|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 30, 2024 11:39:25 GMT
I think your final sentence contradicts the rest of your statement. I get the impression you don't believe in God yet for how many centuries has religion been used to control populations. And I think really that's what make people critical think more. When you identify a few cover ups and realise that governments aren't being completely honest then you begin to do alot more of your own due diligence. It's not healthy though and I admit that after these last few years I struggle to trust the media so much. I think anyone who believes in Russia/China/North Korea/Middle East propoganda when we get told about it. But refuses to think we have our own propoganda is very naive. Of course we use it too. I read his post in a different way mate. To me, he seemed to be saying, that the reason people jump to conspiracy theories so quickly, is because they can't accept that random shit just happens and there must be a specific reason for it, in the same way that their explanation for the mountains, oceans, plants and animals, as well the planet itself, exisisting, is because some fella must have had to have made them. Yes that's what I meant - people try to make sense of the world by coming up with stories/narratives that explain what happens whereas much of what happens is just random and senseless. In a story somebody is responsible for making things happen good and bad and people are more comfortable with the idea that someone is responsible for bad things happening rather than believe shit just happens or is a result of a random cock up. God and religion offer an all encompassing narrative - conspiracy theories are the modern equivalent spread by the internet rather than some holy book. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 30, 2024 19:05:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 31, 2024 17:45:05 GMT
Yes that's quite funny. However having a healthy scepticism about what your government tells you doesn't mean the logical alternative is to believe there is some evil conspiracy going on behind the scenes. The reason governments lie is because they are all a bit shit and don't really know what they are doing, not because they have some devious master plan that involves hoodwinking the entire population. I'd have more time for conspiracy theorists if they applied the same level of scepticism to their own bullshit theories as they do to mainstream thinking. They've just swapped blind acceptance of mainstream information sources to blind acceptance of their magic web sites. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Apr 2, 2024 15:10:00 GMT
So what do we think about Havana Syndrome?
All seems a bit shady.
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Apr 3, 2024 10:05:04 GMT
Foucault's Pendulum is a superb book by Umberto Eco that explores conspiracy theories and the need for people to believe in either magical, occult or sinister groups operating in society s a way of explaining our sense of being helpless and out of control in our everyday lives Where all the faked moon landing, 9/11 theories, etc fall down is the idea that all these plans were performed without error, their timing was on the point of being miraculous and no one talks or produces undeniable evidence and documentation to support the theories. Power groups do conspire to conceal and distort public perceptions but common sense dictates that the alleged plans could not possibly run so smoothly when said governments/agencies can't organise even the simple plans without a cock up! The origin, and ultimate location, of all these conspiracies lie within the minds of the thinkers as a pathological symptom of paranoia, distrust and a refusal to accept factual reality to explain the outcome of world events out of their control and contrary to their preferred world view Or would I, as a minion of the Illuminati, say that anyway 😁 Regarding "Foucault's Pendulum" it's essential to recognise that not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Each theory varies in its plausibility, evidence, and motivations behind its creation. Additionally, lumping all conspiracy theories together, as the BBC does, is simplificationv overlooks the diverse factors driving them. And what these supposed academic experts in conspiracy theories fail to consider in their often condescending approach is the very psychological need to believe in authority figures or institutions, stemming from a childhood disposition. Such a psychological need can lead to blind allegiance or adherence to certain official narratives. This psychological inclination meets the very desire they critique. That is blind belief in institutions and those of lauded superior knowledge in order for security, certainty in an uncertain world and removes the necessity for thinking. As Bill Hicks once said, 'go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, here's American Gladiators'. So such caricatures work both ways. Yet such is the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' in the media it persuasive in that it instills a tendency to steer clear of querying ideas in order to feel as though you are not one. That in itself seems to be insidious psychological manipulation. The BBC wants you to question information, but not the information it has decided you should accept. Historical atrocities like the Holocaust, or Mao's genocide or other oppressive regimes highlights how blind faith in authority can lead to dire consequences. And at a personal level lead to abuse and abusive relationships. Such need for blind authoritarianism has repeatedly proven far more dangerous than anything the BBC