere), but i find it unlikely that the laws of physics are going to let our technology get that advanced.

[Flicker]

I know that I am the last human on Earth. None of you is fooling me.

[Captain Steel]

Anyone want to discuss the conspiracy theories behind "Chuck Cunningham" - the oldest brother on Happy Days?

Why did he disappear? Why was he never mentioned again as if he'd never existed? Was he killed in the early days of the Viet Nam war? Was he a KGB agent? Why were two different actors needed to play a character that was ultimately just deleted as if he'd never existed?

Was he part of an illuminati cabal wherein he hooked up with "Mike Douglas" - the oldest brother on My Three Sons who just disappeared after allegedly getting married and was never spoken of again (after youngest "brother" Ernie was adopted to keep the title accurate) as if he too had never existed?

;)

[Sedai]

In a few thousand years, it might be possible to terraform mars given enough effort by NASA and SpaceX (in theory all we would have to do is pump greenhouse gases into the mars atmosphere), but i find it unlikely that the laws of physics are going to let our technology get that advanced.

How will the laws of physics throttle this particular advance? I understand the argument when it comes to near-light speed travel etc., but terraforming seems much more in our reach, and a far bit sooner than 1,000 years from now...

[CringeFest]

How will the laws of physics throttle this particular advance? I understand the argument when it comes to near-light speed travel etc., but terraforming seems much more in our reach, and a far bit sooner than 1,000 years from now...


If NASA and private interest really wanted to do it, they could, but they dont.


Beyond space travel in terms of time, it's a resource intensive process. I just dont think terraforming Mars will ever happen, the current space program is way behind making something like this possible.

[Sedai]

If NASA and private interest really wanted to do it, they could, but they dont.


Beyond space travel in terms of time, it's a resource intensive process. I just dont think terraforming Mars will ever happen, the current space program is way behind making something like this possible.

So, it's more economic as opposed to the laws of physics? That was my question. I was curious as to how physics was erecting some sort of insurmountable wall re: terraforming.

[CringeFest]

So, it's more economic as opposed to the laws of physics? That was my question. I was curious as to how physics was erecting some sort of insurmountable wall re: terraforming.


To me, physics has a lot to do with what people are capable of doing. Human activity is such that we will likely prevent ourselves from even stepping foot on Mars, in my opinion.

[matt72582]

i think that people in the pentagon and defence related ministries have been purposefully doing that with recent "UFO" footage, but i think for the most part you are full of crap (no offense...), you underestimate the human imagination. For example, reptilians were invented by a couple and people and a fairly harmless cult.


I tend to believe that UFO's are always explainable given enough time and questioning. Sorry to believers: but an alien spacecraft visiting earth is astromically improbably. If humans can only launch spacecrafts that travel at 16,000 mph through space, then it becomes hard to fathom how some alien creature can create machines that travelers at thousands of lightyears. This is not a commentary on how smart we are, this is a commentary on how difficult achieving that type of velocity actually is. Everything is theoretically possible, but i don't think that our species will ever be living on other planets. In a few thousand years, it might be possible to terraform mars given enough effort by NASA and SpaceX (in theory all we would have to do is pump greenhouse gases into the mars atmosphere), but i find it unlikely that the laws of physics are going to let our technology get that advanced.




Your response is not only full of it, but it has nothing to do with what I said..

[Redapplecigz]

Look into the Laurel Canyon conspiracy.,.

Jim Morrison’s father was the rear Admiral of the ship that was involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. True story. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

The same Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a proven false flag operation which led to America’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

Yes that’s right. A US ship attacked a Vietnamese ship unjustly without provocation breaking the law and murdering innocent Vietnamese people.

So if Jim Morrison’s father was knowingly involved in a highly sensitive false flag operation what else could he be involved in?

Well many high ranking officials of thUS military FBI, CIA, etc. all lived in Laurel Canyon during the 1960s.

It just so happens that the children of the military/national defence from Laurel Canyon became famous musicians during that time period…including Jim Morrison.

And guess what one of the military Air defence locations doubled as?… a recording studio.

So during a time period where the anti-war movement was on the rise powered by young Americans…would it make sense for the Military war machine to put its own operatives into the music industry which was influencing young hippies to combat the anti-war/ peace and love hippy movement ?

Makes sense to me.

[Yoda]

It "makes sense" in the sense that there's a (very) rough A-to-B syllogism quality to it, but that's not the only way to judge whether a thing has happened.

Regardless, if I try to engage with someone on the facts for a bit and they talk right past it, particularly to just talk about other conspiracies, that's usually a big red flag.

[Flicker]

Look into the Laurel Canyon conspiracy.,.

Jim Morrison’s father was the rear Admiral of the ship that was involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. True story. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

The same Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a proven false flag operation which led to America’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

Yes that’s right. A US ship attacked a Vietnamese ship unjustly without provocation breaking the law and murdering innocent Vietnamese people.

So if Jim Morrison’s father was knowingly involved in a highly sensitive false flag operation what else could he be involved in?

Well many high ranking officials of thUS military FBI, CIA, etc. all lived in Laurel Canyon during the 1960s.

It just so happens that the children of the military/national defence from Laurel Canyon became famous musicians during that time period…including Jim Morrison.

And guess what one of the military Air defence locations doubled as?… a recording studio.

So during a time period where the anti-war movement was on the rise powered by young Americans…would it make sense for the Military war machine to put its own operatives into the music industry which was influencing young hippies to combat the anti-war/ peace and love hippy movement ?

Makes sense to me.

They wouldn't have done all that without leaving at least a clue on a banknote.

[Jinnistan]

Yes, Jim Morrison likely did exactly what his father told him to do.

[Redapplecigz]

Yes, Jim Morrison likely did exactly what his father told him to do.

If your father told you you could be a rich & famous rockstar who gets to sleep with lots of women, wouldn’t you?

[Jinnistan]

I think the CIA purposely throws out all the ridiculous crap (90% of the theories) to discredit all the legitimate ones.
There's some pretty credible evidence that the Loose Change doc was pushed by CIA.

[Jinnistan]

If your father told you you could be a rich & famous rockstar who gets to sleep with lots of women, wouldn’t you?
I dunno. Jim was a pretty good looking dude who could sing well. I guess we'll never know.

[Yoda]

If your father told you you could be a rich & famous rockstar who gets to sleep with lots of women, wouldn’t you?
Weird that you just leave off the cost of this. Gotta imagine that'd give some people pause. But, regardless, you have perfectly demonstrated what I just said:

It "makes sense" in the sense that there's a (very) rough A-to-B syllogism quality to it, but that's not the only way to judge whether a thing has happened.
Also, let's apply conspiracy logic back on the conspiracy itself: is it just a coincidence that his son happened to be super talented and handsome?

[Redapplecigz]

It "makes sense" in the sense that there's a (very) rough A-to-B syllogism quality to it, but that's not the only way to judge whether a thing has happened.

Regardless, if I try to engage with someone on the facts for a bit and they talk right past it, particularly to just talk about other conspiracies, that's usually a big red flag.

I find it amusing how someone who is such a big Eyes Wide Shut fan is so strongly anti-conspiracy…

Doesn’t that contradiction bother you at all?

Makes me curious to your background. Seems like something is influencing your belief system beyond the simple “always trust the official narrative” approach.

I suppose you believe that Mandy died from an OD and the cult are all upstanding members of society!

That Kool Aid must taste good.

[Captain Steel]

I find it amusing how someone who is such a big Eyes Wide Shut fan is so strongly anti-conspiracy…

Doesn’t that contradiction bother you at all?

Makes me curious to your background. Seems like something is influencing your belief system beyond the simple “always trust the official narrative” approach.

I suppose you believe that Mandy died from an OD and the cult are all upstanding members of society!

That Kool Aid must taste good.

I can't speak for Yoda, but I have a feeling he might say, "Eyes Wide Shut is just a movie." ;)

[Redapplecigz]

I can't speak for Yoda, but I have a feeling he might say, "Eyes Wide Shut is just a movie." ;)

My thoughts exactly!

He seems strongly anti-conspiracy even when the facts are presented to him. If a UFO landed in front of him he would probably say “that’s CGI”.

I’m interested as to what his thoughts are on the cult.

[Flicker]

He seems strongly anti-conspiracy even when the facts are presented to him. If a UFO landed in front of him he would probably say “that’s CGI”.

