The Official Conspiracy Thread

hoganrulz

N00b
22
67
War on cash in coming boyos don't be slaves to "convenience" carry a wallet and stack it with cash, only bishes and babies use card. Real men whip out knots of cash from their sweaty socks and look at the hot cashiers like, yeah bih, you smell my manly expectorant
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 users

Blitz

<Bronze Donator>
5,660
6,178
The problem with proving conspiracies is the assumed level of proof and the quality of the proof that is needed. If I say that white replacement is not only happening but it's proven. Now my jumping off point for proof might be.

And then I start showing the positions the people in the weather underground now hold. I'm thinking I've shown they believe something, and now they are trying to manifest those goals. The cynic will simply say that isn't proof and of course they are right. The real problem is defining what constitutes proof.

Before Trump's election let's say I argued that there is an elite group of pedophiles that are being controlled via blackmail and they are working towards normalizing their sexuality so they aren't being controlled any more. Here we are years later I'm taking to the same guy. I bring up Epstein and his two court cases, his isle, Maxwell, the fight logs, the renaming of pedophilia to minor attracted person's. Testimony from victims, most of which have mental issues for obvious reasons.



And then ask them if they now agree that it's a problem. Since I never asked what constitutes proof the out is it's just a few powerful men and women not some vast conspiracy. It's why this stuff falls.
This is a good post.

2016 onward has helped move that "level of proof" needed, I believe, and that's good. People still have a ton of "Liberal priors" (not that all Liberalism as a philosophy is bad) though, and it's hard to shed those. I think people are starting to gravitate more and more to a revisionist view of history, though, because it's obvious to what degree this Global Elite class will go to obfuscate the truth. Now on the flip-side, just blatantly following revisionist views, because they're revisionist can be detrimental.

At minimum, I don't know how anyone can pay some level of attention to American culture and politics the last seven years and not strongly question our institutions.


Back to Sandy Hook... Was it a FEMA practice drill to ramp up gun control efforts? Was it a disaster, taken advantage of by the Feds? Sandy Hook is weird FoHbros. Why not release some footage of Lanza entering the area?
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Rajaah

Honorable Member
<Gold Donor>
11,211
14,885
9/11 was an inside job.

Probably. Just happened to play into everything the US government was already planning to do, and they memory-holed Building 7 instead of explaining it. Start pulling that thread and the whole thing has a ton of question marks.
 

Guurn

<Bronze Donator>
5,961
30,652
May as well contribute to this again. Here's one that skirts that line. Easily believable but how do you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
1630091560983.png
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Gravel

Mr. Poopybutthole
36,276
115,067
I didn't want to shit up the Astronomy thread, but I found it interesting the newfound fascination with getting to the moon.

Suddenly China, India, and the US are all attempting it.

There's a theory that I saw a long time ago that says that most inventions are inevitable; if one inventor didn't invent it, there'd almost definitely be someone coming along shortly thereafter to do it. Even with space travel this seems to be the case where we had a few different companies suddenly in the race to try to get the first person into orbit commercially. And so now we see a bunch of governments attempting to go to the moon, and it seems to me we hit the threshold for it to be actually feasible. Which means 50 years ago it probably wasn't.

And, maybe they've addressed it, but it seems a bit strange to me that NASA has used the excuse that they never went back because we did everything we needed to. So why spend tens of billions to do it now? What changed?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
7,909
9,542
I didn't want to shit up the Astronomy thread, but I found it interesting the newfound fascination with getting to the moon.

Suddenly China, India, and the US are all attempting it.

There's a theory that I saw a long time ago that says that most inventions are inevitable; if one inventor didn't invent it, there'd almost definitely be someone coming along shortly thereafter to do it. Even with space travel this seems to be the case where we had a few different companies suddenly in the race to try to get the first person into orbit commercially. And so now we see a bunch of governments attempting to go to the moon, and it seems to me we hit the threshold for it to be actually feasible. Which means 50 years ago it probably wasn't.

And, maybe they've addressed it, but it seems a bit strange to me that NASA has used the excuse that they never went back because we did everything we needed to. So why spend tens of billions to do it now? What changed?
It's like all technologies. They start experimental and expensive, then get practical and affordable. The scale simply changes based on technology.

In the 50s, "there is a market for maybe 6 computers in the world" (famous words by IBM). In the 60s, each university wanted its own. In the 70s, two guys in a garage made one with a partially eaten fruit logo. Cars went from demonstration in the early 18th to practical in the late 19th, to mass market 30 years later. Planes were in-between.

The only reason the USA went to the moon in 1969 is because they poured ungodly amounts of money in it. Once they did the one-up-manship over the SU, the money spigot for the Moon dried up and they could no longer afford it because all the money went elsewhere. NASA would probably have loved making Lunar Base Alpha, but they didn't get the money since Congress had wised up about how much pork there was there to be had, so they had to pretend it was all part of the plan.

Refinements piled up (better electronics, better materials, cheaper fuels), and what cost a major chunk of money for the largest economy of the world has become affordable for others.

(I still remember watching the launch on a black-and-white TV set, while on vacation at the grandmother's home of friends of my parents, in the mountains of the south of France. That's among my earliest memories, I was five, almost six at the time)
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,306
-2,239
Plus, why return to the moon before we develop the technology to do anything worthwhile up there. Much of the Apollo program may as well have been considered sight seeing trips.
 
  • 1Truth!
Reactions: 1 user