The Conspiracy Theory

Wunnunda

pinarello001 wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

I don't know I just research facts, I don't spend all my time trying to turn those facts into comedy.

'Facts' are not opinion. You mix everything up to suit your odd agenda.

How can 7bn people be controlled? The world is made up of a huge rich tapestry of cultures in so many guises, so many languages and sub dialects and so many different hierarchies. How on earth could it all be controlled?

Is that big draconian Chinese government being controlled? By whom? Who are (is) controlling it all?

Conspiracy theorists cannot comprehend the inexplicable, often perplexing world so they put some order to it by saying it is all controlled. If you believe this, then why don't you just believe in God? God created everything didn't he?

You cannot believe in religion and simultaneously believe in a great big conspiracy and then say religion has a lot of answers (more than science has ever done) but despite that we are being controlled by something that isn't god. That's what you're trying to say isn't it?

Who is controlling us all? Is it God or something (body) else? It cannot be both.
You make no sense and trip over your own rambling arguments and we are the comedians!?

Nail hit on head :idea:
Conspiracy theorists' entire belief system rests on one simple premise : that human beings are capable of organising their affairs to a level of detail that manifestly they are not. They are no different from people of more conventional faiths in that what they crave is order and certainty in their lives, to feel that someone, somewhere must know what is happening. In reality, of course there isn't. No matter how hard people try there will always be someone or something that will disrupt and randomise events.
Ironically a lot of conspiracy theorists I've come across also have a deep interest in counterfactual history (you know, what if the Nazis won and all that) and yet a moments thought shows that the very fact that alternative histories could have happened indicates control is that last thing we have over our lives. You can either find this frightening, or exciting.

Manc33

I say "science just measures things" but it has "saved lives" because both statements are true.

Don't be such a dualist. :P

Rabbits chew up farmers crops, does that mean rabbits cannot be pets?
Rabbits make nice pets. Does that mean rabbits cannot destroy crops?

If you always think something is either "this" or "that" and never a bit of both, I dunno man, but most people are like that including me, unless I notice myself doing it, being an extremist is what I called it in earlier posts, weeks ago.

Isn't it an extreme notion to suggest only science is useful, or only religion is useful? What if both were! Call the cops. :P

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

Whats so amazing about measuring things?

That's not to say science hasn't helped the world and saved lives etc, it has

That is what you said.

Kind of answered your own question.

But carry on as normal, ignore what people are saying and reply to whatever you want

Manc33

People make science out to be something vastly more amazing than it really is because they forget that all science does is measure things. The fact that we can "measure things to save lives" doesn't take away the fact that measuring things is all science consists of, which I have to say... leaves a lot to the imagination.

The scientists I like are ones with an open mind like Bruce Lipton. They aren't all "left brain prisoners" but holy crap there's a lot that are.

"Bruce Harold Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs."

That's the stuff.

Science has people studying just one subject for years and years - at the exclusion of all other subjects. That's not normal folks and you need to be asking why things are that way! Why the compartmentalization?

Its refreshing to me that we now have scientists coming out saying there's a "god particle" or whatever they are calling it, but they are a few thousand years too late. They actually think they are going to say they discovered god and claim it?! Maybe scientists could even learn a few things from the bible, who knows. All we ever do is blast each others ideas, so it isn't exactly easy to get anywhere. I mean you'd never have a Priest working in a scientific field, or a scientist that is a vicar. We need more of it I say. Stopping "excluding" each others ideas can't be a bad thing.

As long as everyone keeps arguing and laughing at each other it can't ever sort itself out.

I think atheists are more ignorant than religious people. To actually say you know for certain there's nothing spiritual possible in the universe is pretty strange unless you happen to have traversed the bloody thing. Atheists therefore are ignorant, looking for an identity, a club to be in or something. At least with most Christians if you said look, Buddha has a sun behind his head, so do the Hindu deities... I mean you can't really argue with that because it is true. Its more likely a religious person would budge, than an atheist. If you're calling yourself an atheist you've lost already.

veronese68

You do know that the god particle is a nickname for the Higgs Boson don't you? It's all to do with nuclear physics, it's quite complicated. Nobody thinks it's a sentient being that created the earth.
Also your DNA and genes come from your parents, you can't change them. Even if you don't like your parents.

