|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 24, 2024 23:28:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2024 23:38:46 GMT
Why would they lapse over a couple of thousand years? It seems like a really quick timeline to remove what would have been a very advantageous trait. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 24, 2024 23:45:43 GMT
Why would they lapse over a couple of thousand years? It seems like a really quick timeline to remove what would have been a very advantageous trait. It's a good question. Hancock suggests that the Pyramids and the Sphinx are considerably older than mainstream archaeology claims. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 25, 2024 13:44:03 GMT
He's just ignoring the fact that psychic phenomena have been studied for decades and there is no definitive proof that it exists and pretty much all the studies that claimed definitive evidence have been debunked. This guy is just rehashing bullshit theories that have been around for ages. Also where is his evidence for things like the pyramids being older than claimed? Actually I'm not sure this guy is claiming that there is a conspiracy to cover this up, just that the "mainstream" don't take it seriously. But then I could claim that the pyramids were built by technologically advanced lizards now living in caves near the earth's core protected from the magma above it by an invisible force field of their own devising. And guess what? Nobody in the mainstream believes me. So clearly it must be true. If I were to post a video on some website it would immediately becomes even truer. |
|
|
|
Post by noustie on Mar 25, 2024 13:57:54 GMT
When I was at THE remember doing a stock take one time and I was midway up one aisle. There was a really weird set of twins and each one was at the opposite end of the same aisle. I could see both of their mouths moving but couldn't hear anything - then they both laughed at exactly the same time!! I thought they were maybe just fucking with me but this kept on for well over an hour and it became evident they were never mumbling at the same time. In the end I had to move as they both abruptly stopped and stared at me at the exact same time like I was being a nosy twat or something - there was 40-50 meters at least between them easy. Freaked me out for weeks! |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 25, 2024 14:22:19 GMT
He's just ignoring the fact that psychic phenomena have been studied for decades and there is no definitive proof that it exists and pretty much all the studies that claimed definitive evidence have been debunked. This guy is just rehashing bullshit theories that have been around for ages. Also where is his evidence for things like the pyramids being older than claimed? Actually I'm not sure this guy is claiming that there is a conspiracy to cover this up, just that the "mainstream" don't take it seriously. But then I could claim that the pyramids were built by technologically advanced lizards now living in caves near the earth's core protected from the magma above it by an invisible force field of their own devising. And guess what? Nobody in the mainstream believes me. So clearly it must be true. If I were to post a video on some website it would immediately becomes even truer. I posted it because he has already been mentioned several times on this thread already and this was new. As for evidence of the Pyramids and Sphinx being older than conventional archaeology claims, he's got some pretty interesting theories to do with star alignments in specific epochs and evidence of water fissures on the Sphnix. It's pseudo science at the end of the day but he's certainly regarded as a conspiracy theorist. kansasalumnimagazine.org/magazine-article/ancient-apocalypse-archaeologist-john-hoopes/ |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 25, 2024 14:37:55 GMT
There a wild conspiracy theory going around that danceswithclams has never even seen World of Twist never mind the support acts......
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 25, 2024 21:46:00 GMT
As we speak ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2024 22:11:04 GMT
Why would they lapse over a couple of thousand years? It seems like a really quick timeline to remove what would have been a very advantageous trait. It's a good question. Hancock suggests that the Pyramids and the Sphinx are considerably older than mainstream archaeology claims. “Mainstream archaeology”, as in work done by scientists 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 25, 2024 22:11:30 GMT
ISIS was created by the west. Think big Don even pedaled that one too. Any substance behind it? Anyone went down the rabbit hole? Depends what you mean by created I guess. Like Al Qaeda you could kind of say was but it wasn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 25, 2024 23:22:10 GMT
ISIS was created by the west. Think big Don even pedaled that one too. Any substance behind it? Anyone went down the rabbit hole? Depends what you mean by created I guess. Like Al Qaeda you could kind of say was but it wasn’t.
Not following you mate.
Al Qaeda was started by Bin Laden who the CIA was funding in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.
And Bin Laden gave al-Zarqawi the money to start ISIS in Iraq.
So I think it can be argued that ISIS was to some degree created by the West.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 25, 2024 23:40:42 GMT
Depends what you mean by created I guess. Like Al Qaeda you could kind of say was but it wasn’t. Not following you mate. Al Qaeda was started by Bin Laden who the CIA was funding in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. And Bin Laden gave al-Zarqawi the money to start ISIS in Iraq. So I think it can be argued that ISIS was to some degree created by the West.
