The Conspiracy Theory

Manc33

Bollyn isn't mad, doesn't rant and doesn't pin anything on Jews, so I'm not sure what topic you're reading.

I specifically said I wasn't pointing the finger at Jewish people and how I agree with Jews like Rabbi Weiss.

Try reading?

What do you guys say when experts question 9/11?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN4XDF4kOMQ

There isn't much you can say when these guys are just talking straight facts.

MisterMuncher

Experts is a very broad term. Argument from authority is a logical fallacy for a reason.

ai_1

Your repeated references to what "experts" have said, weakens rather than strengthens your argument. What constitutes an expert? How do you decide which "expert" to listen to and which one to dismiss as being either being one of, or being conned by "them"?
Would I be correct in thinking you only take seriously the opinions of "experts" who hold non-consensus views. i.e. There is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community on the legitimacy of climate change, the same goes for evolution. Does that make you suspicious? Are you more likely to take seriously the arguments of the tiny minority?

bondurant

I think Manc would make people listen more / ridicule less if he made a point and backed it up with something other than links to what seem like lunatics. If things are so self-evident, let's hear him put the case in his posts, in a somewhat reasoned fashion. And then if he were occasionally to make an effort to respond to people who point out some obvious logical flaws in his arguments instead of moving on to whatever tickles his fancy.

But maybe that's not his goal in being here. I find him entertaining, to be honest, whether he is here on a wind-up or if he is serious. If the latter he might want to try a little harder to convince people of what he says. And if he's a WUM; bloody good job!

veronese68

Manc33 is Cody, or vice versa, I'm absolutely certain of it now. I bet they have never been seen together.

d00d4h

Veronese68 wrote:

Manc33 is Cody, or vice versa, I'm absolutely certain of it now. I bet they have never been seen together.

I think they are both Soni. Have they ever mentioned raisins?

tangled_metal

Is it just me who thinks this, but anyone who gets his or her theories out via a youtube video is a bit of a crank? Sorry Manc but you keep posting evidence to support the vies you have taken on board with videos of people expousing these theories. I do not see video evidence like this as being very credible which is why I have not been following your arguments. Even if you posted Washington Times or our own sunday times article I would take them with a pinch of salt without some sort of verification from someone with a credible expertise on the matter in hand. An economist (one of many no doubt) in some Republican administration has no expertise in image analysis of the plane strikes or expertise in structural engineering to say the buildings wouldn't fail in a plane strike. You wouldn't get dynarod to check out your prostate would you? I'm sure they would try to get their cameras up for a large enough call out fee.

Sorry, that last analogy is crude and uncalled for. It is disrespectful. Can I just say Manc, I have not been convinced and do not believe the same conspiracy theories you do but I do kind of admire your persistence in trying to convince me and others who are reading this thread (and others you have posted on about this sort of thing). I wonder what you could achieve by re-directing your enthusiasm and doggedness in conspiracy theories into something I would say is more positive and mainstream? You will never convince the mainstream of these theories you hold to so that makes it a bit of a waste of time and makes you a target of humour. I have read a few posts on cycling issues and feel that you have stuff to offer there rather than here on conspiracy theories.

PS What was that reptilian actoress' name again I might want to google her a bit later.

ai_1

Tangled Metal wrote:

....I wonder what you could achieve by re-directing your enthusiasm and doggedness in conspiracy theories into something I would say is more positive and mainstream? You will never convince the mainstream of these theories you hold to so that makes it a bit of a waste of time and makes you a target of humour....

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with not being mainstream or that being made fun of is a sufficient reason to stop doing something. I've very often held positions which were not mainstream. For example, I spent years prior to 2007, telling everyone that the property market in Ireland was unsustainable and a disaster in the making. It seemed pretty obvious to me and many others but the mainstream opinion was that the obsession with property was healthy and sustainable and anyone not jumping in was a fool. The problem as I see it, for Manc33 is that he seems to gravitate to theories that are anti-mainstream for the sake of it and that don't hold up to critical scrutiny.

PS What was that reptilian actoress' name again I might want to google her a bit later.

Morena Baccarin
She was also in Firefly, a much, much better series.

Manc33

I don't have this built in aversion to how true or not true something is just because of where I saw it. If I saw the information, I saw the information. If I heard the information, I heard the information.

So if a video is on YouTube it automatically can't be true? :shock:

Wouldn't that have to depend on a lot of things?

How can anyone automatically assume something like that?

Do people really think that because some YouTube videos are a joke, they are all a joke?

I can't grasp that, because you're deciding nothing whatsoever for yourself if you're doing that and just saying its all a joke. Every. Single. Video. That has to be about the most ignorant stance I can imagine.