Wait, you equate "Eyes Wide Shut is just a movie" with "the UFO landing in front of me is CGI" ?

You... know that Eyes Wide Shut is a movie, right ?

[Yoda]

I find it amusing how someone who is such a big Eyes Wide Shut fan is so strongly anti-conspiracy…

Doesn’t that contradiction bother you at all?
No, mostly because it's obviously not a contradiction at all. In fact, I think it's a suggestion of incredible confusion to think it is. Where to begin?

First, I'm not a fan of the film. I just enjoyed analyzing it.

Second, even if I were a fan of the film, being a fan of a film in no way implies belief in anything it depicts. I'm a fan of The Avengers, too, but if you told me the government was hiding a Tesseract, I wouldn't believe you.

Third, the film depicts one particular conspiracy, and is in no way a stand-in for belief in all conspiracies. The one it depicts is also a lot less far-fetched than the ones being floated right now, too.

I could go on, but this should be sufficient.

Makes me curious to your background.
My grandfather was an assassin and my father works for the Pentagon and the company I work for is a shell corporation called They, Inc. Why do you ask?

Seems like something is influencing your belief system beyond the simple “always trust the official narrative” approach.
And why does it "[seem] like" that? Merely because I've been skeptical of your claims. That's the only information you have here, after all. That makes this a good example of how, despite ostensibly requiring an open-minded, some conspiracy theorists actually have to be incredibly close-minded to function in these exchanges: like being unable to imagine any disagreement that isn't the result of some sinister outside influence.

(Also, that's not how truth works. I could be completely compromised or outright brainwashed, and the argument would still have merit, or not, independent of the source.)

That Kool Aid must taste good.
Common misconception, it's actually Crystal Light.

[Redapplecigz]

You... know that Eyes Wide Shut is a movie, right ?

No, you’re right. I’m sure it’s just a movie and none of that could possibly happen in real life.

….and Harvey Weinstein was just a film producer.

[Jinnistan]

and Harvey Weinstein was just a film producer.
Masturbating to a scared woman behind a bathroom door isn't exactly worth a Beethoven orgy. Maybe in his mind....

[CringeFest]

Your response is not only full of it, but it has nothing to do with what I said..


I was just talking about how you asserted that most things are just intentional disinformation, and i just don't agree with you...but that's fine. Sorry, i didn't want to press any buttons or anything.

[Mesmerized]

I always believed that people who buy into conspiracy theories are paranoid schizophrenics. But that's just my opinion.

[Jinnistan]

I'm not a fan of the film.
:(

Common misconception, it's actually Crystal Light.
*sips a Shasta*

[Yoda]

No, you’re right. I’m sure it’s just a movie and none of that could possibly happen in real life.

….and Harvey Weinstein was just a film producer.
That wasn't the claim. The claim was not that it could have happened. It was that literally just liking the film and not believing everything in it was a fact formed a contradiction. Are you even trying to make sense here?

[matt72582]

Look into the Laurel Canyon conspiracy.,.

Jim Morrison’s father was the rear Admiral of the ship that was involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. True story. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

The same Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a proven false flag operation which led to America’s involvement in the Vietnam war.

Yes that’s right. A US ship attacked a Vietnamese ship unjustly without provocation breaking the law and murdering innocent Vietnamese people.

So if Jim Morrison’s father was knowingly involved in a highly sensitive false flag operation what else could he be involved in?

Well many high ranking officials of thUS military FBI, CIA, etc. all lived in Laurel Canyon during the 1960s.

It just so happens that the children of the military/national defence from Laurel Canyon became famous musicians during that time period…including Jim Morrison.

And guess what one of the military Air defence locations doubled as?… a recording studio.

So during a time period where the anti-war movement was on the rise powered by young Americans…would it make sense for the Military war machine to put its own operatives into the music industry which was influencing young hippies to combat the anti-war/ peace and love hippy movement ?

Makes sense to me.


Was all this from that book by Constantine? I skimmed it once, and read a few random pages with fault writing, so I wasn't going to poison my mind with a fishing expeditition for money.. Yeah, Jim Morrison's father was the Rear Admiral at the Gulf of Tonkin, but to asset that Jim himself was involved is hysterical.. Jim never saw his father after 64', and cut ties with him, only seeing his siblings once in a while.


In the 60s, almost EVERY child had a father who was in the military - it was WWII! It wasn't just the children from one section - it was all over.



I don't see how writing about anti-war "combats" the movement. You need specifics.

[Redapplecigz]

First, I'm not a fan of the film.

You’re not a fan of the film, yet you make podcasts about this film, make multiple posts about this film and bring it up constantly, including bumping an old thread about it that was made a few years ago?

That’s rather odd behavior. Sounds like someone is backpedaling hard!

Though, I suppose it fits your profile as a pessimistic contrarian.

[Flicker]

I always believed that people who buy into conspiracy theories are paranoid schizophrenics. But that's just my opinion.

It does help. I mean, if you had to live all your life with auditory hallucinations (sometimes not explained to you, sometimes so "real" that explanations aren't satisfactory) and the ensuing uncertainties, incomprehension and divide between you and neurotypical people, you'd easily question and mistrust your surroundings.

But it's neither necessary nor sufficient. Conspiracies are appealing by themselves, they are fun (don't we all movie-goers love them in stories), they are flattering (no matter your status, "seeing" them makes you enlightened) and they are satisfactory (untangling them like little life puzzles in a world of cryptic clues is stimulating and feels rewarding) and paradoxically soothing (yes, a conspiracy of baddies is unsettling, but at least it brings sense and meaning to chaos). Plus, it's falsely difficult, falsely occult, falsely challenging, and actually very easy. Blur events, describe them in very general terms, and you can make everything overlap with everything, each overlap allowing a new "coincidence I think not". It's like painting under the guise of puzzle-solving. And it paints you, in real life, as the hero of a kind of plot everyone enjoys (the underdog unmasking criminal elites).

Plus, you get encouraged and flattered by all sorts of disparate third parties, channeling your "discoveries" for political, psychological, social and financial gains. Populists, cult leaders, influencers, writers, etc. It's a natural tendency of the functional brain (seeking patterns), socially rewarding in the right communities, and encouraged and applauded by them.

So, no, it really doesn't require any particular mental disorder. No more than any religion or belief in sorcery all around the world.

[Wyldesyde19]

You’re not a fan of the film, yet you make podcasts about this film, make multiple posts about this film and bring it up constantly, including bumping an old thread about it that was made a few years ago?

That’s rather odd behavior. Sounds like someone is backpedaling hard!

Though, I suppose it fits your profile as a pessimistic contrarian.
You can talk about a film without having to like it. This is a film site after all, and it would be rather boring if we just chose to talk about the films that interested us.

[Yoda]

You’re not a fan of the film, yet you make podcasts about this film, make multiple posts about this film and bring it up constantly, including bumping an old thread about it that was made a few years ago?
Have you seriously never heard the idea that flawed films are often the best for analysis? Because it's a common idea.

In fact, in our podcasts (which I'm guessing you didn't listen to, since you don't even seem to even read the posts you're responding to), we routinely talk/joke about whether the film we're discussing deserves credit for sparking the discussion, or if we're really just creating connections and finding angles that aren't there. Lemme know if that concept rings any bells...

Also, you might have noticed I pointed out a couple of reasons that it's still not a contradiction (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2219603#post2219603) even if I was a fan of the film, but you've conveniently (or should I say coincidentally?) not responded to those.

So there is no contradiction, for at least three separate (but individually sufficient) reasons. And it's pretty obvious that you're just responding reflexively and defensively to everything at this point.

[Yoda]

What odds can I get that the next reply is just more assertions and "I sure hope this puts him on the defensive" tweaks, instead of simple answers to the points posted early? Is Vegas taking that off the board?

[Redapplecigz]

My grandfather was an assassin and my father works for the Pentagon and the company I work for is a shell corporation called They, Inc..

Finally, he admits it.

[Redapplecigz]

In fact, in our podcasts (which I'm guessing you didn't listen to, since you don't even seem to even read the posts you're responding to), we routinely talk/joke about whether the film we're discussing deserves credit for sparking the discussion, or if we're really just creating connections and finding angles that aren't there. Lemme know if that concept rings any bells...

Also, you might have noticed I pointed out a couple of reasons that it's still not a contradiction (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2219603#post2219603) even if I was a fan of the film, but you've conveniently (or should I say coincidentally?) not responded to those.