and others deem 'dangerous information'. However, it's crucial to differentiate between skepticism toward authority and the promotion of conspiracy theories, which are often used to muddy the waters. It is perfectly reasonable to question authority without necessarily succumbing to unfounded paranoia or denial of factual reality. Finally, it is not necessary to come up with a conspiracy 'theory' because official information seems dubious. Simply uncovering inconsistencies and lies is an end in itself. Providing an alternative explanation to that given can usually only be conjecture and by this nature can be dodgy. But if an official narrative has failed to hold water, it would be rather odd to continue to put blind faith in it. And I mean narratives beyond simple party politics, maybe long held fundamental narratives, such as ones covered by Graham Hancock, as referenced on here. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 3, 2024 13:30:49 GMT
Foucault's Pendulum is a superb book by Umberto Eco that explores conspiracy theories and the need for people to believe in either magical, occult or sinister groups operating in society s a way of explaining our sense of being helpless and out of control in our everyday lives Where all the faked moon landing, 9/11 theories, etc fall down is the idea that all these plans were performed without error, their timing was on the point of being miraculous and no one talks or produces undeniable evidence and documentation to support the theories. Power groups do conspire to conceal and distort public perceptions but common sense dictates that the alleged plans could not possibly run so smoothly when said governments/agencies can't organise even the simple plans without a cock up! The origin, and ultimate location, of all these conspiracies lie within the minds of the thinkers as a pathological symptom of paranoia, distrust and a refusal to accept factual reality to explain the outcome of world events out of their control and contrary to their preferred world view Or would I, as a minion of the Illuminati, say that anyway 😁 Regarding "Foucault's Pendulum" it's essential to recognise that not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Each theory varies in its plausibility, evidence, and motivations behind its creation. Additionally, lumping all conspiracy theories together, as the BBC does, is simplificationv overlooks the diverse factors driving them. And what these supposed academic experts in conspiracy theories fail to consider in their often condescending approach is the very psychological need to believe in authority figures or institutions, stemming from a childhood disposition. Such a psychological need can lead to blind allegiance or adherence to certain official narratives. This psychological inclination meets the very desire they critique. That is blind belief in institutions and those of lauded superior knowledge in order for security, certainty in an uncertain world and removes the necessity for thinking. As Bill Hicks once said, 'go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, here's American Gladiators'. So such caricatures work both ways. Yet such is the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' in the media it persuasive in that it instills a tendency to steer clear of querying ideas in order to feel as though you are not one. That in itself seems to be insidious psychological manipulation. The BBC wants you to question information, but not the information it has decided you should accept. Historical atrocities like the Holocaust, or Mao's genocide or other oppressive regimes highlights how blind faith in authority can lead to dire consequences. And at a personal level lead to abuse and abusive relationships. Such need for blind authoritarianism has repeatedly proven far more dangerous than anything the BBC and others deem 'dangerous information'. However, it's crucial to differentiate between skepticism toward authority and the promotion of conspiracy theories, which are often used to muddy the waters. It is perfectly reasonable to question authority without necessarily succumbing to unfounded paranoia or denial of factual reality. Finally, it is not necessary to come up with a conspiracy 'theory' because official information seems dubious. Simply uncovering inconsistencies and lies is an end in itself. Providing an alternative explanation to that given can usually only be conjecture and by this nature can be dodgy. But if an official narrative has failed to hold water, it would be rather odd to continue to put blind faith in it. And I mean narratives beyond simple party politics, maybe long held fundamental narratives, such as ones covered by Graham Hancock, as referenced on here. Even in uber repressive regimes like Russia and China ordinary people question the official line. The nearest country I can think of where people are brain washed to the extent you and others claim is somewhere like North Korea and even there there quite a few people who know the regime is full of shit and want out. Western liberal democracies have a free press, free speech, a legal system that is separate from government and independent academic institutions. The idea that Western governments even have the ability to maintain a single official narrative is bullshit. The way public bodies are constituted makes it impossible by design - a functioning liberal democracy makes is designed to prevent the sort of government that is capable of pulling off a managed narrative. And the education system in western liberal democracies teaches people to question. Characterising the majority of people as "sheeples" swallowing the official narrative (which you and fellow conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) is rubbish. The majority of people have a healthy scepticism when it comes to what government and mainstream news sources say. There isn't even a single, official narrative out there - different mainstream news channels have different editorial policies and political outlooks. There isn't a single narrative - there's a cacophony of different opinions. Conspiracy theory websites do not have the discipline or intellectual rigour of the institutions that support western liberal democracies. There's a random collection of "influencers" with a video camera and a web domain who have created a self referential echo chamber for their made up bullshit conspiracy theories. There is no peer review and no self criticism. As an alternative to the MSM it's shit and the last thing it promotes is actual critical thinking - it promotes blind belief that only it has exclusive access to the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Apr 3, 2024 13:57:17 GMT
conspiracy theories are the modern equivalent spread by the internet rather than some holy book. Precisely. A substitute. |
|
|
|
Post by LGH87 on Apr 3, 2024 14:01:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Apr 3, 2024 15:16:08 GMT
Regarding "Foucault's Pendulum" it's essential to recognise that not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Each theory varies in its plausibility, evidence, and motivations behind its creation. Additionally, lumping all conspiracy theories together, as the BBC does, is simplificationv overlooks the diverse factors driving them. And what these supposed academic experts in conspiracy theories fail to consider in their often condescending approach is the very psychological need to believe in authority figures or institutions, stemming from a childhood disposition. Such a psychological need can lead to blind allegiance or adherence to certain official narratives. This psychological inclination meets the very desire they critique. That is blind belief in institutions and those of lauded superior knowledge in order for security, certainty in an uncertain world and removes the necessity for thinking. As Bill Hicks once said, 'go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, here's American Gladiators'. So such caricatures work both ways. Yet such is the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' in the media it persuasive in that it instills a tendency to steer clear of querying ideas in order to feel as though you are not one. That in itself seems to be insidious psychological manipulation. The BBC wants you to question information, but not the information it has decided you should accept. Historical atrocities like the Holocaust, or Mao's genocide or other oppressive regimes highlights how blind faith in authority can lead to dire consequences. And at a personal level lead to abuse and abusive relationships. Such need for blind authoritarianism has repeatedly proven far more dangerous than anything the BBC and others deem 'dangerous information'. However, it's crucial to differentiate between skepticism toward authority and the promotion of conspiracy theories, which are often used to muddy the waters. It is perfectly reasonable to question authority without necessarily succumbing to unfounded paranoia or denial of factual reality. Finally, it is not necessary to come up with a conspiracy 'theory' because official information seems dubious. Simply uncovering inconsistencies and lies is an end in itself. Providing an alternative explanation to that given can usually only be conjecture and by this nature can be dodgy. But if an official narrative has failed to hold water, it would be rather odd to continue to put blind faith in it. And I mean narratives beyond simple party politics, maybe long held fundamental narratives, such as ones covered by Graham Hancock, as referenced on here. Even in uber repressive regimes like Russia and China ordinary people question the official line. The nearest country I can think of where people are brain washed to the extent you and others claim is somewhere like North Korea and even there there quite a few people who know the regime is full of shit and want out. Western liberal democracies have a free press, free speech, a legal system that is separate from government and independent academic institutions. The idea that Western governments even have the ability to maintain a single official narrative is bullshit. The way public bodies are constituted makes it impossible by design - a functioning liberal democracy makes is designed to prevent the sort of government that is capable of pulling off a managed narrative. And the education system in western liberal democracies teaches people to question. Characterising the majority of people as "sheeples" swallowing the official narrative (which you and fellow conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) is rubbish. The majority of people have a healthy scepticism when it comes to what government and mainstream news sources say. There isn't even a single, official narrative out there - different mainstream news channels have different editorial policies and political outlooks. There isn't a single narrative - there's a cacophony of different opinions. Conspiracy theory websites do not have the discipline or intellectual rigour of the institutions that support western liberal democracies. There's a random collection of "influencers" with a video camera and a web domain who have created a self referential echo chamber for their made up bullshit conspiracy theories. There is no peer review and no self criticism. As an alternative to the MSM it's shit and the last thing it promotes is actual critical thinking - it promotes blind belief that only it has exclusive access to the truth. 