I used to tell my dad this and that and he would say its "Some guy in his basement" but he showed such little interest he never got to find out well actually it was a guy in a suit on a street talking into a CNN microphone and the guy works for the Government. How is that some guy in his basement?

People always have to make it "some guy in his basement" that's why.

God himself could make a YouTube video and upload it, proving miracle after miracle, people would say "That's some guy in his basement with some fancy software" lol.

All anyone can do is realize if they are being duped or not. People are often referred to as paranoid but its not the same thing, its awareness. Paranoia means you think someone is out to get you. Awareness is when you realize they aren't out to get you, they are out to get all of us.

chris_bass

Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion.[1] Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. "Everyone is out to get me"). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.


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

bondurant

Oh Manc. Come on lad. Must try harder. Make some proper arguments. Back them up yourself. Argue your case. Try to make it logical. Come on, it's late afternoon. You have the whole evening to try and make some sense.

Disregard all this if you are the best WUM ever of course.

veronese68

Chris, haven't you been paying attention? Wikipedia is an unreliable source as anyone can edit it. You tube videos on the other hand...
... Oh no, anyone can make them so maybe they aren't always true. Oh I'm so confused.
Oh, and Manc, regarding "some guy in his basement". Is your Dad a septic? That's a very American expression.

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

....Do people really think that because some YouTube videos are a joke, they are all a joke?

I'm pretty sure no-one here said that!

Manc33 wrote:

....God himself could make a YouTube video and upload it, proving miracle after miracle, people would say "That's some guy in his basement with some fancy software" lol.

Aha! Now you're getting somewhere.

Yes, if there was a god and he put videos on YouTube showing "miracles" I'd say it was fake. (I'm not in the habit of mentioning basements but I think that's a minor point). You say, these hypothetical videos would be "proving miracle after miracle" and there's the point. How do you prove anything on YouTube? It's a bunch of pixels on a screen. I've seen lots of films with pretty real looking images of aliens, huge spacecraft, planets exploding, people with super-powers, etc. Do you suggest these were in fact real? No of course you don't. My point being, some people demand a higher standard of proof than others and a higher degree of rigor in all things analytical. I wouldn't dis-believe god on YouTube because it was YouTube but rather because there would be insufficient evidence to convince me it was god given the limitations of the medium.

In fact, even if i experienced "miracles" in person I'd be pretty wary. Unfortunately all our senses and powers of perception are pretty easily conned (some of us more than others I hope) and even things we think we see, hear or touch in person or think we remember experiencing can be far from accurate. This is a fact. Not your sort, my sort. It's been observed many times, experiments have been conducted and produced repeatable results. Multiple people have verified the results by examination and re-testing. This is how science works. the thing where people investigate and measure things properly that you're so critical of.

Manc33 wrote:

People are often referred to as paranoid but its not the same thing, its awareness. Paranoia means you think someone is out to get you. Awareness is when you realize they aren't out to get you, they are out to get all of us.

No, the difference is that awareness is observing evidence that someone is out to get you or all of us and recognising it as such. Paranoia is thinking someone's out to get you or all of us without sufficient evidence. many such people then go selectively looking for evidence and try to pass themselves off as simply aware....but they're paranoid.

Manc33

Type in Google images "earth from space" and you get 40 pages of the same image with the same cloud formation. How come we aren't inundated with tens of thousands of different images? On spinning graphics they show us, again the clouds repeat. Now what are the chances of the Earth revolving for 24 hours and the same clouds that were there over a bit of land are again exactly the same again 24 hours later?

No one can explain this apart from to say "oh because they just do" which is an adequate answer for most people. Thing is they aren't living in the real world where we have 40 pages of the same image, are they? They really aren't thinking for themselves and are putting their trust in the unknown - I mean some NASA guy says something, how do you know he isn't lying? People are just too trusting and assume everyone else is the same.

I said a long time ago "Everyone thinks everyone else thinks on their terms". So we have people voting for politicians and trusting them, we have hateful politicians that secretly hate us all. In both cases they assume everyone else is like them.

By the way, laughing at how all the Earth images are the same for dozens of pages... doesn't change much. After the laughing stops there's still 40 pages of the same image.

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

Type in Google images "earth from space" and you get 40 pages of the same image with the same cloud formation.

I get lots of different images. From which we can only conclude that They are out to mess with you specifically...



On the other hand, have you tried this search in private browser / icognito mode, or after deleting Google cookies?

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

MisterMuncher

Manc33 wrote:

I don't have this built in aversion to how true or not true something is just because of where I saw it. If I saw the information, I saw the information. If I heard the information, I heard the information.

Your comments regarding most TV and the news media passim rather give the lie to this statement, no?

orraloon

Manc33 wrote:

Type in Google images "earth from space" and you get 40 pages of the same image with the same cloud formation.

Nah mate. Just did that and got pages of different images, no repeats before I got bored trying to check your hypothesis.

Poor attempt this time Manc. Did you check yourself before posting or did you just accept some internet drivel as fact?

Must do better. C Minus.

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

Bollyn isn't mad, doesn't rant and doesn't pin anything on Jews, so I'm not sure what topic you're reading.

He tries to pin pretty much everything on the Jews. Any normal person who spent more than a couple of minutes scrolling through the main page of his site would come away with the impression that he is rabidly antisemitic (perhaps you've only seen the Youtube videos?). He's also the kind of guy who hangs out at Holocaust denial conferences and used to write for a well-known antisemitic publication. Here he is on the Holocaust - while denying that he's a denier, he clearly doesn't accept the evidence either:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ostcount=3

"As I said, I have not seen at these three former camps any evidence of any large oven in which hundreds of people could be gassed or burned. Nor, have I seen any photographs or physical evidence of such an oven."

Since a 30 second Google search could provide plenty of evidence for anyone except the most determined self-deluding antisemite, he clearly hasn't looked very hard. He prefers to focus on the bombing of Dresden instead, claiming that the death toll there (in reality under 25,000 - terrible enough!) was really 600,000 (three times greater than even contemporary Nazi propaganda claimed).

You might want to have a serious think about whether this is the kind of person you want to buy a world view from.

pblakeney

Manc33

RDW wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

Bollyn isn't mad, doesn't rant and doesn't pin anything on Jews, so I'm not sure what topic you're reading.

He tries to pin pretty much everything on the Jews.

He doesn't pin anything on "the Jews".

Is he being anti-Semitic if he says a Jewish man should have investigated the crime of 9/11 and did not investigate it? What exactly is Bollyn supposed to do about the guy being Jewish? How is it Bollyn's fault Chertoff is Jewish? How is it his fault if the head guys responsible for losing trillions of dollars, are Jewish?

So you're saying if someone is Jewish and is under suspicion, anyone suspecting them must be anti-Semitic?

It just isn't possible for someone to commit a crime if they are Jewish, right?

Now ask yourself why we even live in a world like that and Bollyn's research on 9/11 suddenly makes a lot more sense. If everyone in key positions "happens to be" Jewish, how is that Bollyn's fault?

None of that is blaming the Jews as a whole the way you are trying to say it is. You're trying to make him out to be anti-Semitic lol, now take the next logical step and ask why people have this knee-jerk reaction, when the guy is only laying out facts.

In his recent 9/11 videos he doesn't say anything that isn't true. You can say he is anti-Semitic but that is quite ignorant really considering he doesn't even say anything that isn't true. Keep arguing with his facts if you want.

I couldn't give a toss who he is "offending" if he is getting to the bottom of 9/11. The anti-Semite insult doesn't really stick anymore these days in light of all this information anyway, it used to, I think you need to catch up a bit, all this stuff has come out, people know it by now, calling these investigators anti-Semitic only causes even more suspicion, not less. It never used to be like that but it is now because of all the key people that could have done something about 9/11 and didn't. Like I said what the hell has them all being Jewish got to do with the facts?

The other thing is, if you have heard all of Bollyn's recent 9/11 video's how could you still be defending the people he is pointing out?

The average Jewish man or woman living in Tel Aviv or New York is just as in the dark about 9/11 as anyone else is. You can prove Jews as a whole are not running the world in five minutes flat anyway. There's something like 8 Million Jews in Israel, not even 0.001% of them would know what really happened on 9/11. To suggest they would all be covering up is absurd, if they were that evil I think you'd be able to tell.

Bollyn NEVER mentions Jews in such a way. He lived in Israel and was married to an Israeli woman.

What you're suggesting is because some high-class criminal is of a certain ethnicity or nationality, to shop them is "anti" their religion or country? Can't you see how backwards that is? When a judge convicts a black man for a crime, is the judge a racist? Nope, he is prosecuting a criminal.

If I am against Jews why would I think Seinfeld is the funniest TV show ever made? The guy is Jewish. You can't answer that. Am I pretending Seinfeld is funny?

MisterMuncher

Some of my best friends are black...

bondurant

Beat me to it

Come on Manc. You can do better than this.

pinno

The NASA website has some phenomenal images.

chris_bass

Many thanks

RDW

In his recent 9/11 videos he doesn't say anything that isn't true. You can say he is anti-Semitic but that is quite ignorant really considering he doesn't even say anything that isn't true.