So there is no contradiction, for at least three separate (but individually sufficient) reasons. And it's pretty obvious that you're just responding reflexively and defensively to everything at this point.

More drivel. And you claim I am the defensive one on this? Haha! Good sir, kindly review your replies in this thread. It is clear you are the one on the defensive and backpedaling.

You are clearly projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities onto others. Do conspiracies really make you that afraid and insecure?

Every conspiracy that gets mentioned you quickly shoot down as you don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective other than your own. If someone said “the sky is blue” I’m sure your response would be “no it’s more of a sapphire color”.

And why the heck would I want to listen to a podcast about a film from someone who A) hates the film and B) is not perceptive nor considerate enough to understand the deeper themes and subtext of the film, and therefore lack the ability to conduct a true, thorough analysis of the film ?

That makes no sense at all and would be a waste of my time. If I’m going to listen to an Eyes Wide Shut podcast, I would want to listen to one where the person has admiration for the film and knows what the heck they are talking about!

Good day to you kind sir!

[Yoda]

And you claim I am the defensive one on this? Haha! Good sir, kindly review your replies in this thread. It is clear you are the one on the defensive and backpedaling.
Yes, the person constantly changing the subject and tossing out new, weak attacks is the defensive one. I even linked you to the unanswered points in the previous post, and they were once again ignored.

Do conspiracies really make you that afraid and insecure?
Thanks for immediately providing another textbook example of the thing I mentioned earlier: goofy psychological speculation like this is meant to distract from the unanswered points, in hopes that the other person will sputter and defend themselves rather than press on.

Every conspiracy that gets mentioned you quickly shoot down
False: the overwhelming majority of theories floated in this thread have received zero response from me either way. Some are just in the last few pages, so even a light skimming shows as much. Shall I provide examples, or will you just talk past that, too?

as you don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective other than your own.
Speaking of "projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities onto others," this is an amusing thing to hear from someone who, when met with an "alternative perspective," immediately assumed it must have been "influenced."

And why the heck would I want to listen to a podcast about a film from someone who A) hates the film and B) is not perceptive nor considerate enough to understand the deeper themes and subtext of the film, and therefore lack the ability to conduct a true, thorough analysis of the film ?
First, this isn't about whether you'd "want to," it's about whether you'd be in a position to form a meaningful opinion about it having not heard it. Obviously you aren't.

Second, "I'm not a fan of the film" does not mean someone "hates the film." There's plenty of daylight between the two. Eyes Wide Shut is interesting, occasionally brilliant, but flawed, and those are often the most interesting films to analyze.

Third, it's bizarre that you think anyone who understands the themes or subtext of the film must necessarily believe not only in the conspiracy it generally alludes to, but apparently completely unrelated ones!

If I’m going to listen to an Eyes Wide Shut podcast, I would want to listen to one where the person has admiration for the film and knows what the heck they are talking about!
Something something "don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective other than your own."

Please don't waste my time with further replies in this vein, particularly responses that are easily dismantled with a moment's thought. There are several replies earlier in this thread you've completed ignored: you haven't explained your weird definition of "contradiction" and you've equated that claim with the much weaker idea that events depicted "could have happened." Any response that doesn't address these issues is, ultimately, just a very ornate distraction. Which, I guess, is a fitting thing given the thread topic.

[Yoda]

What odds can I get that the next reply is just more assertions and "I sure hope this puts him on the defensive" tweaks, instead of simple answers to the points posted early? Is Vegas taking that off the board?
Gottem.

[Flicker]

Interesting how Eyes Wide Shut seems to resonate with "conspiracy theorists" at a much deeper level than, say, Wag The Dog, JFK or Capricorn One.

[Redapplecigz]

What has Ghislaine Maxwell got on the FBI?
Where are the cctv tapes from Epstein's townhouse? What's on them?
Why did the FBI not properly convict Epstein in Florida?
Why did the FBI not listen to the victims allegations about Epstein's abuse in the early 2000s?

All good questions.

I think in all likelihood, both Ghislaine and Epstein were CIA operatives. Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell was a proven spy (who died under very suspicious circumstances) so he most likely had his daughter recruited before his death.

It explains how Epstein was able to get away with so much for so long, because he was being protected. Then he started recording these rich and powerful people as insurance to protect himself if the government ever turned on him.

I think Ghislaine now has possession or knowledge of those tapes/recordings.

[Jinnistan]

Interesting how Eyes Wide Shut seems to resonate with "conspiracy theorists" at a much deeper level than, say, Wag The Dog, JFK or Capricorn One.
The above Robert Anton Wilson book that I mentioned had an entry that states that two films in particular were known to have its fans monitored by intelligence agencies: The Magic Christian and Buckaroo Banzai. (Of course the book is also designed to force the reader to frequently question the author's sincerity.)

[Jinnistan]

Here's my go:

What has Ghislaine Maxwell got on the FBI?
Where are the cctv tapes from Epstein's townhouse? What's on them?
Why did the FBI not properly convict Epstein in Florida?
Why did the FBI not listen to the victims allegations about Epstein's abuse in the early 2000s?
I think that you're aiming much too low with the FBI. Epstein and Maxwell were likely MI6/Mossad at least.


The most explosive piece of evidence regarding Epstein's vacay prosecution in Florida 2008 involved the then-federal attorney for South Florida in charge of prosecuting the case, Alexander Acosta. Why didn't he prosecute, and instead deliver a sweetheart hush deal? Well, according to reports (https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligence-work/), Acosta explained that "I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." Acosta, glaringly, gave a non-denial denial to this and promptly resigned from his position as Labor secretary (as any innocent man does). He's since refused to clarify or to further refute these remarks. Why hasn't Acosta since been deposed? Perhaps he has been, in the ensuing reopened investigation. Perhaps his deposition is sitting somewhere near the surveillance videos taken from Epstein's safe, or the sealed settlement deal with the two guards who were sleeping under the broken video cameras pointed at Epstein's jail cell.


I think that anyone who believes that someone like Trump or the Clintons were involved in Epstein's death are betraying a serious lack of imagination or understanding of the issue. Epstein's black book included an array of politicos, artists and scientists, but also a deep bench of known intelligence assets, organized crime figures, shady royals, arms smugglers, etc. As the link above states: "the lines between Russian intelligence, Israeli intelligence and organized crime can get remarkably blurry in practice".


The question of Ghislaine, and her father (known blackmailer and KGB informant), is directly related to the still unexplained question about where Epstein obtained his finances. No one knows where he made his money, and few people are asking. Robert Maxwell died owing some 4 billion dollars (officially - he likely owed much more) and no one ever figured out where his fortune was lost. Ghislaine, dependent on a small trust (some 100K #s a year) was living lavishly in NYC in the early 90s, well above her means, around the time she hooked up with Epstein. It's hard to resist the theory that their pedo-farm for elites wasn't essentially a blackmail honeypot, potentially compromising some of the more important and influential people that they could get into their orbit.


My conclusion at this point is that we'll have an idea exactly how high this goes as soon as those tapes disappear.

[Flicker]

and Buckaroo Banzai.

This sheds some light on the suspicious cancellation of its sequel. :skeptical:

[Redapplecigz]

Epstein and Maxwell were likely MI6/Mossad at least.

The most explosive piece of evidence regarding Epstein's vacay prosecution in Florida 2008 involved the then-federal attorney for South Florida in charge of prosecuting the case, Alexander Acosta. Why didn't he prosecute, and instead deliver a sweetheart hush deal? Well, according to reports (https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligence-work/), Acosta explained that "I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." Acosta, glaringly, gave a non-denial denial to this and promptly resigned from his position as Labor secretary (as any innocent man does). He's since refused to clarify or to further refute these remarks. Why hasn't Acosta since been deposed? Perhaps he has been, in the ensuing reopened investigation. Perhaps his deposition is sitting somewhere near the surveillance videos taken from Epstein's safe, or the sealed settlement deal with the two guards who were sleeping under the broken video cameras pointed at Epstein's jail cell.

I think that anyone who believes that someone like Trump or the Clintons were involved in Epstein's death are betraying a serious lack of imagination or understanding of the issue. Epstein's black book included an array of politicos, artists and scientists, but also a deep bench of known intelligence assets, organized crime figures, shady royals, arms smugglers, etc. As the link above states: "the lines between Russian intelligence, Israeli intelligence and organized crime can get remarkably blurry in practice".