'Characterising the majority of people as "sheeples" swallowing the official narrative (which you and fellow conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) is rubbish' You are strawmanning me again. The fundamental problem is the blanket use of the label 'conspiracy theory'. Particularly when it's applied to the questioning that you seem to be rightly espousing. I'm sure there are plenty of websites you mention, none which particularly interest me. I have better things to do with my time, and have my own ability to ask questions. Anyone who claims exclusive access to the truth is misled. And where there is no self criticism, then that's down to the individual to consider. And more often it should about collecting a range of 'theories' where there is uncertainty, and where nothing definitive can be said. And some folk are more adept at it than others. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle |
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Apr 3, 2024 17:00:55 GMT
Foucault's Pendulum is a superb book by Umberto Eco that explores conspiracy theories and the need for people to believe in either magical, occult or sinister groups operating in society s a way of explaining our sense of being helpless and out of control in our everyday lives Where all the faked moon landing, 9/11 theories, etc fall down is the idea that all these plans were performed without error, their timing was on the point of being miraculous and no one talks or produces undeniable evidence and documentation to support the theories. Power groups do conspire to conceal and distort public perceptions but common sense dictates that the alleged plans could not possibly run so smoothly when said governments/agencies can't organise even the simple plans without a cock up! The origin, and ultimate location, of all these conspiracies lie within the minds of the thinkers as a pathological symptom of paranoia, distrust and a refusal to accept factual reality to explain the outcome of world events out of their control and contrary to their preferred world view Or would I, as a minion of the Illuminati, say that anyway 😁 Regarding "Foucault's Pendulum" it's essential to recognise that not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Each theory varies in its plausibility, evidence, and motivations behind its creation. Additionally, lumping all conspiracy theories together, as the BBC does, is simplificationv overlooks the diverse factors driving them. And what these supposed academic experts in conspiracy theories fail to consider in their often condescending approach is the very psychological need to believe in authority figures or institutions, stemming from a childhood disposition. Such a psychological need can lead to blind allegiance or adherence to certain official narratives. This psychological inclination meets the very desire they critique. That is blind belief in institutions and those of lauded superior knowledge in order for security, certainty in an uncertain world and removes the necessity for thinking. As Bill Hicks once said, 'go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, here's American Gladiators'. So such caricatures work both ways. Yet such is the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' in the media it persuasive in that it instills a tendency to steer clear of querying ideas in order to feel as though you are not one. That in itself seems to be insidious psychological manipulation. The BBC wants you to question information, but not the information it has decided you should accept. Historical atrocities like the Holocaust, or Mao's genocide or other oppressive regimes highlights how blind faith in authority can lead to dire consequences. And at a personal level lead to abuse and abusive relationships. Such need for blind authoritarianism has repeatedly proven far more dangerous than anything the BBC and others deem 'dangerous information'. However, it's crucial to differentiate between skepticism toward authority and the promotion of conspiracy theories, which are often used to muddy the waters. It is perfectly reasonable to question authority without necessarily succumbing to unfounded paranoia or denial of factual reality. Finally, it is not necessary to come up with a conspiracy 'theory' because official information seems dubious. Simply uncovering inconsistencies and lies is an end in itself. Providing an alternative explanation to that given can usually only be conjecture and by this nature can be dodgy. But if an official narrative has failed to hold water, it would be rather odd to continue to put blind faith in it. And I mean narratives beyond simple party politics, maybe long held fundamental narratives, such as ones covered by Graham Hancock, as referenced on here. Fantastic post Yes I agree, some official 'truths' need challenging. My grandparents/parents blindly accepted the official line, never once challenging it. Personally, I don't have the time or energy to pursue hidden truths, I used to, and I believe conspiracies/lies do take place in official circles. I just think some of the ones, say around 911, could only work if everything planned went to perfection and it's easy to forget how incompetent most governments are as they are populated by imperfect humans |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 3, 2024 18:12:23 GMT
Perfect example right there |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 4, 2024 20:52:38 GMT
Does anyone still think that Brexit was practically a Russian foreign policy is a conspiracy?
Cos I mean it quite clearly was.
