Conspiracy Theories


The trick is not minding
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.

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.

We've gone on holiday by mistake
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

"How tall is King Kong ?"
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).

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

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

Play it cool, dude. Ride it out.
What are you talking about?

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.

We've gone on holiday by mistake
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?

"How tall is King Kong ?"
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.

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.

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

"How tall is King Kong ?"
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 ŕ 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 :

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.

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 !!
Click image for larger version

Name:	images (30).jpeg
Views:	32
Size:	29.3 KB
ID:	79713   Click image for larger version

Name:	images (29).jpeg
Views:	29
Size:	23.7 KB
ID:	79714   Click image for larger version

Name:	images (28).jpeg
Views:	26
Size:	15.1 KB
ID:	79715  

You ready? You look ready
Saaaaave that faaaaaace.
I imagine this being said a lot like this:

"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

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 - 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.