Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
DanL said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
I'm not concerned about that, the problem with the bodyguard ( with all due respect to him he is presumably a layman with no real skills but to lose his life protecting another as a bodyguard) could have booked himself up a handful of interviews on TV shows and in a short space of time amassed a fortune and lived his life in luxury, but he didn't? You've got to agree that is fantastically unusual behaviour, surely?
He’ll have signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of the terms of his contract. There’s really nothing to see here unless there’s a big conspiracy shaped hole in your life.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
V6 Pushfit said:
DanL said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
I'm not concerned about that, the problem with the bodyguard ( with all due respect to him he is presumably a layman with no real skills but to lose his life protecting another as a bodyguard) could have booked himself up a handful of interviews on TV shows and in a short space of time amassed a fortune and lived his life in luxury, but he didn't? You've got to agree that is fantastically unusual behaviour, surely?
He’ll have signed a non-disclosure agreement as part of the terms of his contract. There’s really nothing to see here unless there’s a big conspiracy shaped hole in your life.
If he did suffer brain damage, he's probably now a conspiracy theorist himself!!
IAmTheWalrus said:
MBBlat said:
I suggest before you declare that Dianna's bodyguard has never given any interviews you do a quick google search, Trevor Reese-Jones has done quite a few interviews.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
But then when have facts been allowed to get in the way of a good conspiracy?
Nice, the article is dated November last year, I hadn't come across this topic for many, many years to be fair. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&a...
But then when have facts been allowed to get in the way of a good conspiracy?
Zumbruk said:
There used to be, when it was ARPAnet. It was a much better place. Better class of nutter, for a start.
There ought to be a general internet policy like Twitter where if someone keeps posting up fake news they get banned. Apart from better education t’s the only way to prevent the vulnerable believing it. 
JuanCarlosFandango said:
What about the conspiracy theory that our society is being undermined by dark, malevolent forces spreading misinformation and fake news to cast aspersions on our noble government and ever truthful newspapers and impartial state media?
The suspicion and ideas of dark forces are borne out of the same feelings as the blue collars not trusting the white and not believing anyone in a tie. troc said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
One of the downsides of the internet and social media is that the village idiot is now the global idiot. Whereas before, he'd be sitting in the pub spouting his drivel to an audience of 10, and everyone could see his lack of teeth and piss stained trousers, now he's got an audience of millions, and no one knows he's just pooed himself.
It’s even worse because the village idiot can find an echo chamber of like-minded village idiots who will reinforce their weird theories and further cement their beliefs. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
My mates a psychotherapist, he thinks Icke is mentally ill.
Internet said:
The headlines following Icke's press conference attracted requests for interviews from Nicky Campbell's BBC Radio One programme, for Terry Wogan's prime-time Wogan show, and Fern Britton's ITV chat show.[73]
Wogan introduced the 1991 segment with "The world as we know it is about to end". Amid laughter from the audience, Icke demurred when asked if he was the son of God, replying that Jesus would have been laughed at too, and repeated that Britain would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes. Without these, "the Earth will cease to exist". When Icke said laughter was the best way to remove negativity, Wogan replied of the audience: "But they're laughing at you. They're not laughing with you."[73][74][75] The BBC was criticised for allowing it to go ahead; Des Christy of The Guardian called it a "media crucifixion".[76][77]
The interview led to a difficult period for Icke. In May 1991, police were called to the couple's home after a crowd of over 100 youths gathered outside, chanting "We want the Messiah" and "Give us a sign, David".[78] Icke told Jon Ronson in 2001:
One of my very greatest fears as a child was being ridiculed in public. And there it was coming true. As a television presenter, I'd been respected. People come up to you in the street and shake your hand and talk to you in a respectful way. And suddenly, overnight, this was transformed into "Icke's a nutter." I couldn't walk down any street in Britain without being laughed at. It was a nightmare. My children were devastated because their dad was a figure of ridicule.[65][79]
In 2006, Wogan interviewed Icke again for a special Wogan Now & Then series. Wogan was apologetic for his conduct in the 1991 interview.[80] However, in his autobiography, Mustn't Grumble, Wogan described Icke as being a "ranting demagogue convinced we were all manipulated sheep".[81]
Nah. Perfectly sane. Wogan introduced the 1991 segment with "The world as we know it is about to end". Amid laughter from the audience, Icke demurred when asked if he was the son of God, replying that Jesus would have been laughed at too, and repeated that Britain would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes. Without these, "the Earth will cease to exist". When Icke said laughter was the best way to remove negativity, Wogan replied of the audience: "But they're laughing at you. They're not laughing with you."[73][74][75] The BBC was criticised for allowing it to go ahead; Des Christy of The Guardian called it a "media crucifixion".[76][77]
The interview led to a difficult period for Icke. In May 1991, police were called to the couple's home after a crowd of over 100 youths gathered outside, chanting "We want the Messiah" and "Give us a sign, David".[78] Icke told Jon Ronson in 2001:
One of my very greatest fears as a child was being ridiculed in public. And there it was coming true. As a television presenter, I'd been respected. People come up to you in the street and shake your hand and talk to you in a respectful way. And suddenly, overnight, this was transformed into "Icke's a nutter." I couldn't walk down any street in Britain without being laughed at. It was a nightmare. My children were devastated because their dad was a figure of ridicule.[65][79]
In 2006, Wogan interviewed Icke again for a special Wogan Now & Then series. Wogan was apologetic for his conduct in the 1991 interview.[80] However, in his autobiography, Mustn't Grumble, Wogan described Icke as being a "ranting demagogue convinced we were all manipulated sheep".[81]
Journalism is unregulated beyond ‘in public interest’ in the uk and rightly so, but this is the fallout from that.