The question of Ghislaine, and her father (known blackmailer and KGB informant), is directly related to the still unexplained question about where Epstein obtained his finances. No one knows where he made his money, and few people are asking. Robert Maxwell died owing some 4 billion dollars (officially - he likely owed much more) and no one ever figured out where his fortune was lost. Ghislaine, dependent on a small trust (some 100K #s a year) was living lavishly in NYC in the early 90s, well above her means, around the time she hooked up with Epstein. It's hard to resist the theory that their pedo-farm for elites wasn't essentially a blackmail honeypot, potentially compromising some of the more important and influential people that they could get into their orbit.

Exactly, I think there’s no doubt Ghislaine and Epstein were intelligence of some kind. I’m guessing CIA operatives, but I suppose MI6 or Mossad are possible as well.

I don’t think Clinton would have been dumb enough to show up to some random dudes sex island unless he had some assurances that Epstein was affiliated with people he could trust. (Or maybe Clinton really is just that much of a hound)

Seems like the whole thing was a clear cut CIA blackmail operation where they could compromise rich/powerful/influential people so they could have them in their pockets and make them do the government’s bidding.

And I think the CIA recorded Clinton just so they could use the tape against Hilary if she ever got into the White House. The CIA (which has heavy ties to the Bush family) would have had Hilary dancing like a puppet of a string if she ever won the election.

[Jinnistan]

(Or maybe Clinton really is just that much of a hound)
I think Bill may be just that much of a hound.

And I think the CIA recorded Clinton just so they could use the tape against Hilary if she ever got into the White House.
Nah. Hillary would be perfectly content to let Bill go down with whatever booby ship they sink on him. Did she even lift a finger to defend him when the Lolita Express flight logs were released? I think most people at this point understand the nature of their relationship. It's common knowledge that they've very rarely slept under the same roof over the last 20 years.

The CIA (which has heavy ties to the Bush family)
Well, yeah, I mean H.W. is a former CIA director after all.

[Redapplecigz]

Well, yeah, I mean H.W. is a former CIA director after all.

Yes and his father Prescott Bush was one of its founding members.

It’s wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA is anti-Clinton.

[Jinnistan]

Yes and his father Prescott Bush was one of its founding members.
??? Not sure which crackpot book you found this in. There's a number of candidates - Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, John Forrestal, Frank Wisner, William Donovan, Hoyt Vandenberg, etc. As in these men were all directly involved in its establishment. Prescott wasn't even in Congress at that time to support the legislation.


It’s wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA is anti-Clinton.
This is a very unsophisticated take on how these kinds of organizations work.

[Redapplecigz]

??? Not sure which crackpot book you found this in. There's a number of candidates - Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, John Forrestal, Frank Wisner, William Donovan, Hoyt Vandenberg, etc. As in these men were all directly involved in its establishment. Prescott wasn't even in Congress at that time to support the legislation.

Crackpot book ?? What the heck are you talking about sir? Educate yourself please.

It is well known that Prescott Bush was one of the CIA’s founding members. How do you think HW got to be it’s director? By shear luck and his own accord? Give it a rest. That’s not how it works in America my friend! Nepotism is king.

Prescott Bush was the head of the Yale Corportation which oversees Yale University. Prescott was also a member of the Skull and Bones at Yale. The same Yale University which is the breeding/recruitment ground for the CIA.

Stop taking “official narratives” at face value and do some research before your criticize.

[Jinnistan]

Some fresh steamy theorizing right there.

[Yoda]

Gotta keep up with the latest conspiracy theory firmware my man.

Remember, everyone who believes in even one fewer layer of conspiracy than you is an uneducated sheep who's swallowing the official narrative, or something.

[Jinnistan]

Remember, everyone who believes in even one fewer layer of conspiracy than you is an uneducated sheep who's swallowing the official narrative, or something.
I think that it's important not to expect anyone to take my word on anything, and any of the notions that I offer (many of which I'm not fully 100% about) are at least predicated on information that anyone can seek out elsewhere.


To get more fun on the Epstein thing, there's a number of really out-there theories that I wouldn't normally entertain and wouldn't expect anyone else to take seriously. There's a theory that Epstein, who was greatly interested in cloning technology, had a duplicate of himself arrested and killed in his place. Then there's the strange temple on Epstein's private island...


https://i.insider.com/5d263bfb21a8610d094b63c6?width=700


....which has a lot of occultish features almost tailor-made for spurring conspiratorial ravings. (Apparently, the temple was sound-proofed and could only be locked from the outside :shifty:) The Eyes Wide Shut theories are not far behind, although it's just as likely that Epstein himself was emulating the film rather than visa versa, the same way that since 1999, there've been numerous Fidelio-inspired sex clubs sprouting up in major cities. From here to adrenochrome harvesting (a joke by Hunter Thompson that some people took seriously) to Alex Jones' interdimensional child molesting demons is precariously effortless.


It's been noted (albeit anonymously) that Epstein had once mentioned an obscure paperback as his life's inspiration.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qep66I3rhy4/UTVo4Km_l-I/AAAAAAAAHuw/GoYk3VGDpL4/s1600/+12612.jpg




Here, "O.R.G.Y" stands for the Organization for the Rational Guidance of Youth. It involves the sexual grooming of children to become sex slaves for the elite. The book was from 1965, basically a James Bond rip-off. (Slappy White starred in the film 😁) Anyone familiar with Thomas Pynchon's classic Crying of Lot 47 will understand the allure of finding seemingly secret clues in otherwise banal, disposable culture, all the better to fly under the radar of authorities.


This leads us to the enigmatic theory known as Project Monarch (https://www.vice.com/sv/article/9bne7e/the-monarch-mind-control-mystique), supposedly a mind-control off-shoot of MK-Ultra (and anyone with a dabbling of conspiracy reading knows that everything is somehow an off-shoot of MK-Ultra; see Jim Morrison :p) which grooms women, but usually little girls, into 'sex kittens' for the entertainment industry, using a similar regimine of torture, rape, degradation, drugs and psychological dissociation. There's countless youtube videos disclosing these automatons in pop culture, usually at the behest of the nebulous Illuminati, and the majority of these clips seem to be from deeply religious sources, from evangelical culture warriors to the more superstituous Black church groups. A number of pop stars have quite obviously appropriated a lot of this imagery, similar to how metal groups appropriated Satanic imagery in the 80s, in order to give themselves a sheen of danger and diabolical naughtiness that sheltered church kids, in particular, eat up like hot ham.


So the problem is clear that although we can rule out most of the supernatural aspects of these kinds of things, we can be certain of one persistent human truth: people are crazy. Is it hard to believe that some bored rich souls in the maws of Hollywood have taken enough cocaine and ketamine to think it might be a good idea to enage in these kinds of practices? As surely as it is for any of the stoned podunks in Tulsa (or wherever) reciting their first Crowley mantras. Would the idle rich take the time to indulge in delusional histrionics?



https://d2dzp1iimffyb3.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/IMG_0891.jpg




Who am I to judge? But unfortunately, people like Epstein shows that there's a market in this world for boutique strange, and there's certainly no shortage of incidents of abuse and psychological degradation in the entertainment industry, especially of women, and especially of children.


One last thing. It's also interesting that even prior to Jeffery Epstein becoming a household name, there's been an explicit connection made in conspiracy circles tying this Monarch programming to Victoria's Secret (which remains the only known Epstein client). That's not unusual considering its status as an elite modeling opportunity. The more unusual event was in 2001 when a top VS model, Karen Mulder, spontaneously revealed on French television (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-supermodel-claims-she-was-raped-royalty-and-celebrities-9258096.html) that she had endured a lot of sexual assault in her career, including by the notorious philanderer Prince Albert of Monaco (who has just had yet another accusation against him this year). This wouldn't be quite so bizarre, except that the segment was never aired, in fact the tape was destroyed, "the studio audience was sworn to secrecy", however word inevitably got out. Mulder was then committed to psychiatric care against her will. Despite a suicide attempt, Mulder is currently living in anonymous retirement.


Like Stieg Larrson's Men Who Hate Women, this is why these conspiracies are all too plausible, at least concerning the tangible evidence of sexual abuse, with whatever hokum pokum masked chicanery sprinkled on for flavor. It's a communion of our culture's worst lusts.