That’s what I mean. I don’t think it was created by the west but given a helping hand. So sort of but not. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 26, 2024 7:49:42 GMT
There's a conspiracy theory going on in the Swedish labour market saying if you don't get dirty under your finger nails and a bit sweaty too during your working hours, then you don't have a real job.
|
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 26, 2024 8:00:47 GMT
Unlike "theory" in everyday speech, the word in science is not used as a close synonym of the word "guess". A theory is, on the contrary, the strongest degree of probability that can be reached in science. A scientific theory differs from a scientific hypothesis which is also a proposed and testable explanation, but has not yet been rigorously tested. A scientific theory is actually a way of collecting true facts after the testing is done and present them in a proper way leading to that theory. I think if anything, we should focus on the word "conspiracy" instead. The conspiracy believers haven't any scientific evidence for them "theories", which should be called guesses. Absolutely correct. The words they in general should use are "thought", "idea" or perhaps "thesis". Until the day they really have a theory built on facts. Some might claim they already have and some possibly have. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2024 10:06:59 GMT
Unlike "theory" in everyday speech, the word in science is not used as a close synonym of the word "guess". A theory is, on the contrary, the strongest degree of probability that can be reached in science. A scientific theory differs from a scientific hypothesis which is also a proposed and testable explanation, but has not yet been rigorously tested. A scientific theory is actually a way of collecting true facts after the testing is done and present them in a proper way leading to that theory. I think if anything, we should focus on the word "conspiracy" instead. The conspiracy believers haven't any scientific evidence for them "theories", which should be called guesses. Absolutely correct. The words they in general should use are "thought", "idea" or perhaps "thesis". Until the day they really have a theory built on facts. Some might claim they already have and some possibly have. Musik, did you just agree with yourself? 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 26, 2024 11:49:42 GMT
Absolutely correct. The words they in general should use are "thought", "idea" or perhaps "thesis". Until the day they really have a theory built on facts. Some might claim they already have and some possibly have. Musik, did you just agree with yourself? 😂 I had to, since a couple of posters here use the everyday definition of theory, which is false since conspiracy believers don't, even though they should or rather use another word for it like the examples I just gave. 🤠 |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 26, 2024 12:05:49 GMT
The psychology around it is fascinating.
Like the bridge today. So many automatically refuse to believe it could just be a tragic accident or mistake and it’s something fishy.
Now I know it’s early to be going all in on that one but it does just look like an accident/fuck up but yet people struggle to deal with that and want it be some part of bigger plot. Does it give them more comfort that some things are so wildly out of control?
I think the best version of this I can think is the Manchester canal pusher.
The “victims” all generally fit the same profile. A male on their own, after a night out, in wet conditions. Pretty obvious what’s happened but the families in a lot of cases just don’t buy it. And it’s still tragic but I find the psychology behind not wanting to accept the obvious fascinating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2024 13:20:34 GMT
Musik, did you just agree with yourself? 😂 I had to, since a couple of posters here use the everyday definition of theory, which is false since conspiracy believers don't, even though they should or rather use another word for it like the examples I just gave. 🤠 Don’t ever change buddy  |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Mar 27, 2024 16:16:37 GMT
The psychology around it is fascinating. Like the bridge today. So many automatically refuse to believe it could just be a tragic accident or mistake and it’s something fishy. Now I know it’s early to be going all in on that one but it does just look like an accident/fuck up but yet people struggle to deal with that and want it be some part of bigger plot. Does it give them more comfort that some things are so wildly out of control? I think the best version of this I can think is the Manchester canal pusher. The “victims” all generally fit the same profile. A male on their own, after a night out, in wet conditions. Pretty obvious what’s happened but the families in a lot of cases just don’t buy it. And it’s still tragic but I find the psychology behind not wanting to accept the obvious fascinating. I think you are right - people seem happier if some awful event has someone behind it rather than that random shit just happens. I think there is a connection with belief in god - the ultimate creator of the "narrative". |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Mar 27, 2024 21:37:11 GMT
I still found that random titanic submarine expedition very strange. Especially as it came out around the time of another major news story and sort of overshadowed it. I can't even remember what said story was anymore.