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 4, 2024 20:54:24 GMT
Does anyone still think that Brexit was practically a Russian foreign policy is a conspiracy? Cos I mean it quite clearly was.  |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 4, 2024 20:55:43 GMT
Does anyone still think that Brexit was practically a Russian foreign policy is a conspiracy? Cos I mean it quite clearly was. I’ll take that as a yes then. Even though it clearly is. They are the only winners from it apart from Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 4, 2024 21:36:22 GMT
I’ll take that as a yes then. Even though it clearly is. They are the only winners from it apart from Ireland.  |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Apr 4, 2024 21:38:26 GMT
I’ll take that as a yes then. Even though it clearly is. They are the only winners from it apart from Ireland. Yeah Russia would never influence European voting or politics. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Apr 4, 2024 21:49:20 GMT
Yeah Russia would never influence European voting or politics.  |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 4, 2024 21:56:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 4, 2024 21:59:17 GMT
I’ve read the article. What point are you trying to make? |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 5, 2024 6:06:36 GMT
Foucault's Pendulum is a superb book by Umberto Eco that explores conspiracy theories and the need for people to believe in either magical, occult or sinister groups operating in society s a way of explaining our sense of being helpless and out of control in our everyday lives Where all the faked moon landing, 9/11 theories, etc fall down is the idea that all these plans were performed without error, their timing was on the point of being miraculous and no one talks or produces undeniable evidence and documentation to support the theories. Power groups do conspire to conceal and distort public perceptions but common sense dictates that the alleged plans could not possibly run so smoothly when said governments/agencies can't organise even the simple plans without a cock up! The origin, and ultimate location, of all these conspiracies lie within the minds of the thinkers as a pathological symptom of paranoia, distrust and a refusal to accept factual reality to explain the outcome of world events out of their control and contrary to their preferred world view Or would I, as a minion of the Illuminati, say that anyway 😁 Regarding "Foucault's Pendulum" it's essential to recognise that not all conspiracy theories are created equal. Each theory varies in its plausibility, evidence, and motivations behind its creation. Additionally, lumping all conspiracy theories together, as the BBC does, is simplificationv overlooks the diverse factors driving them. And what these supposed academic experts in conspiracy theories fail to consider in their often condescending approach is the very psychological need to believe in authority figures or institutions, stemming from a childhood disposition. Such a psychological need can lead to blind allegiance or adherence to certain official narratives. This psychological inclination meets the very desire they critique. That is blind belief in institutions and those of lauded superior knowledge in order for security, certainty in an uncertain world and removes the necessity for thinking. As Bill Hicks once said, 'go back to bed America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, here's American Gladiators'. So such caricatures work both ways. Yet such is the caricature of 'conspiracy theorist' in the media it persuasive in that it instills a tendency to steer clear of querying ideas in order to feel as though you are not one. That in itself seems to be insidious psychological manipulation. The BBC wants you to question information, but not the information it has decided you should accept. Historical atrocities like the Holocaust, or Mao's genocide or other oppressive regimes highlights how blind faith in authority can lead to dire consequences. And at a personal level lead to abuse and abusive relationships. Such need for blind authoritarianism has repeatedly proven far more dangerous than anything the BBC and others deem 'dangerous information'. However, it's crucial to differentiate between skepticism toward authority and the promotion of conspiracy theories, which are often used to muddy the waters. It is perfectly reasonable to question authority without necessarily succumbing to unfounded paranoia or denial of factual reality. Finally, it is not necessary to come up with a conspiracy 'theory' because official information seems dubious. Simply uncovering inconsistencies and lies is an end in itself. Providing an alternative explanation to that given can usually only be conjecture and by this nature can be dodgy. But if an official narrative has failed to hold water, it would be rather odd to continue to put blind faith in it. And I mean narratives beyond simple party politics, maybe long held fundamental narratives, such as ones covered by Graham Hancock, as referenced on here. The academic experts who debunk conspiracy theories do not have a psychological disposition to believe in official narratives. They not only question all narratives, official or otherwise, they do not believe a successful narrative (as in an untrue story that can successfully hoodwink the majority of a population in the long term) is even possible. It is conspiracy theorists who insist there is such a thing as an all encompassing official narrative designed to hoodwink people. And it is conspiracy theorists who invent alternative narratives to replace the non existent official narrative because they believe that life has to be explained in terms of a narrative. The reality is there is no narrative. There are cock ups and random shit and the occasional bit of crappy propaganda that most people don't believe anyway. The fact is conspiracy theorists have a child like disposition to cling to fairy tales because they can't cope with the idea that literally no one is in control. The people who debunk conspiracy theories have no psychological need for a narrative - official or otherwise. They simply do not believe what actually happens is based on a narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Apr 5, 2024 21:47:31 GMT
I heard a good one not long ago - The Roman Empire never fully fell, it instead became what we now know to be the Vatican.
Speaking of them, there are numerous gospels that they specifically either removed or did not put into the bible for whatever reason and they are all in their top secret archives. But that’s not really a conspiracy, the interesting part is why and what do these other readings have in them!
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 6, 2024 10:25:10 GMT
I’ve read the article. What point are you trying to make? That photo in different forms has been doing the rounds for years and they are all either faked or misleading. The green map isn't a heat map, it's a topographic map - the colours represent height above sea level, not temperature. The colours in the other map have been doctored to look redder. It's a debunked attempt to make out that climate change is a conspiracy. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 6, 2024 10:27:41 GMT
I’ve read the article. What point are you trying to make? That photo in different forms has been doing the rounds for years and they are all either faked or misleading. The green map isn't a heat map, it's a topographic map - the colours represent height above sea level, not temperature. The colours in the other map have been doctored to look redder. It's a debunked attempt to make out that climate change is a conspiracy. They’re both presented to the public as a temperature map though aren’t they? |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 6, 2024 10:39:14 GMT
Even in uber repressive regimes like Russia and China ordinary people question the official line. The nearest country I can think of where people are brain washed to the extent you and others claim is somewhere like North Korea and even there there quite a few people who know the regime is full of shit and want out. Western liberal democracies have a free press, free speech, a legal system that is separate from government and independent academic institutions. The idea that Western governments even have the ability to maintain a single official narrative is bullshit. The way public bodies are constituted makes it impossible by design - a functioning liberal democracy makes is designed to prevent the sort of government that is capable of pulling off a managed narrative. And the education system in western liberal democracies teaches people to question. Characterising the majority of people as "sheeples" swallowing the official narrative (which you and fellow conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) is rubbish. The majority of people have a healthy scepticism when it comes to what government and mainstream news sources say. There isn't even a single, official narrative out there - different mainstream news channels have different editorial policies and political outlooks. There isn't a single narrative - there's a cacophony of different opinions. Conspiracy theory websites do not have the discipline or intellectual rigour of the institutions that support western liberal democracies. There's a random collection of "influencers" with a video camera and a web domain who have created a self referential echo chamber for their made up bullshit conspiracy theories. There is no peer review and no self criticism. As an alternative to the MSM it's shit and the last thing it promotes is actual critical thinking - it promotes blind belief that only it has exclusive access to the truth. 'Characterising the majority of people as "sheeples" swallowing the official narrative (which you and fellow conspiracy theorists repeatedly claim) is rubbish' You are strawmanning me again. The fundamental problem is the blanket use of the label 'conspiracy theory'. Particularly when it's applied to the questioning that you seem to be rightly espousing. I'm sure there are plenty of websites you mention, none which particularly interest me. I have better things to do with my time, and have my own ability to ask questions. Anyone who claims exclusive access to the truth is misled. And where there is no self criticism, then that's down to the individual to consider. And more often it should about collecting a range of 'theories' where there is uncertainty, and where nothing definitive can be said. And some folk are more adept at it than others. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Aristotle You are completely misrepresenting what you have said in previous posts. You have made endless posts where you have put forward a theory as being the true version of what is going on in the world and continually claim the MSM's version is part of some insidious globalist narrative. Some of your posts on climate change are classics. Like when you said the impact of CO2 can't be as big as is claimed because the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small. You made several posts to defend this theory without once referencing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting that it does. You have never posted a set of alternative theories on a subject and concluded that it's hard to say which is true. Making yourself out as some sort of Aristotelian philosopher balancing the pros and cons of competing theories is hilarious. You've never done it. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 6, 2024 10:44:08 GMT