[Redapplecigz]

I'd say that Kennedy announcing that he was going to pull troops from Vietnam at the conclusion of his tour got him killed. I believe "I am just a patsy" were words spoken in truth.

Yes, it’s been proven at this point. I think most of America would agree there was more than one person involved. There is so much evidence that there was a planned plot that goes deeper than just Oswald. Oswald did not act alone .

Oswald really was a patsy. They played him like a pawn, even if he did pull one of the triggers. There were multiple shooters.

Lots of interesting books written about the subject, and with solid, proven evidence. Too much evidence to go into here. I think Oliver Stone’s film was alright, but it only scratched the surface compared to some of the books.

The mafia also wanted to kill JFK because JFK said he would crack down on organized crime. This was especially disrespectful to the mafia as they were the ones who helped JFK become president due to ties with JFK’s father who was involved in bootlegging / organized crime during prohibition, and the mafia believed JFK backstabbed them.

JFK’s tension with Cuba also did not help the situation as it’s alleged some Cuban assassins may have been involved in the shooting.

It’s really crazy how deep it goes, if you look into the number of witnesses who were there in Dallas that day who died of murder or mysterious circumstances a few years after the assasination. People forget that the famous JFK assasination video was not released until close to 10 years after the assasination took place, meaning the people responsible thought if they could eliminate the witnesses then nobody would find out the truth.

Then Jack Ruby was put into a trance by MK Ultra to kill Oswald. Then he was assigned an MK ultra doctor before trial who made Ruby go insane, even though Ruby had no previous history of mental illness.

[Jinnistan]

Then Jack Ruby was put into a trance by MK Ultra to kill Oswald. Then he was assigned an MK ultra doctor before trial who made Ruby go insane, even though Ruby had no previous history of mental illness.
The worst kept secret about MK-Ultra is that it was a complete failure at mind control (https://archive.is/zceb3). It fried a lot of unfortunate minds, but it never produced a Manchurian Candidate. The documented history of its failure won't stop youtube sophomores from associating it with every twitch from normality that has occurred in world since then. It's up there with Mandela Effect, and I'm sure someone has found a way to rope in both as some sort of temporal CIA hack gone wrong. You might as well try staring at a goat.


The more plausible explanation is that Jack Ruby's club was 'protected' by Chicago mobster Sam Giancana, who had been contracted by the CIA to help with the assassination of Fidel Castro. (These details (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1979/02/25/did-the-mob-kill-kennedy/b684d171-36b7-474e-9f7d-40a619aede46/) would remain largely unknown until the Church Committee amd Rockefeller Committee over a decade later.) Whether or not Oswald acted alone is irrelevant. The fact that he definitely knew and intimately interacted with people involved in this CIA-Mafia-Cuban exile triage would be sufficient enough to have him silenced, and the CIA deliberately used the Warren Commission to specifically obfuscate this relationship from becoming public (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197/). Of course, all three of these principals had some amount of their own separate motives to assassinate Kennedy, and also Oswald had a certain narcissistic grand delusion about his own mission in history and likely thought that these connections would give him cover. But as far as Ruby is concerned, he simply did what he was told.

[Redapplecigz]

The worst kept secret about MK-Ultra is that it was a complete failure at mind control (https://archive.is/zceb3). It fried a lot of unfortunate minds, but it never produced a Manchurian Candidate

Haha, oh really? And who told you that, the government? Just more CIA disinformation.

Dig a little deeper brother. MK Ultra and Manchurian Candidates have been fully operational for years now. If you don’t understand that, I dont even know what to say to you at his point, because there is so much information out there.

By no means am I a psychologist or an expert in “mind control” but according to those familiar with the program, the human mind is very fragile and incredibly susceptible.

Dont even get me started about JFK Jr.

[Jinnistan]

Haha, oh really? And who told you that, the government?
Ax-shully, I think that Martin A. Lee and Bruce Sclain's seminal Acid Dreams book remains the definitive source on the subject. It's still respected enough to be frequently cited by MK-Ultra conspiracists, apparently under the assumption that their youtube dupes won't bother to read it, because it makes it very clear, using something called 'journalism' and FOIA documents, that MK-Ultra was a dud in terms of achieving any success in mind control, and really only managed to produce some highly unethical and illegal behavior by certain CIA agents ("Operation Midnight Climax") and, once these drugs began to circulate among the generation's more influential intellectuals, inadvertantly spawning the more libertine artistic renaissance of the 60s. And if you think that the CIA had intentionally designed the anti-war and free love cultural movements, whose leaders the CIA then deemed necessary to illegally surveil, well then you just might be an idiot.

If you don’t understand that, I dont even know what to say to you at his point
You certainly don't seem to know how to point me to anything substantial.


By no means am I a psychologist or an expert in “mind control” but according to those familiar with the program, the human mind is very fragile and incredibly susceptible.
I appreciate your personal demonstration.

Dont even get me started about JFK Jr.
Last thing I'd want.

[Yoda]

Why, it's almost as if the contradictions are based less on facts and deduction and more on an emotional need to outflank everyone.

[Redapplecigz]

Ax-shully, I think that Martin A. Lee and Bruce Sclain's seminal Acid Dreams book remains the definitive source on the subject. It's still respected enough to be frequently cited by MK-Ultra conspiracists, apparently under the assumption that their youtube dupes won't bother to read it, because it makes it very clear, using something called 'journalism' and FOIA documents, that MK-Ultra was a dud in terms of achieving any success in mind control, and really only managed to produce some highly unethical and illegal behavior by certain CIA agents ("Operation Midnight Climax") and, once these drugs began to circulate among the generation's more influential intellectuals, inadvertantly spawning the more libertine artistic renaissance of the 60s. And if you think that the CIA had intentionally designed the anti-war and free love cultural movements, whose leaders the CIA then deemed necessary to illegally surveil, well then you just might be an idiot..

First off, there’s no need for name calling and personal attacks, I’m having a civil conversation and you are deduced to childish behavior which says a lot about you and your mentality (Or lack there of).

If you really believe that MK Ultra was a failure and are basing this assumption solely on the account of a CIA employee (an organization whose primary tactics include releasing disinformation to the public) then it seems like you are projecting exactly what you are onto me. Talk about contradictions much ?

Also you have misquoted and failed to comprehend (no surprise there) my argument. I never claimed CIA designed the anti-war/ peace and love movements. Again, reading comprehension is not your strong suite. I said the exact opposite. The CIA were inserting their own operatives WITHIN the anti-war/ peace movement to counter that movement.

It’s not that difficult of a concept to comprehend, but apparently it is for you.

[Jinnistan]

First off, there’s no need for name calling and personal attacks, I’m having a civil conversation and you are deduced to childish behavior which says a lot about you and your mentality (Or lack there of).
Name calling? You accused me of being a CIA dupe!


If you really believe that MK Ultra was a failure and are basing this assumption solely on the account of a CIA employee (an organization whose primary tactics include releasing disinformation to the public) then it seems like you are projecting exactly what you are onto me. Talk about contradictions much ?
Which CIA employee? I'm basing the failure of MK-Ultra as a mind control program on the journalism of a reporter who was one of the founders of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which was based on thousands of documents and the results of the Church and Rockefeller Committees investigations. I could ask what information sources your assumptions are based on, but I have a feeling you would have mentioned them by now if they existed.


It's striking that it should be sufficient for the conspiracy-minded person to simply look at the facts of what is one of the most shameful programs of US government abuse, hundreds and maybe thousands of psychologically tortured and shattered individuals, and not consider that to be enough of an atrocity. Like maybe this wasn't an incompetent and sadistic excuse to find ways to torture people (and the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques are the true heir apparent of MK-Ultra), and that by releasing tons of evidence for this torture isn't enough of a stain on the American reputation. Oh no! Maybe the government must be hiding the totally not implausible truth that maybe they knew what they were doing the whole time and were actually highly successful at that! Because when I read about all of the hysterical shenanigans that went on during this MK-Ultra period, where CIA dudes were dosing each other unawares and shooting at cars in the street because they think the grills are teeth, obviously I think that these sound like the kind of competent people who can manage a secret army of automated assassins.