Hoofy said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
Hoofy said:
You're just teasing us.
No, I am not a conspiracy theorist, neither do I promote the ones in the article however in all areas of life you occasionally find something that you thought worked one way actually turns out to work another so just thought it was worth a Google..Caddyshack said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
Caddyshack said:
IAmTheWalrus said:
Watching The X-Files was good, it gives one an understanding of how government likes to pull strings with a method of plausible denyability..
If serious, I find this a little worrying. With Covid its extraordinary how many actually believe themselves and their peers not only above the scientists, doctors, and every health provider and government in the world but also above logic and rational thought. The blocking out of the real news is no different to the MAGA's who still believe Trump won despite every attempt to show reality.
Its on a plate for the likes of Russia to interfere in future unless theres some form of waking up.
Its on a plate for the likes of Russia to interfere in future unless theres some form of waking up.
Blown2CV said:
Caddyshack said:
Blown 2 cv that is so well written and sums it up so well, thank you. It needs to be the standard reply to every dodgy Facebook post. I have t word counted it but am sure it has 676 words and if read backward sat God Save Prince Andrew.
if you look carefully i have also started each sentence with the words Eye, Pyramid, Knights templar or Reset“Perhaps most humans be fooled. Spot the conspiracy life view, you kids.”
Which means exactly the same backwards as it does forwards.
Makes you think.
IAmTheWalrus said:
So I was just browsing the science forum and the subject of Time came up and I was just wondering out of curiosity if the people on this thread have any respect for physicists who without any concrete evidence for theoretical situations in the field of quantum mechanics for example, which come out with theories such as a 5th dimension or the like?
Because that’s completely the same as what this thread is about. Perhaps not serious but deserves a “not sure if serious” nonetheless.
Caddyshack said:
Yes, "critical thinking’ seems to be banded about as an insult to others incapable of it. Quite ironic when the theory has a few holes in it.
Critical thinking and cognitive dissonance - ironically used by those worst affected to push fringe theories that only succeed if the recipients exert neither. Blown2CV said:
that's one of the ideas that the 'salt of the earth' man on the street really hates. Why would 'science' not stick to a wrong concept just to be consistent, or why can't it just be right first time?? Also that if 'science' cannot explain the entire universe and everything in it right now, then it is useless. I mean it sounds so stupid when you say it on those terms, but people seem to feel alienated by the concept that in order to learn new things, you have to be prepared to totally change your mind and not be emotionally attached to your ideas. I think some people have a total lack of curiosity.
The issue is that the sources for these new ideas is from the village idiot. Pistom said:
The danger of course is that we don't give consideration to the ideas then we can end up looking closed minded.
Back at the start of the Covid 19, I knew several who were pushing the "lab theory" on where it came from which I very strongly argued was the theory of nutjobs and eccentrics.
Now it seems there is more meat to the argument and would surprise nobody if it came to be the the real origin.
I try not to remind the people who raised it at the time of the views I expressed.
It’s an interesting one this, it’s down to being vital that the relevant specialists and professionals are not be closed minded, and they aren’t. But given www everyone thinks they are at that same level, and will react and process new information without a clue. I would regard my view on C19 and associated things as average and understand the objectives and when a new ‘thing’ happens can see how it fits in - the labs was never a closed issue and chinas reluctance to provide access suspicious. However it was unproven so a work in progress. Back at the start of the Covid 19, I knew several who were pushing the "lab theory" on where it came from which I very strongly argued was the theory of nutjobs and eccentrics.
Now it seems there is more meat to the argument and would surprise nobody if it came to be the the real origin.
I try not to remind the people who raised it at the time of the views I expressed.
Initially the US said C19 wasn’t man made (= not lab)
News now is 80,000 local bats/animals have been tested and all -ve, plus the nearest bat lab is a long way away.
So I’m thinking hmm…. odd one this. Seems to be going towards a lab accident in Wuhan.
If it was an accident then China won’t look too good to say the least
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff