Question for regulars of /r/conspiracy
3 2013-10-29 by [deleted]
Which conspiracies are real? Which are red herrings?
I'll go first.
Real:
- 9/11 (but no thermite or cruise missiles)
- JFK
- Imposing third world debt and backing the dollar with depleted uranium. I.e. economic hitman stuff and perpetual war.
- Not one world government, but globalist new order (not sure this one bothers me that much though) needs to curb consumerist appetite of US middle class.
Red Herrings:
- AMA suppresses cancer cures
- Reptilian horseshit
- FEMA Camps
- Chemtrails / HAARP
76 comments
15 Jjny88 2013-10-29
I think chemtrails are real.
-2 [deleted] 2013-10-29
What do they contain?
5 Akimb0Slice 2013-10-29
I heard multiple things. Some say aluminum oxides and other metallic oxides, and some say morgellons disease. The oxides are claims of slowing global warming, and preserving our ozone, noones explained the morgellons, but there's a video of a jet in Australia that dumped many strings of material laced with the disease.
-4 [deleted] 2013-10-29
You heard multiple things? Some say?
6 facereplacer 2013-10-29
I would highly encourage you check out geoengineeringwatch. That guy is one of the lead researchers and activists.
Also, watch the documentaries featured at WITWATS.
-2 [deleted] 2013-10-29
It says:
What aerosols are being sprayed? What concentration are they at? How do they collect samples of the aerosols to determine that what they are or how they're reflective?
6 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Watch the videos. I'm not your personal secretary.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
I've seen those videos. They don't contain any hard scientific information. How do they collect samples of what they purport is being put into the atmosphere?
3 facereplacer 2013-10-29
They do soil and rainwater tests. According to them, levels have increased. I haven't tested it myself because I don't live in Hawaii and I actually looked into soil and water sampling. It's more expensive than I care to spend. However, I do have eyes. I know they are spraying something. And if you look at the pathology, it totally fits with what these power elite stooges would do.
Plus, why would these people put so much time, money, energy, and conviction into something so easily disproven?
I woke up to blue skies in Atlanta on Saturday. Then, the spraying started. Tons of it. By 5, it was like the whole city were under a pillow and I watched them add more and more and more until it got to that point. I get that the earth is rotating. I get that the jetstream moves systems. But I observed this intentional and clear goal on Saturday and many other days before it.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Clearly things sprayed out of planes are the only thing that could affect soil and rainwater. Who are "they", anyway?
One time I woke up and it was really beautiful. The weather was mild and there wasn't a cloud in the sky. There were no planes flying through the sky, at least not any that were leaving trails.
But then by 5 PM it was totally cloudy. It rained even. WTF? My eyes weren't lying.
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Cute. Very cute.
1 bittermanscolon 2013-10-29
That's some hard evidence right there. /s
How about mine?
2 yellowsnow2 2013-10-29
Google "chemtrail lab test" many lab tests have been done on rain water and air after spotting spraying.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
I can't find one that names a laboratory, or cites anything other than "studies".
0 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Well show me how contrails become persistent. Describe the science that allows me to see contrails that fade and lingering chemtrails that blend into one another. Explain that science clearly since obviously, they aren't spraying.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
So clouds aren't possible? There are simply no atmospheric conditions that cause concentrations of water vapor to persist?
0 facereplacer 2013-10-29
You've refuted evidence put forward on a very flimsy premise. So explain for all of us idiots out there why I can see contrails and chemtrails on the same day, and for bonus points, why I can also see them starting and stopping in mid air... almost like they were spraying something (or turning the engines on and off).
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Because they're the same thing.
Atmospheric conditions (pressure, temperature, composition) vary from one point to another. This causes weather, for instance.
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Bullcrap. I just had this discussion the other day. These trails turn off on off in a very short time and then stay on for a long time until they stop again. If you're theory is correct, there are basically invisible walls in the sky and the sky and atmosphere are in constant fluctuation and very liquid in nature. No way these could cut and remain the way they do, and you have not explained it scientifically. You just said sciency words. Why? What pressure, temperature, condition allows for these starts stops? Why do some remain and gather and build to form cloud cover? Science me.
1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Careful, it contains "sciency" words like "pressure" and "temperature". You'll have to concentrate for a few minutes.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/clouds/
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
That does not address cloud formations as it pertains to aircraft contrails. Because you know what? Contrails don't form clouds. We're being sprayed like roaches, dude.
1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
I'm not saying they form clouds. I'm saying they're subject to the same forces, becuase they're made of the same stuff.
I'm answering your questions. Please pay attention to the conversation.
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
You aren't answering my questions. Contrails don't form clouds. So what is it coming out of the back of these planes that lays a blanket of atmospheric phenomena on my city? They are not contrails and they emerge from unmarked, high flying planes.
6 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
The only one I feel totally confident about is Fukushima and it gets the least amount of viewings. Its super important we should all pay much more attention to it.
4 thc1967 2013-10-29
Is Fukushima a conspiracy or just lack of media coverage?
I mean, nobody blew up the plant to purposefully douse the Pacific and USA west coast in radiation. It was a legit natural disaster.
7 goober_boobz 2013-10-29
No but the lack of media exposure of this issue is a conspiracy. You cant ignore the elephant in the room forever.
2 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
I guess conspiracy in a sense that facts and issues have been misrepresented and hidden since the get go.