The CIA were inserting their own operatives WITHIN the anti-war/ peace movement to counter that movement.
Like which ones? In the context of MK-Ultra, with their supposedly effective mind-control serum, it would seem that the suggestion is that if the CIA wanted to, let's say, control the thoughts and opinions, and maybe even the behavior, of those in these movements, that it would be through the use of these same psychotropic substances that had proven so successful in the MK-Ultra laboratory. Or maybe these substances may have had the opposite effect, which might be why MK-Ultra was a failure at mind control, and why the CIA felt the need to infiltrate those who were ironically being heavily plied with these MK-Ultra mind-control serums?

[Yoda]

First off, there’s no need for name calling and personal attacks, I’m having a civil conversation and you are deduced to childish behavior which says a lot about you and your mentality (Or lack there of).
You haven't been having civil conversations with anyone: you've just made assertions, and then tossed out disdain and condescension when someone's pushed back on any of it or asked for evidence. Here's a small sampling:

"drivel"
"Educate yourself"
"do some research"
"you don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective"

These kinds of things are, at best, insults with the thinnest veneer of civility. It's pure gaslighting to talk this way and then feign offense when somebody gives you the same treatment.

If you really believe that MK Ultra was a failure and are basing this assumption solely on the account of a CIA employee (an organization whose primary tactics include releasing disinformation to the public) then it seems like you are projecting exactly what you are onto me.
How predictable. This is the same pattern you've exhibited throughout the thread:

1. Make assertions.
2. Dismiss dissent with repetition and condescension.
3. Dismiss further dissent with accusation of "projection."

There really doesn't seem to be much behind the curtain here. If there was we'd have seen it by now.

[Redapplecigz]

Why, it's almost as if the contradictions are based less on facts and deduction and more on an emotional need to outflank everyone.

I’ve provided facts. And where are yours?

Oh that’s right youre just a guy who…

… comments on a thread called “conspiracy theories’ yet doesn’t actually believe any conspiracy theories

..and makes podcasts about movies he hates.

You are a walking, talking contradiction and somehow oblivious to the fact that you are a hypocrite which is quite comical.

I really hope you are a troll, for your own sake.

[Captain Steel]

How about this new info on the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer being some kind of FBI "sting" - with the entire thing having been set up and the plot itself even suggested by FBI agents to somehow entrap a couple rednecks and / or be a false-flag to impugn Republicans / Trump supporters before the last election?

[Yoda]

I’ve provided facts.
In the purely literal sense of "I have provided a plural number of verifiable things," I guess? But about 95% of your posts are made up of flat assertions. More importantly, when they're challenged or questioned, you don't seem to have anything but more of the same.

And where are yours?
You mean like when you challenged me to read the Operation Northwoods memo, I directly quoted it to you, and all I got back was crickets?

Your procedure throughout, with me and others, is to make vague references to facts, but then completely avoid any granular discussion about them once they actually call your bluff.

… comments on a thread called “conspiracy theories’ yet doesn’t actually believe any conspiracy theories
See, what's really interesting about this comment is that it implies that this is weird, which in turn implies that you think nobody should talk about conspiracy theories unless they're going to agree with them. Which in turn implies that you're deeply uncomfortable defending them.

..and makes podcasts about movies he hates.
Yeah, I already dismantled this silliness here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2219761#post2219761). And of course, you didn't respond, since once you pull the "try to put them on the defensive with a weak attack" move, and they call it out, there's really nowhere left for you to go.

You are a walking, talking contradiction and somehow oblivious to the fact that you are a hypocrite which is quite comical.
I mean, I'd explain why there's no hypocrisy at all (in fact I have!), but I'm starting to suspect you don't even know what the word "contradiction" means, so maybe we should address that first.

[Yoda]

Also, just gonna give myself a little report card here:

1. Make assertions.
"I’ve provided facts."

No elaboration or cite. Check.

2. Dismiss dissent with repetition and condescension.
"makes podcasts about movies he hates."

Repeated from earlier despite being addressed from several angles. Check.

3. Dismiss further dissent with accusation
"You are a walking, talking contradiction ... hypocrite ... troll ..."

Cheeeee-eck.

[Redapplecigz]

In the purely literal sense of "I have provided a plural number of verifiable things," I guess? But about 9% of your posts are made up of flat assertions. More importantly, when they're challenged or questioned, you don't seem to have anything but more of the same.


You mean like when you challenged me to read the Operation Northwoods memo, I directly quoted it to you, and all I got back was crickets?

Your procedure throughout, with me and others, is to make vague references to facts, but then completely avoid any granular discussion about them once they actually call your bluff.


See, what's really interesting about this comment is that it implies that this is weird, which in turn implies that you think nobody should talk about conspiracy theories unless they're going to agree with them. Which in turn implies that you're deeply uncomfortable defending them.


Yeah, I already dismantled this silliness here (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2219761#post2219761). And of course, you didn't respond, since once you pull the "try to put them on the defensive with a weak attack" move, and they call it out, there's really nowhere left for you to go.


I mean, I'd explain why there's no hypocrisy at all (in fact I have!), but I'm starting to suspect you don't even know what the word "contradiction" means, so maybe we should address that first.

LOL. Troll confirmed.

[Yoda]

Continually replying when you clearly have no idea what to say is just really transparent face-saving.

[Redapplecigz]

How about this new info on the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer being some kind of FBI "sting" - with the entire thing having been set up and the plot itself even suggested by FBI agents to somehow entrap a couple rednecks and / or be a false-flag to impugn Republicans / Trump supporters before the last election?

Yes, very suspicious circumstance. When I, like most people, first heard about the so called “attempt” it sounded very fishy.*

Makes sense that it was a false flag entrapment case. I think it’s clear FBI wanted to bring down Trump supporters and get Trump out of office after the way Trump messed with the FBI.

You don’t mess with the FBI without consequences.

[Redapplecigz]

Also, just gonna give myself a little report card here:


"I’ve provided facts."

No elaboration or cite. Check.


"makes podcasts about movies he hates."

Repeated from earlier despite being addressed from several angles. Check.


"You are a walking, talking contradiction ... hypocrite ... troll ..."

Cheeeee-eck.

One of (the many) things you fail to understand is that I’m not here to “defend” my viewpoints and spoon feed you all the information. Do your own research. And citations??? This is a freakin message board not a thesis! If you want me to educate you I charge tuition for that.

My time is valuable and I’m not wasting my time educating you in detail about something that’s over your head . It’s not my job to teach you. If you want an education go back to school.

Whether or not you agree I really don’t care. If you don’t believe, that’s up to you. As you can see I have not been “defending” my position as you put it as Ireally don’t care if you believe or not. That’s your choice to make, not mine. And if you really did care you would research it for yourself.

And you are saying I’m not providing info? when I’ve provided way more information than you have. You are the one not providing info. You are just being negative and dismissing without providing any evidence to support a counter argument.

You answer to me, I don’t answer to you. It’s up to you to disprove my argument. Not for me to further prove my already sound arguments

[Citizen Rules]

New Rules for the New Year (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=63073)

[Captain Steel]

New Rules for the New Year (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=63073)

Be yourself, Rules and don't ever change!
(Get it?) ;)

[Wyldesyde19]

Did…did he just go full “Zotis”?
You never go full Zotis….

[mark f]

Zotis and Redapplecigz do.

[Wyldesyde19]

Zotis and Redapplecigz do.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost say it is Zotis, as their “speech”, so to speak, is quite similar.

[Yoda]

One of (the many) things you fail to understand is that I’m not here to “defend” my viewpoints
Yes, this is becoming quite clear.

and spoon feed you all the information. Do your own research.
I already called this bluff. You did the whole "go read it yourself" thing immediately, and I told you I had, then quoted it to you, and then...nothing. Which revealed the demand for what it was: a deflection.

And citations??? This is a freakin message board not a thesis!
Yes, how gauche to ask for something like supporting evidence.

By the by, you should probably decide whether your position is "it's absurd to ask for evidence" or "I've provided lots of evidence!" since right now you're arguing both simultaneously.

My time is valuable
And yet you find enough of it to reply over and over explaining why you shouldn't have to explain yourself.

And you are saying I’m not providing info? when I’ve provided way more information than you have. You are the one not providing info. You are just being negative and dismissing without providing any evidence to support a counter a argument.
Where are the argumentative calories in this paragraph supposed to be, exactly? It's literally just "I am doing the thing. You are not doing the thing!"

We can resolve this seeming impasse easily, though: just look at the posts I keep linking you to (a few times now), and note that they're full of direct quotes, followed by direct responses/syllogisms. Then compare them to your replies, where you don't specifically quote anything, or explain why anything is wrong with any specificity. You just say it's wrong.

