Top conspiracy theories ...

[WhiteCrowNZ]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology...ectid=10594797

Conspiracy theorists seem to come in two flavours - there are those apparently intelligent people who are extremely passionate about what they see as massive cover-ups and frauds. Then there are the fringe-dwelling nutters who wear tinfoil hats to keep the satellites from spying on them.

But in the internet era there's more than enough fodder for paranoid bloggers and way-out webmasters to sink their dentures into.

A video posted on YouTube showing Michael Jackson emerging from a coroner's van has just been revealed as an experiment to show just how quickly suspect theories can be spread across the web. Quite quickly, it would seem, with 880,000 hits on the hoax clip in just one day.

Follow the link for the full article ...

Including a link to Buzz Aldrin punching a Moon-landing conspiracy theorist in the face ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU

If only I could do that to Creationists.

[Jason Thompson]

There was no man more deserving of Buzz Aldrin's fist in his face than Bart Sibrel. I get a warm fuzzy feeling every time I see that clip....

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I love this one ...

One of the more outlandish suggestions is supported by former footballer and outspoken conspiracy theorist David Icke, who tried to reveal the 'truth' in his 1999 book The Biggest Secret: The Book that Will Change the World. He thinks that the planet is in fact run by race of alien lizards from the Draco constellation. The lizards have cross-bred with humans, he reckons, to create reptilian human hybrids that have included the Queen Mother, Hillary Clinton and George Bush Snr.

[Jason Thompson]

Conspiracy theories and the most outspoken proponents of them amaze me and depress me in equal measure. The most frustrating thing about them for me is the level of wilful ignorance displayed by those who believe most fervently in them.

[Paul Monk]

I love conspiracy theories. Not because I believe them. They're all tosh clearly but its because I love delving into them and seeing just how the "truth" is cherry picked and slightly altered in order to fit their theory. Its fascinating. And the proponents of them always seem to believe them completely. Don't ever try to argue with one.
Anyway I'll post more when I have time.

[MinaHarker]

I agree with you Paul.

[Dino]

The real money is on the "Conspiracy Factulists" (If that word exists) who use declassified documents (like Alex Jones from www.infowars.com) and rare historical knowledge such as Jordan Maxwell. Investigate his site www.jordanmaxwell.com but this is my favourite section from it:
http://jordanmaxwell.com/articles/questions/index.html I don't go along with every single answer conspiracy theorists say, but it sure is amazing to consider their evidence, and that Jordan Maxwell article page will be the best thing you've looked at all week or you can ban me from this forum!*
(Take that Remmington guarantee American businessman!)

*=Yeah, I was joking about being banned obvs!

[WhiteCrowNZ]

I think in a way they're a natural fringe of our society who feel the need to question everything, esp when the Government tells you another.

Every 1st January, when Government records are unsealed, we always find that X many years ago the Government of the time wasn't being entirely honest when they said that (dot dot dot).

I won't repeat here by frying pan theorem of the reality of the space program!

[Stuart Wallis]

There's also the lunatic fringe, who believe even in the face of common sense and fact - the "Racial Group X Are Sub-human" Brigade, right down to the, well for Mike's sake we'll call them the Frying Pan Barmpots, and the Elvis Lives-ers. All wearing their novelty blinkers out of force of habit - you just can't tell some folks anything; you know the type.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

the Frying Pan Barmpots

My Frying Pan theorem is a work of genius which Rene Descartes would be proud of, dare ye not to slander it!

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Surely the maddest modern conspiracy theorists have to be the Creationists ...

http://www.purifiedbyfaith.com/Creat...0or%20Apes.htm

The Bottom Line
• An ancient (or modern) man is still a man – even if he happens to have some “ape-like” characteristics:
– Hairy
– Stooped Over
– Long Arms
– Ape-like skull features:
• Low Forehead
• Heavy Brow Ridges
• Lower Skull Capacity
• Thicker Skull
• The thing that sets man apart from an ape (or any other animal) is that he is “made in the image of God”.
• This shows up in such things as:
– The ability to communicate using language
– The ability to develop and use technology
– An awareness of God (or gods) exhibited in some form of worship
– An awareness of the eternal significance of human life exhibited in such things as burial

[Jason Thompson]

Are they really suggesting that man is the only animal that uses language?!

What many of them come down to is a limited understanding of relevant science and other fields, which is fine (no-one knows everything), and an unshakeable assumption that that limited understanding is either complete or adequate, which is most certainly NOT fine if one wishes one's conclusions to be taken seriously.