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

I don't know I just research facts, I don't spend all my time trying to turn those facts into comedy.

It makes me wonder what you'd say if the guy wasn't called Bacon.

"Bruce Harold Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs."

"Bruce Harold Lipton is an American who, though trained as a developmental biologist, is best known for abandoning the scientific method and promoting crazy New Age woo intended to manipulate a person's beliefs. However, he does make an excellent cup of tea." - FTFY.

Incidentally, scientists don't just measure stuff, though measurements and other observations are indeed important. The key thing is to come up with a hypothesis which might explain these observations and makes predictions that can be tested by experiment. If the hypothesis makes a prediction that the experiment shows is false, then the hypothesis must be rejected. Pseudoscientists, however, never reject their hypotheses no matter what the experiments say, or don't do experiments that properly test the hypothesis, or don't even come up with a genuinely falsifiable hypothesis in the first place. It's a similar mindset to the conspiracy theorist who, once infected with the idea that (e.g.) the moon landings never happened, will cling to this idea in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence (usually interpreted as disinformation spread by the Conspiracy). If you prefer an explanation from Youtube, try this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BXuv2KfEFA

Or in cartoon form:

https://xkcd.com/242/

MisterMuncher

All Lipton would need to do is produce some results that could be replicated and verified, then he'd be a scientist. Same as the homeopaths, the vaccine panic merchants, the perpetual motion tinkerers. Show us some bloody data, let us try to replicate the results. At the minute he's a man with a notion, and the world isn't exactly hurting for a want of that.

It's a good thing to question orthodoxy in any circle, but quite another to suppose the existence of an orthodoxy is inherently a negative thing. Or put more succinctly, if you open your mind too much, your brain might fall out.

chris_bass

I have my own theory, call it a conspiracy if you like.

At first I thought Manc33 was winding us up, then as he went on (and on and on and on and....) I thought he may actually believe this stuff but now given the latest attack on science (all of it and anyone who believes in it seemingly, unless they come up with something that flies in the face of popular belief, literally in Hutchison's case) I think he is just playing with us.

He is clearly researching for a book or newspaper article (all his ramblings about not believing the news are just to throw us off the scent, you can't argue with this stuff) about how people nteract online with differences of opinion. Unless Manc33 can 100% prove this is not the case then it must be true.

If it is a book and they make a movie of it can I be played by Idris Elba, Warwick Davis or Dame Judy Dench please. Any of them is fine.

ai_1

@Manc33

You've written a vast amount of garbage most of which is easy to rebut and the remainder of which I find too incomprehensible (your fault not mine!) to deal with. I'm not about to waste all day wading through your nonsense so I'll restrict myself for now, to a single, but spectacularly idiotic item.

Manc33 wrote:

....."Actual science" lol. Science is just another religion where all that happens is things get measured, big deal.

Whats so amazing about measuring things?

That's not to say science hasn't helped the world and saved lives etc, it has. The thing is you have to also be capable of noticing all they do is measure things, nothing more.

In science they can't even explain the mechanism that causes gravity, E=MC2 has flaws (now shown to be the case by quantum physicists). Darwin's theory has no actual proof, but everyone believes it to the point it is unfashionable not to. No proof, just "because we say so"....

So... You spend all your time here telling us how people just accept what they're told and never try and find out the truth for themselves. Then you say science serves no purpose because all they do is try to objectively determine what's going on.

What you'll find is pretty prevalent among scientists is that they have a pretty good grasp on how ignorant they are. Like most intelligent, thoughtful, open minded and outward looking people, the more they learn the more they realise how much they don't know or understand. That's not to say there aren't egotistical scientists or those with a vested interest in defending their stance on certain issues. Also there are fashions in science like there are in all groups. But in principle and by and large in practice, science is open minded and tries to follow the evidence.

You claim don't approve of science because it just measures things while at the same time telling us all we need to go educate ourselves about the world and investigate for ourselves. How do you investigate? Do you have a method? Does it require any rigor? Do you always choose the first answer, the easiest answer, the most dramatic answer or is it a lottery? What evidence do you require? Many people consider measurement to be a pretty good idea in order to test a theory. Do you ever test your own theories? Do you subject yours to examination? Do you only try to support them or do you also challenge them?