The former requires thought and effort and can be meaningfully responded to and rebutted. The latter is easy, and literally anyone can do it whether they're right or wrong. So when someone does it, it's a pretty big clue that they're not actually making a cogent argument, and usually it means they don't have one.

[ynwtf]

If I didn’t know any better, I’d almost say it is Zotis, as their “speech”, so to speak, is quite similar.


To bring this back to topic, Z is the eighth letter after R. There are eight letters in "r e d a p p l e." After removing that Z from Zotis, you are left with the four letters, " o t i s." How many letters are in cigz? That's right. You think it's just a coincidence that the last letter, Z, is also the first letter, Z? The beginning AND the end, yo.


We are just scratching the surface!

[Wyldesyde19]

To bring this back to topic, Z is the eighth letter after R. There are eight letters in "r e d a p p l e." After removing that Z from Zotis, you are left with the four letters, " o t i s." How many letters are in cigz? That's right. You think it's just a coincidence that the last letter, Z, is also the first letter, Z? The beginning AND the end, yo.


We are just scratching the surface!
It’s a riddle wrapped in an enigma!

This is the real conspiracy here!
Red apple=Zotis! I don’t have to provide proof either! Do your own research, propel! The truth is out there!

*cues gif of The Scooby Gang unmasking Redapple only to reveal….Zotis!!*

[Jinnistan]

It really transcends 'politics' at this point, and goes to a deeper issue of a breakdown of coherent reasoning. After all, you can find this breakdown pretty much across the political spectrum. That RAC is confident to have presented a "sound argument" is pretty damning in itself, and that RAC doesn't understand that having a sound argument necessarily requires one to be able to cogently defend said argument is yet another example of the sad state of affairs.


"If you don't believe, that's up to you." I mentioned already how "belief" is the most toxic ingredient in conspiracy theory, not because some theories are more or less believable than others, but because these kinds of rhetorical shibboleths inevitably leads to cultish allegiance rather than sincere inquiry and interrogation. RAC isn't interested in debating or convincing, but in sussing out whose team everyone else is on. If you don't believe in RAC's dogma (which needs no defending), then you're one of them. I wish that current political discussion hadn't devolved into similar tribal signifying - because ideally we should be able to discuss public policy in public - but unfortunately it's taken on a more religious aspect of private conviction, a subject that's only suitable for discussion among fellow travellers and true believers, away from the heresies and doubts of outsiders.


I'm being generous in assuming that RAC is a true believer, and not, you know, "LOL, troll confirmed".

[ynwtf]

Cigz are often smoked with alcohol. Otis was Mayberry's local drunk. Aunt B was another character from the same show, and yet "apple" + "bee's" is a wonderful restaurant franchise that serves riblets. What's that? You'd like honey bbq sauce with that order? What makes honey?!? That's RIGHT!! mertherfergin' BEES!!!


Cigz - Z = C I G!!! Or...."see I G(et it)!!! Cuz I DO get it!!! And you're left with three letters there, the "I" cancels out with the "I" from O T I S, leave only the two letters C and G. What's the SECOND LETTER OF THE ALPHABET?&?2?4?????? BBBBBBBBBBBBBEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!! FULL FRIGGIN CIRCLE!!! YOU CAN BUY PIE AT APPLEBEE'S SO IT NEVER ENDS!!!&!4 JUST ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND AND PEE WEE HERMAN IS PART OF IT!!!! AND THE....C .....I ......(FIRST LETTER???) ......----....AAAAAAAA.....

[Wyldesyde19]

Yn! Eat a snickers! You’re not yourself when you’re hungry!

[Captain Steel]

Yn! Eat a snickers! You’re not yourself when you’re hungry!

Now I'll forever picture Yn as Liza Minnelli! ;)

[Wyldesyde19]

Now I'll forever picture Yn as Liza Minnelli! ;)

I was thinking more along the lines of Joe Pesci but now that you mention it…..

[Captain Steel]

I was thinking more along the lines of Joe Pesci but now that you mention it…..

Not to go into a whole commercial analysis, but the one with Liza Minelli was the Aretha Franklin one... so the joke had been made with Aretha and you thought it was over... then, at the last second, one of the guys in the car turns into Liza Minelli which was totally unexpected. That was the comedic brilliance of it - the element of surprise.

[Redapplecigz]

I think the CIA purposely throws out all the ridiculous crap (90% of the theories) to discredit all the legitimate ones. After all, they weaponized that word after the JFK assassination. But it works, and the "tin-foil" baloney. Has anyone ever seen someone with a "tin-foil hat"? I doubt it. Does anyone really think only ONE guy can take over a country (Guatemala, Iran in the 50s for example)? It's impossible. I'm sure there are a lot of things done by one guy, but nothing major.

Exactly this.*You get it and I can tell you’re woke.

It’s a well known fact that CIA puts out a ton of disinformation. It’s one of their main tactics. Why? Because it’s effective.*

Just look at the people on here who believe it. “Hey look this CIA guy said this, so it must be true” No! they are paid to put out BS to keep people confused. Why would anyone believe anything the CIA says? Makes zero sense.

And your exactly right about dictators and staging coups. I won’t get political here or mention names but all the major dictators had a ton of support backing them. Total team effort but one guy gets the spotlight.

[Jinnistan]

“Hey look this CIA guy said this, so it must be true”
Who is this CIA guy you think everyone is listening to?

[Jinnistan]

How about this new info on the plot to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer being some kind of FBI "sting" - with the entire thing having been set up and the plot itself even suggested by FBI agents to somehow entrap a couple rednecks and / or be a false-flag to impugn Republicans / Trump supporters before the last election?
Honestly, it's hard to sympathize with anyone who's attracted to the idea of kidnapping a governor. I doubt that the story had much of an effect on the election.

[Redapplecigz]

Another one is Stanley Kubrick directing the faked Apollo moon landing video in 1969.

NASA did not have the technology to go to the moon in 1969, so they had no choice but to fake it in order to win the Space Race against the Soviet Union.

Kubrick’s film 2001: A Space Odyssey was a test run for the moon landing videos. Allegedly NASA provided Kubrick with the cameras used for 2001.

However There were several errors with the fake moon landing videos. At times it looks like the “astronauts” were on wires and the video was a regular video just slowed down. There is also evidence of front screen projection being used and you can see a light in the background behind the screen. Similar background shots used over and over with the same terrain. One rock looks to have been a prop and had a “C” marking on it because it was accidentally placed upside down. Also some issues with the flag waving and the compression under the lunar module should have been way deeper than what it was.

Kubrick allegedly tried to reveal his involvement covertly in his film the Shining by having the child Danny wear an Apollo 11 sweater in one of the scenes.

[Jinnistan]

Here's a fun one (https://www.history.com/news/space-race-soviet-union-moon-landing-denial), ciggfried.

[mark f]

This crap never dies.

Here's just two to rip it.
https://www.history.com/news/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theories
https://screenrant.com/moon-landing-fake-conspiracy-theory-stanley-kubrick/

[Jinnistan]

If only every conspiracy theory was as transparently obvious as this one.

[Wyldesyde19]

Look Redapple, If you’re not going to take this seriously, I’m out.
Next thing you know, you’ll be going on about Paul McCartney being replaced by a double and typing “Turn me on deadman!” as your proof.

[Redapplecigz]

Look Redapple, If you’re not going to take this seriously, I’m out.
Next thing you know, you’ll be going on about Paul McCartney being replaced by a double and typing “Turn me on deadman!” as your proof.

Paul is dead. The real Paul died in ‘66.

[gandalf26]

One of (the many) things you fail to understand is that I’m not here to “defend” my viewpoints and spoon feed you all the information. Do your own research. And citations??? This is a freakin message board not a thesis! If you want me to educate you I charge tuition for that.

My time is valuable and I’m not wasting my time educating you in detail about something that’s over your head . It’s not my job to teach you. If you want an education go back to school.

Whether or not you agree I really don’t care. If you don’t believe, that’s up to you. As you can see I have not been “defending” my position as you put it as Ireally don’t care if you believe or not. That’s your choice to make, not mine. And if you really did care you would research it for yourself.

And you are saying I’m not providing info? when I’ve provided way more information than you have. You are the one not providing info. You are just being negative and dismissing without providing any evidence to support a counter argument.