And then there's the intellectual cowardice and defence mechanisms, which cause the conspiracy theorist to deny his obligation to provide evidence, hiding behind such terms as 'it's obvious' and 'clearly this must be so'; to construct arguments on oversimplified grounds and cite the inability to provide a simple answer as proof they are right; to cling to any 'evidence' that supports their conclusion as absolutely gospel while dismissing anything that contradicts them as part of the conspiracy; and quite often (in my experience) to resort to personal attacks and rudeness when finally cornered rather than admit they might have been wrong.

One of the most common arguments I see is one of burden of proof. Conspiracy theorists will say that, for example, NASA has a burden of proof to demonstrate they actually put men on the Moon. What part of that burden they feel is not met by the vast piles of supporting material already published I have no idea....

[Stuart Wallis]

Surely the maddest modern conspiracy theorists have to be the Creationists ...

http://www.purifiedbyfaith.com/Creat...0or%20Apes.htm

• Acts 17:26 - From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.

Not that i wish to start a long, drawn-out semantic argument, but could not this statement for the anti-evolution theorem not also be used as an argument for its gainsay? a statement that the Almighty may have wanted "one man" to "branch out" into the various forms of humankind that exists these days? It's called the Origin Of Species, I believe. You do have to be very careful with some arguments, in that you do not drop your stick lest it be used to beat you in return.

[Stuart Wallis]

My Frying Pan theorem is a work of genius which Rene Descartes would be proud of, dare ye not to slander it!

I don't doubt the veracity of your frying pan theorem; I'm sure it does stand up to Descartes', since his was bloody hopeless!

[Paul Monk]

One of the most common arguments I see is one of burden of proof. Conspiracy theorists will say that, for example, NASA has a burden of proof to demonstrate they actually put men on the Moon. What part of that burden they feel is not met by the vast piles of supporting material already published I have no idea....

I come across that all the time when I argue with conspiracy theorists.

[Jason Thompson]

And of course if you press them for proof they say 'hey, I'm just asking questions, I never said it was so'.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Of course Mel Gibson famously stared in a film called Conspiracy Theory. Which is ironic as he's since gone on record as saying the Jews have started all wars ...

[Jason Thompson]

I just had to laugh at the first new argument for Apollo faking that I've heard in some time. Someone 'analysed' the events surrounding the lightning strike that occurred on Apollo 12 shortly after liftoff. The power surge knocked out most of the spacecraft systems and required a restart procedure. After everything was reset, astronaut Pete Conrad remarked (in a very obviously joking tone) that that was 'one hell of a sim[ulation] they just gave us!' This is not a surprising response to a crisis when you remember that the astronauts spent months training in simulators where the simulator crews would literally spend all day devising more and more ingenious ways to kill the astronauts in a real flight!

The hoax believer, however, took this literally as meaning it was just a simulation (though what he thought the rocket that was actually launched and was observed being struck was doing I have no idea!). The funniest part was his 'revelation' of a line from Conrad just before the lightning strike where he apparently referred to an 'awe program', which this guy took to mean a specific simulation program to show the 'awe' of nature with some lightning effects. What Conrad actually said was 'yaw prgram', which was a feature of all Saturn V launches where the rocket yawed over 1 degree during the first few seconds of liftoff to avoid the launch tower.

The mental controtions some people will go through just amaze me at times...

[Paul Monk]

Thats brilliant.

[Stuart Wallis]

One thing I'll give conspiracists, at least they have a highly active imagination. Shame they can't always use it constructively, but you can't have everything. (Where would you put it?)

[Dino]

My favourite one about the moon was they did land... but on a further mission they disturbed some aliens who threatend them off the moon and we haven't gone back since and started the fake moon landing rumours to deflect attention from this.

Of course there's no way of proving what is more than likely bollocks, but it's a good story, no?

[Jason Thompson]

Yes, all of which rather overlooks the fact that the landings didn't just stop suddenly. So really they disturbed some aliens who said 'you can come back a few times but that's it'....

Of course, many of those who think it was all faked have no idea that there was more than one landing.

[shada pavlova]

Yes, all of which rather overlooks the fact that the landings didn't just stop suddenly. So really they disturbed some aliens who said 'you can come back a few times but that's it'....

Maybe the aliens were only disturbed on the last moon landing?

[Jason Thompson]

If so they took their time saying anything. The last lunar landing spent 3 whole days on the surface before heading home, driving a rover around over several miles of the surface, and there's no sign of anything untoward in any of the TV or communications.

[shada pavlova]

Perhaps they'd been trying to ignore it until then?