Was just very odd timing with the minute by minute updates and so much focus. And then not heard a squeak since.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Mar 27, 2024 21:42:47 GMT
The psychology around it is fascinating. Like the bridge today. So many automatically refuse to believe it could just be a tragic accident or mistake and it’s something fishy. Now I know it’s early to be going all in on that one but it does just look like an accident/fuck up but yet people struggle to deal with that and want it be some part of bigger plot. Does it give them more comfort that some things are so wildly out of control? I think the best version of this I can think is the Manchester canal pusher. The “victims” all generally fit the same profile. A male on their own, after a night out, in wet conditions. Pretty obvious what’s happened but the families in a lot of cases just don’t buy it. And it’s still tragic but I find the psychology behind not wanting to accept the obvious fascinating. I think you are right - people seem happier if some awful event has someone behind it rather than that random shit just happens. I think there is a connection with belief in god - the ultimate creator of the "narrative". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 28, 2024 8:57:50 GMT
I think you are right - people seem happier if some awful event has someone behind it rather than that random shit just happens. I think there is a connection with belief in god - the ultimate creator of the "narrative". 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. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Mar 28, 2024 11:31:18 GMT
My thoughts on the question why do conspiracy theories exist: because they have lost track, and they have nothing else to believe in. And believing is part of our nature.
But I want to put focus on another question: If someone comes up with a conspiracy "theory" and it then shows it was correct, when does it no longer exist as a conspiracy "theory" (meaning guesses, idea, thought, thesis) and become a real theory based on facts?
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 28, 2024 21:56:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by middleoftheboothen on Mar 29, 2024 10:08:17 GMT
Harry Kane makes England worse. Now I know it seems like complete bollocks to the average person but there are higher powers out there that believe this to be one hundred percent fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 29, 2024 15:41:39 GMT
My thoughts on the question why do conspiracy theories exist: because they have lost track, and they have nothing else to believe in. And believing is part of our nature. But I want to put focus on another question: If someone comes up with a conspiracy "theory" and it then shows it was correct, when does it no longer exist as a conspiracy "theory" (meaning guesses, idea, thought, thesis) and become a real theory based on facts? I think it's like alternative medicine. If it works then it's just called medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Mar 29, 2024 16:05:03 GMT
My thoughts on the question why do conspiracy theories exist: because they have lost track, and they have nothing else to believe in. And believing is part of our nature. But I want to put focus on another question: If someone comes up with a conspiracy "theory" and it then shows it was correct, when does it no longer exist as a conspiracy "theory" (meaning guesses, idea, thought, thesis) and become a real theory based on facts? That's the principle of science. Come up with a theory to challenge the established view, but supported by valid evidence and a body of data. When the weight of evidence tips the balance then the 'theory' becomes the norm until itself challenged. Conspiracy theories tend not to do that. They rely on circumstantial evidence, coincides and anecdotes. (Eg there is no climate change because if there was Bill Gates wouldn't have a beach side property - which is supposed to overturn the view of just about 100% of climate scientists). And if their flimsy 'evidence' isn't accepted and no more can be produced then they claim their must be a cover up or the establishment is corrupt (also usualky without evidence). Challenging things is healthy - chucking out batshit anecdotes as conclusive proof isn't. (Bill is 68 and loaded - he can afford to lose a house to rising levels but likes the view in the meantime). |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 29, 2024 16:17:58 GMT
My thoughts on the question why do conspiracy theories exist: because they have lost track, and they have nothing else to believe in. And believing is part of our nature. But I want to put focus on another question: If someone comes up with a conspiracy "theory" and it then shows it was correct, when does it no longer exist as a conspiracy "theory" (meaning guesses, idea, thought, thesis) and become a real theory based on facts? That's the principle of science. Come up with a theory to challenge the established view, but supported by valid evidence and a body of data. When the weight of evidence tips the balance then the 'theory' becomes the norm until itself challenged. Conspiracy theories tend not to do that. They rely on circumstantial evidence, coincides and anecdotes. (Eg there is no climate change because if there was Bill Gates wouldn't have a beach side property - which is supposed to overturn the view of just about 100% of climate scientists). And if their flimsy 'evidence' isn't accepted and no more can be produced then they claim their must be a cover up or the establishment is corrupt (also usualky without evidence). Challenging things is healthy - chucking out batshit anecdotes as conclusive proof isn't. (Bill is 68 and loaded - he can afford to lose a house to rising levels but likes the view in the meantime). I'd say it's a hypothesis first and becomes a theory after you've got oodles of evidence for it and tested it really hard. Sounds like musik was using it that way? But "theory" is used in loads of ways which seems to cause arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by mtrstudent on Mar 29, 2024 16:18:26 GMT
Why would they lapse over a couple of thousand years? It seems like a really quick timeline to remove what would have been a very advantageous trait. The Inquisition really did do something important? |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Mar 29, 2024 18:08:05 GMT
|
|