You answer to me, I don’t answer to you. It’s up to you to disprove my argument. Not for me to further prove my already sound arguments

Are you able to tell us what research you've done, and how you went about doing it? thanks

[Flicker]

We often joke about how many people should be part of a conspiracy that a conspiracy theorist believes in, but that's without taking in account the fact that true conspiracy theorists believe in all of them. So, multiply the number of conspirators by, well, the infinite number of conspiracies (in politics, show-business, healthcare, geography, meteorology, history, and actually in every each field where anyone actually worked or actually studied and dared getting degree that the conspiracy theorist didn't). It doesn't leave many people out. Poor guy is lonely, we humans are secretly all in against him.

However There were several errors with the fake moon landing videos.
Not to mention that, from the Moon, the Earth would be seen as an ellipse (unless the Moon happened to be right above it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE-tpiAiiHo

[Redapplecigz]

Are you able to tell us what research you've done, and how you went about doing it? thanks

Research about what exactly?

[Jinnistan]

Research about what exactly?
Play it cool, dude. Ride it out.

[Redapplecigz]

Play it cool, dude. Ride it out.

What are you talking about?

[Redapplecigz]

The former requires thought and effort and can be meaningfully responded to and rebutted. The latter is easy, and literally anyone can do it whether they're right or wrong. So when someone does it, it's a pretty big clue that they're not actually making a cogent argument, and usually it means they don't have one.

There, there, little sheep. Don’t worry your simple little mind about it. It requires too much effort for you to think. Now follow the Shepherd. Enjoy the slaughter, lamb chop.

[Yoda]

Saaaaave that faaaaaace.

[Hey Fredrick]

Everything is a lie.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FpIATVyMEwDQPe%2Fsource.gif&f=1&nofb=1

[gandalf26]

Research about what exactly?

You've said to "research it" for yourself, so I'm just wondering what research you've done, how you went about it and into what subject?

[Flicker]

Everything is a lie.

Except redapple's sources, which are 100% scientific and reliable and rigorous and brilliant and trustworthy. Goes without saying.

Unlike, say, experts and specialists who are suspicious by virtue of being experts and specialists. Like, that other guy, who speaks about NASA and claims to be independent, guess what, I checked his past (he tried to hide it but there's info on his CV if you know where to look), and he had gone to a university !!!

He's so one of them. I only trust people who weren't indoctrinated by science books and stuff.

[crumbsroom]

It always seems to me those who are hardcore into conspiracy theories are simply people who are just so tired of constantly being outsmarted and backed into a corner in good faith arguments, that they've been forced to adopt a completely ridiculous worldview. This way, they can pretend they finally have a leg up on those who can normally just blast them into pieces using logical discourse. It's their last ditch effort to turn their godawful talking points into something they can believe finally makes them look smart. Finally, they feel privy to information those who have pummelled them in arguments for years don't know about yet (or so they think). As evidence by this thread, its deeply frustrating to deal with people who have adopted this way of thinking. After all, the only way you can ever really engage with these things they are claiming, is if you step into their vortex of dumb with them. So they win either way. It's all a big con to prop up these most fragile of egos.



Maybe I wouldn't find them so irritating, if they weren't doing such a disservice to the idea of skepticism. It's good to ask questions. It's good to have some level of distrust and to look behind the story that we are being told. But these days skepticism seems to have attracted the soggiest noodles out there. People who seem not to understand that to embrace every idiotic theory, simply because it goes against the established narrative, is not critical thinking. It is falling prey to exactly the kind of group think they think is for the 'sheeple'. The only difference is that they are willing to go along with a herd to believe total ****ing nonsense.

[Jinnistan]

What are you talking about?Mmm. Good move. Stalling. I like it.

[Flicker]

if they weren't doing such a disservice to the idea of skepticism.
They do hijack "skepticism" the same way parascience hijacks "scientificity". They just borrow its terminology and its varnish, and ditch any methodology that goes against their targeted conclusions.

Science is already, by definition, a methodology of critical, skeptical open-mindedness. It's how it functions and progresses, in all its fields. It's how it sorts out the verifiable, the refutable, the scientific object, from the unverifiable and non-refutable metaphysical belief (the circular logic of faith, etc), and that's how it drops what turns out hogwash. Parascientists complain that scientists show "no curiosity" about telekinesis or ectoplasms, or that their "fear the truth", but, like electricity in early 19th century (or black matter nowadays), any unknown natural force would have fascinated scientists if there was actually something to investigate. In reality, it's parascientists that are terrified of facing the void of their obsessions.

Likewise, all skeptical movements (of the James Randi kind) start with how to debunk idiotic conspiracy theories, cultist propaganda and scams of that ilk, no matter the source. Skepticism is alive and kicking, you don't get mainstream parascience stars à la Uri Geller anymore, the bermuda triangle is now just a folkloric joke, and so is the Loch Ness monster. But conspiracy theorists (often encouraged for political motives) keep using the skeptical lexicon like they'd use a stolen lab coat, without applying or understanding any of the related methods. They play pretend. And they don't harm skepticism more than skeptics harm them : http://skepdic.com/tifraud.html

I'm not anxious for skepticism, and I really don't think these wackos have any adverse effect on it. There's always frauds, lies, official narratives and fake news to debunk, and they do get debunked regardless of the fringe deliriums that mimic their format to push a (self-serving or ideological) narrative - and that get debunked in turn.

For whatever genuine, there will always be cheap impostors trying to pass for it. Conspiracy theorists are just the vaguely parasitic background noise of skepticism.

[ashdoc]

A conspiracy theory from my country India .


In 1975 PM Indira Gandhi was impeached by a court judgment and asked to step down from her post . But instead she declared an emergency and tried to prolong her rule . Her son Sanjay and his coterie of friends began to weld enormous power and royally misused it until Indira Gandhi was defeated in next elections and removed from power . However the coalition government that replaced her dissolved and fresh elections were called in which she won again . Her son Sanjay and his coterie of friends again began to weld enormous power until he and one of his friends died in an air crash in an airplane he himself was piloting .


According to conspiracy theorists it was Indira Gandhi herself who killed her own son by getting the engines of the plane tampered with because she was afraid that his misuse of power would lead to her political downfall again . The speculation was fueled by her cold behavior with other politicians who had come to offer condolences ; she wanted to discuss political issues at the condolence meeting !














Another conspiracy theory I remember is probably true . South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje was killed in a similar air crash . He was lone passenger in a plane which crashed killing him and it's two pilots .


Earlier Hansie had confessed to match fixing in which he had fixed to losing cricket matches to India at the behest of bookies who controlled the betting on cricket matches . He was unraveling the whole network of match fixing . The mafia which ultimately controls the fixing saw it's secrets being leaked out and killed him to avoid being arrested by the police themselves , so says the conspiracy theory which is probably true !!

[John McClane]

Saaaaave that faaaaaace.I imagine this being said a lot like this:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e2/d2/6c/e2d26c236d28a2bb1509a6a106bc0073.gif

[Jinnistan]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/Banco_Ambrosiano_logo.png

I recently watched Francis Ford Coppola's re-edit of his Death of Michael Corleone. I honestly couldn't tell much of a differenece, but I haven't watched the third Godfather nearly as many times or as frequently. The things I like (Pacino, Wallach) are still jarred against those things that I don't (Andy Garcia, Sophia).


The most intriguing thing about the film has always been its loose but transparent association with the once notorious P2 scandal, known as Propaganda Due, an obviously perfect sequel to Apocalypse Now. It's one of those stranger-than-fiction tales that sometimes become cinematic memory almost as compensation for the ludicrous dimensions of its actual reality. (Dead Ringers was also a true story - the Marcus twins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_and_Cyril_Marcus) - which compounds its impact.) Here we find a not terribly delicate conspiracy existing between a triage of anti-communist masons, Cosa Nostra and the Vatican, all eager kindling for 'spiracy sparks. The story itself is fascinating, all unravelled from a dead priest in a brothel to discovering a complex financial web of intelligence/mafioso money laundering through the Vatican Bank, which Coppolla directly depicts, including the explicit suggestion of the assassination of Pope John Paul I as a result.


Scorsese has, at times, flirted with delving into this historical project, but, as of now, that's really about the best thing that Godfather III accomplished.

[Flicker]

30 July 2021. Within the last 24h, Switzerland has had 800 more cases of Covid. Not 801, not 799. Exactly 800. How likely is that !?

IT'S THE PROOF.