You sir are in the business of easy answers. You buy a dodgy seatpost, it breaks and you claim carbon doesn't work. You can't use the trim on your gear system and you claim gear trim is a gimmick, you don't like or understand what's happening in the world around you so you say "they" did it. Admittedly, you don't just propose the theories, you also provide your version of "evidence" and "rationale" but in my experience these are NEVER solidly based. They tend to be fabrications based on an accumulation of selected assumptions and anecdotes to support your claims.

I frequently criticise religion, I have a science and engineering background and I suspect most people think I'm annoyingly analytical at times. As much as I dislike blind religious faith and adherance, it is typically the result accepting the existing doctorine and tradition in one's society without making the effort to examine it's validity. You on the other hand seem to have questioned conventional beliefs (good for you) but then instead of seeking out more reasonable explanations you simply latched onto another set of fantastical and absurd beliefs... oh and now you reserve the right to create new ones when and as you like.

RDW

Chris Bass wrote:

I have my own theory, call it a conspiracy if you like.

Oh come on 'Chris', do you think we don't know what is really going on? The '33' in 'Manc33' (clearly a reference to the highest degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry) and the red triangle in your signature (the symbol used by the Nazis to identify Freemasons) conclusively link your two accounts, which obviously belong to the same person, alternately posting sensible and crazy opinions. You are playing us like a Stradivarius, for some sinister purpose of your own.

Also, in the movie I can either be played by myself or by Jessica Alba, but in either case my contract will stipulate that my partner will be played by Salma Hayek, and in an extended sequence set in a snowbound log cabin, we...

Sorry, what were we talking about?

tangled_metal

Out of curiosity has anyone googled priest scientists? Or something similar. I just did it to see if there have been any and Roger Bacon, Copernicus, George Lamaitre (Belgian priest and father of the big bang theory died 1966) and Gregor Mendel (a monk and father of genetics) are some notables. Some are from a while back others are in the last century there are even some noted scientist priests/monks/monsigneurs alive and working in the field now I believe. That is before you get lay persons and persons from other Christian sects like Anglican, Methodist, Quaker, etc. Of course I do wonder if the Scientologists suit Manc33's sensibilities??

It has been said before but Manc33 before you keep spouting the rubbish about the "God particle" having anything to do with religion, spirituality, etc. I will repeat...It is a particle nothing to do with God. That was given to it as a nickname to catch the attention of the masses because it was a highly important particle for holding matter together (or something like that I am not a particle physicist or physicist so not clear myself about the exact details). It has obviously caught Manc33's attention at least.

Now I have no issue with people's religion, spirituality or beliefs based solely on faith. I am an atheist which in it's ultimate meaning is without god. I hold by that view but it does not mean I can not have a spirituality or belief in something. It certainly does not prevent me being open to ideas. BTW I was a Christian who was converted away from the religion by the illogical and insane ramblings on "evidence of God" from a teacher of chemistry, Maths, Science and Religion at school. A born again Christian I think and very evangelical. His "evidence" included such things as a clock in the desert and other evidence based on a low or non-existent level of logical thought. He was a scientist who believed in the scientific method and indeed taught it but his religion was closeminded. The religion was right and everything had to fit around it. IMHO that is th definition of being closed minded.

RDW

Tangled Metal wrote:

Out of curiosity has anyone googled priest scientists? Or something similar. I just did it to see if there have been any and Roger Bacon, Copernicus, George Lamaitre (Belgian priest and father of the big bang theory died 1966) and Gregor Mendel (a monk and father of genetics) are some notables. Some are from a while back others are in the last century there are even some noted scientist priests/monks/monsigneurs alive and working in the field now I believe.

John Polkinghorne is one example, a Christian throughout his scientific career (theoretical physics at a high academic level) who became a priest and theologian on retiring from active research:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

There's a big difference between people like Polkinghorne who explore science and religion in an intellectually honest way, and cranks like Lipton who distort the science to suit their mystical agenda.

chris_bass

At the risk of trivialising this thread, Polkinghorne is a great name!

norvernrob

So, the moon landings were faked, space exploration filmed underwater, and pretty much all Science is useless and never discovers anything.