Apart from the whole 'Jews caused 9/11' thing, obviously, which is a paranoid fantasy. And I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that the people Bollyn keeps 'finding' are behind everything happen either to be Jewish, or 'controlled' by Jews.

Hints: 'fact' doesn't mean 'something some guy said on the Internet', just as saying 600,000 were killed at Dresden doesn't make it true. Antisemites rarely claim that every single Jew is part of some vast conspiracy, it's always an 'elite' (Bollyn actually uses 'Elder of Zion' to refer to at least one Jewish US politician, a clear reference to the 'Protocols').

Just to get a handle on how far you agree with him, do you accept that about 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, approximately half of these in purpose-built gas chambers, as a result of a deliberate Nazi policy? Or do you think there is some doubt about any of this?

norvernrob

Quick question for Manc, if we've never been to space what are we looking at when we can watch the ISS pass over?

Felix Baumgartner managed to get to the edge of space and back, and all he had was a ballon and a parachute. Or was that fake too?

Manc33

NorvernRob wrote:

Quick question for Manc, if we've never been to space what are we looking at when we can watch the ISS pass over?

I dunno, it would have to be some secret base projecting a 3D hologram of it.

NorvernRob wrote:

Felix Baumgartner managed to get to the edge of space and back, and all he had was a ballon and a parachute. Or was that fake too?

That's possible though. Its the Van Allen belt that stops anyone going further out. Something about the lead shielding it would take would be impossible to get lifted off the Earth.

As a side note, flat Earth theorists use the Felix Baumgartner video to prove the Earth is flat, you can't win. :P

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thr ... 3/pg1&mem=

Flat Earth makes sense if you imagine we live in a 2D world but being a part of that world we can experience what we call 3D. Hard to imagine I know but it would explain why the Earth is a flat "disc".

Planes can just land on airport runways, if the Earth was moving they would just hit the Earth and not know how to land. The Earth was proven to be still from an experiment tilting a telescope and using water to compare, it proved the stars, not the telescope, were moving. Then there's those time lapse pics of stars in a big circle over the Earth. If you jump in the air, the Earth doesn't move under you (same as how planes can land safely).



What if lol. We laugh at medieval people for thinking the world is flat and the sun encircles the Earth, but what if they were the last people to hold onto that ancient secret?! What if its all the other way around lol.

Of all the "conspiracy" theories, Flat Earth (more just a theory) has to be the best. See Tom Bishop's posts.



Tom Bishop, head honcho at the Flat Earth Society.

When asked "Why would they cover it up and say Earth is a ball?" they just say "They don't have to be covering up, they don't know it is flat themselves". Yes, they would have to know and thus would be covering up. They keep altering their theory so you can't get around it.

I think their take is, NASA is faking everything and keeping most of the money, but they do think the Earth is a globe (based on assumption) and don't know it is flat because they have never sent anything up there, they have only ever faked it. NASA could still have covertly sent up something to establish yeah, its a disc, let's not tell anyone.

I would rather live on a flat Earth than a globe, but I reckon its a globe. :oops:

pblakeney

How thick would this disc be?
And what would be under it?

Manc33

PBlakeney wrote:

How thick would this disc be?
And what would be under it?

There's endless arguments, but if I had to imagine it, some sort of heat making us accelerate upwards at 1G. That suggests we are part of some incredibly slow explosion, or are on "top" of one. It takes billions of years to fully explode to us, because of how small we are and the distances involved.

When you dig down and get to lava etc (as we do) if you kept going it would be white hot and its not the "core" of the Earth, because it isn't a ball - its just like a hot deep (infinite?) layer under the Earth. Just like the crust is now, but with the whole world flat. In the flat Earth model, something is pushing the disc upwards at 1G.

The sun is 3,000 miles away and 32 miles across. :roll:

They say the sun is a concave disc like a torch shining down, explaining why everyone everywhere doesn't see the sun all the time (even at night). I mean on a flat Earth thats still (except upward acceleration) with a sun-ball above, it would always illuminate all of the disc, but if it was a concave disc (Flat Sun Theory anyone?) then it makes sense that night is night, its dark apart from some moonlight on some nights.

The main evidence is things like no one has ever flown a plane across the Antarctic. There is no answer to how thick the "ice wall" is at the edge of the disc but maybe its infinite. This wouldn't mean the Earth is flat but more that we are on a "2 dimensional plane" and we are like a "patch" or circle, in that "sheet" or fabric.

If all that were true how the hell can we have "3D" aka our reality... I don't know. I reckon though, it could be possible to be living in a 2D world and due to perception, we "experience" a 3D world, now if that were true it would explain Earth begin flat and even the sun being a flat disc, not a globe.

orraloon

^ Away with the fairies.