That photo in different forms has been doing the rounds for years and they are all either faked or misleading. The green map isn't a heat map, it's a topographic map - the colours represent height above sea level, not temperature. The colours in the other map have been doctored to look redder. It's a debunked attempt to make out that climate change is a conspiracy. They’re both presented to the public as a temperature map though aren’t they? They were both used in a weather broadcast yes but the broadcasters never claimed in the first one that the colour scheme represented temperature. It represented height above sea level. It is the people circulating this image that are falsely claiming that the first represented temperature and the colour change is evidence of a plot to convince climate change is a thing when it isn't. At some point the broadcaster decided to use temperature maps rather than topographic maps for their weather forecast |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Apr 6, 2024 10:48:10 GMT
They’re both presented to the public as a temperature map though aren’t they? They were both used in a weather broadcast yes but the broadcasters never claimed in the first one that the colour scheme represented temperature. It represented height above sea level. It is the people circulating this image that are falsely claiming that the first represented temperature and the colour change is evidence of a plot to convince climate change is a thing when it isn't. At some point the broadcaster decided to use temperature maps rather than topographic maps for their weather forecast That’s because they want us to think it’s hotter than it is. And of course it happens the other way around too. Extreme weather warning my arse. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Apr 6, 2024 12:21:06 GMT
They were both used in a weather broadcast yes but the broadcasters never claimed in the first one that the colour scheme represented temperature. It represented height above sea level. It is the people circulating this image that are falsely claiming that the first represented temperature and the colour change is evidence of a plot to convince climate change is a thing when it isn't. At some point the broadcaster decided to use temperature maps rather than topographic maps for their weather forecast That’s because they want us to think it’s hotter than it is. And of course it happens the other way around too. Extreme weather warning my arse. "They" changed from using topographic maps to heat maps in order to con you about climate change? Why? What are "they" trying to achieve? |
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 16, 2024 18:44:06 GMT
ISIS and Al Qaeda have been supported by the USA, Israel and other Western countries at different times through history.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Apr 18, 2024 18:07:32 GMT
I read this fairly throwaway postulation in an article years ago and the idea has always captivated me: “If, in the final 7,000 years of their reign, dinosaurs became hyperintelligent, built a civilization, started asteroid mining, and did so for centuries before forgetting to carry the one on an orbital calculation, thereby sending that famous valedictory six-mile space rock hurtling senselessly toward the Earth themselves — it would be virtually impossible to tell. All we do know is that an asteroid did hit, and that the fossils in the millions of years afterward look very different than in the millions of years prior” The idea being that it's entirely possible that dinosaurs (or some other species) could have evolved to our level of intelligence and civilisation, and beyond, and it would be totally invisible to us now because of the relatively minuscule timeframe and the fact that any evidence of a civilisation would have disappeared long ago. This isn't the right thread for this is it.  Well I don't think there is another thread where it would be more appropriate! Graham Hancock has been mentioned a few times on the thread already and of course, his writings are based on the fact that, in his opinion, there was, in pre-history a forgotten human race, that had reached a technological sophistication, of which there is little to no evidence of remaining today. Obviously a suggestion that would have been far more recent than the dinosaur idea but essentially, I think, a suggestion on similar lines.
I’m halfway through this (extremely long) debate between Hancock and a “mainstream” archeology bloke. To be fair I haven’t read any of Hancock’s stuff but I can't say I’ve ever been very convinced by him in interviews. All his arguments seem to lean heavily on his own incredulity and sense of injustice. He gets quite outraged that his ideas are mocked, as if it’s some calculated attack by Big Archeology (who knew that was a thing). I’m no expert but I think it’s probably just that his ideas warrant mockery. |
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Apr 24, 2024 23:52:44 GMT
I know this particular post is focusing more on zionism.
But I've been calling this for a while. America has been talking about banning tik tok for ages under the premise of spyware but in reality it's about controlling the media and they don't like its Chinese owned.
A bit like what happened with Huawei a few years back too.
|
|