Yet one man, John Hutchinson, invented an anti gravity device that the government stopped him making.

The same John Hutchinson that posted videos filmed upside down of things falling and claiming they were levitating, hung them by power cables and string and couldn't ever actually levitate anything in front of anyone. He sold the tapes and even admitted 'some of it' was faked.

This is the 'Hutchinson effect' at work in a video he released. Look at the top left corner....



Looks legit to me.

What I don't understand Manc33 is that you try and find flaws in government videos, but you post this guy as an example of a cover up. Surely you cant believe he's anything other than a fruitcake or simply a liar?

RDW

Don't be naive, Rob. Everyone knows that the Conspiracy blackmailed Hutchinson into posting obvious fake videos to discredit the technology, then used it themselves to destroy WTC7 on 9/11, and cause Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl in 2004.

Manc33

You're showing me a GIF image without Hutchison, that was taken from a video, that is not even on his channel?

Seems legit. :roll:

It was his videos showing metal melting at room temperature and objects transforming that I was referring to when I originally referred to him. Of course you have totally ignored the fact that other videos exist.

The fishing line appears damning but its meant to. It still doesn't explain the other far more interesting stuff he did like the melting objects.

It would seem to me he did invent something, it got stolen and he got discredited. Job done, now the info just disappears off into some Government black hole along with anything else like this. It will get taken to some lab and the head guy will say "Already had this since the 1950s" and they will just throw it away anyway. Its more about taking it away from the public than anything else and they probably already have invented whatever it was he discovered... and so much more.

I have seen a black triangle thing myself back around 1997/1998 and the speed it was flying, it should have fallen out of the sky, it was also nearly silent and just sounded like a coach going past. Now, I have never once said aliens might be flying that thing, I have always said it must have been a Government plane, but look at the tech they have got - it definitely had anti-gravity. If you don't believe any of that then don't. I certainly can't prove it. Its so true if you've seen anything like that yourself you believe they exist and if you never have you never will believe they do.

So when people like Hutchison come along and have their stuff snatched I tend to actually look into it as opposed to laughing at how it isn't possible. No use telling me that if I have seen anti-gravity in action myself.

I remember the night to this day and running back in the house to tell everyone what I saw... "Shut up, we're trying to watch a film" they said and that was the end of that. It was right next to a power station and plenty of other sightings had been seen around there around that time. The thing I saw was less than 100 feet above and just "swept" past. I just don't bother telling anyone lol, what's the point if only I saw it. I am only explaining it now because when I see anti-gravity stuff I know its possible from seeing the black triangle plane. You would be able to convince me I have three legs before you'd convince me I never saw it.

Cue the laughter again etc...

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

It would seem to me he did invent something, it got stolen and he got discredited.

You see? I told you!

And can it be a coincidence that today, only days after we started this thread, the return of the X-Files was announced?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32035562

Starring Gillian Anderson:

Manc33

I bet you think two drunken farmers did every crop circle too?

"Oh those crop circles, yeah those two farmers admitted it"

Admitted it! :shock:

They obviously cannot create some of the crop circles that are made, but the lie works, as long as the story is there, all people ever say is "It was those two farmers, they admitted it" and they never have any more interest in the subject.

Let's just ignore the fact that they couldn't possibly do it. People are this stupid and willing to accept any stupid story as proof. You know that car the Bugatti Veyron - I invented it really, not Bugatti, hey listen its all OK because... I admit it. It was little old me. :oops:

The biggest con those two farmers did was to pretend they were making all the crop circles. When they made a crop circle themselves, it was crude and pathetic looking compared with others that had been done. Why such a stark inconsistency? Oh and I think they were sober when being filmed and drunk when doing them at night, which only adds to the absurdity of the claim. If anything the sober ones should have come out somewhat better than the ones done when drunk.

How come people readily believe the impossible when it is the other way?

I am not saying UFO's are making crop circles, I am not even claiming it isn't teams of very artistic students with one hell of a lot of time on their hands, I am only pointing out how stupid people are when it comes to alleviating themselves of having to think into something, when they say "It was those two drunken farmers, they admitted it" and don't think beyond that. The fact that they are believing something that is demonstrably impossible doesn't seem to put them off.

"Most scientists now agree that crop circles are man-made." - Telegraph

Most, but not all. All anyone has to do is demonstrate it and create a crop circle matching the grandiosity of the elaborate circles and I will accept that as the answer and say OK I can see now how they are doing it.

Its the same with the pyramids, how did they get stones lifted on top of each other we cannot lift today?

If no one can demonstrate it today, then stop with all the stupid theories about how they did it manually! They obviously knew something we don't, because we can't explain it and they did build it, so then its "case closed" for me when it comes to explaining it, because they never actually get a crane and demonstrate it. The Egyptians (or whichever civilization built the pyramids, some say the Egyptians just settled there) obviously had something more sophisticated than the cranes we have today that cannot even lift the stones, the biggest crane in the world cannot do it. We're living in the dark ages now in comparison to back then.

The further back you go the bigger the structures, meaning there was a time when amazing knowledge was known and it all fell away... welcome to the modern world.

Stevo_666

RDW wrote:

And can it be a coincidence that today, only days after we started this thread, the return of the X-Files was announced?:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32035562

Starring Gillian Anderson:

Yay - X-files are back. Our mysterious overlords are watching us after all and have given us what we want

chris_bass

I went years without thinking about gillian Anderson and now I barely stop thinking about her! What a time to be alive!

As for manc33 - too wacky, even for you, see my previous theory, I stand by it.

Manc33

While we're on the subject of X-Files, the same creators made a spin off of it called "The Lone Gunman" where the pilot episode (aired in March 2001) shows an airliner nearly flying into the World Trade Center.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rsMG2hHsLo

Just a coincidence, normal service is resumed, moving right along, nothing to see.

chris_bass

Yeah, just a coincidence, you are finally getting it

Manc33

"No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon… into the World Trade Center, using planes as missiles."

(Condoleezza Rice to the 9/11 Commission on 13th May 2004)

Doesn't she watch TV?

No one could have imagined... I think the thirteen million two hundred thousand viewers that saw that pilot episode of The Lone Gunman might have been able to "imagine it"... but not the United States Government?

That's what she's actually trying to say? :shock:

Now can you see why it doesn't add up? These politicians are lying and expecting people to just take it as gospel. Bullsh1t, these crooks need to be investigated now and jailed, but they never are. They always do just enough. All they have to say is Rice wasn't herself that day and away it goes.

chris_bass

Actually, yeah, you are right.

The logical thing for the government/Illuminati/NWO/lizard folk who are planning a massive top secret conspiracy would be to replicate it on TV 6 months prior to the plan.

Manc33

Rice said "no one imagined" in 2004.

Why would she say that since it was in a TV episode watched by 13.2M viewers in 2001?

Don't you think she is trying to convince people no one imagined?

Plus we have the small matter of the architects that built the WTC towers building it to withstand an impact from a commercial airliner and saying as much around the time it was built. :roll:

Its OK you can just believe Rice if you want, I'm not stopping you.

pinno

Chris Bass wrote:

Actually, yeah, you are right.

The logical thing for the government/Illuminati/NWO/lizard folk who are planning a massive top secret conspiracy would be to replicate it on TV 6 months prior to the plan.

..but that is logic.

All elephants are grey.
All elephants are animals therefore, all animals are grey.

Manc33

You're too busy posting jokes to respond.

What about Condoleezza Rice in 2004?

pinno

Manc33 wrote:

You're too busy posting jokes to respond.

What about Condoleezza Rice in 2004?

What about Condoleezza Rice? Oh bollox, should I have asked that question?...

qube

I'll wade in with this....



A classic.

RDW

I was in the US at the time and saw The Lone Gunmen. We now know that some of the hijackers were also already there, and you have to wonder if any of them happened to tune in. Frank Spotniz, one of the creators of the series, was interviewed about it later and recalled having the horrific thought on September 11th that the Pilot episode might have somehow inspired the attacks (in reality they were of course planned long before it was shown). But perhaps the terrorists were Tom Clancy readers - he had an airliner deliberately flown into the Capitol building (one of the probable targets of the Flight 93 hijackers on 9/11) in Debt of Honor back in 1994...