3 [deleted] 2013-10-29
I couldn't agree more, it is THE crisis of the moment imho, and we're just sweeping it under the rug as much as we can. I see people buying cans of tuna in the store and wonder if they even care about what's going on.
3 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
I know right! It fucks with my head, no one seems to be worried about it and here I am like what am I not getting about this? The worst case scenario is playing out right in front of our eyes. Makes me sad to think what will happen.
-1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Where are the radiation levels increasing the most? To what level?
1 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
Check out WWW.net.com . I was surprised to check today and see high radiation alerts on the east coast. I would have expected the west coast.
1 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
WWW.netc.com
-1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
So those levels on the east coast actually have nothing to do with Fukushima?
1 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
I honestly have no idea what its from. Someone wiser than I will have to help us with the answer.
6 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Say no to "reptiles." And ghosts for that matter. Aliens, eh... I have not seen enough to be convinced. Moon landing; on the fence, find it somewhat irrelevant.
For 9/11, JFK, RFK, Lennon, MLK, Federal Reserve, TWA800, Tonkin, Sandy Hook, Boston, and Aurora, I have serious questions and no faith in the official versions. I definitely believe the assassination program of the 20th century is alive and well and got Hastings and others recently. I definitely believe western intelligence helped to aid and abet the Mossad in perpetrating 9/11. If Boston and Sandy Hook are such open and shut cases, release the video, or a still. No gore necessary, just put the suspect at the scene at the time we are being told they did what they did. Just like the Pentagon missile, they won't. They can't. The whole sham would collapse.
(edit: I like your question and thread. Not sure why the downvotes are piling up. Just find another thread, shitheads.)
-5 [deleted] 2013-10-29
No evidence that any of those were anything other than sick people throwing nutties.
What pentagon missile?
8 facereplacer 2013-10-29
There's no evidence that they even actually did anything.
We're done.
1 thc1967 2013-10-29
Wait...
You're saying there are no bodies in graves from Sandy Hook, Boston, and Aurora and that there are no people who lost limbs in Boston?
Dafuq?
2 facereplacer 2013-10-29
No. I'm saying there was CCTV of at least Boston and Lanza. Show me a frame. Nothing gory. Why would Lanza drive a car his family didn't own, connected to a drug dealer? Why can we see the limbs and blood but not the bomb drop. Supposedly, it exists.
If I came to you and said an alien just raped me and showed nothing as proof, how likely would you be to believe me? Apparently 100%. Because that's all the media has provided for proof or explanation.
1 thc1967 2013-10-29
Perhaps I misunderstood the line of yours I quoted:
Are you saying there is no evidence that the events happened or no evidence that the people who are accused and/or convicted of those actions actually did them?
4 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Right. I have doubts that they happened the way we were told. Something happened. I was not convinced that those stories played out the way the media would have us believe. Think, "War of the Worlds." The media is a very powerful tool as has been determined via Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent," and Edward Bernays in "Propaganda." Very few of us critically consider new information. Too many of us are conditioned to trust what we see on TV or whatever and not ask questions.
2 thc1967 2013-10-29
OK. With that clarification I have no argument.
-1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Apparently a lot of people believe that.
-1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Oh, I'm sure you're done.
Can you provide a list of witnesses who saw the cruise missile?
Here's an abridged version of witness accounts of the plane:
2 Sabremesh 2013-10-29
Abshire, Marc - Air Force Lt. Col. Marc Abshire....
OK, so this is the first "eye witness" on your list, and it is clear from what he says that he didn't see "a plane" hit the Pentagon at all - he felt an explosion sitting at his desk. No mention of a plane.
There are many others on your list who similarly fail to mention a plane, so I guess you should abridge your list if you want it to "support your argument".
Those that do claim to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon - did they make their statements under oath in a court of law? What do we know them, their credibility, their motives?
If a huge airliner really did hit the Pentagon, the physical evidence would be overwhelming. And yet here am I, like many others who have spent far too long searching for the evidence, and I'm not even slightly whelmed.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
A,'' another with a
C.'' It didn't occur to Braman what the letters signified until a man in the crowd stooped to pick up one of the smaller metal shards. He examined it for a moment, then announced: ``This was a jet.''0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
1 MrBig361 2013-10-29
Good fight op. Just that this whole sub is not with the millitary. Other than that, good fight.
-1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Except for all the bodies?
2 facereplacer 2013-10-29
I'm not denying something happened. It's what exactly happened I question.
-3 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Should I go on with that list or let you have a turn?
Oh, that's right: "We're done."
2 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Then show me the videos. Oh that's right. The FBI won't let us see them.
-2 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Since neither of us can provide videos I'm providing something else, which you can't provide. Good luck taking that to court.
5 facereplacer 2013-10-29
OP is a troll dude. Go through his comments. He's an asshole.
3 facereplacer 2013-10-29
This feels like it was a surveymonkey survey for forthcoming resource allocation at the sock-puppet factory. Hope you got what you needed shills.
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
OP is a troll.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Not at all.
-1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
Look at your comments. Thinking and respect for others is not your MO, douchebag.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Most of my comments are questions.
Most of the responses are insults.
Thanks for playing.
0 thc1967 2013-10-29
I try to use some common sense questions to ferret out the conspiracies that seem plausible. Those questions are:
1) Who benefits?
2) How do they benefit?
3) How is that benefit worth the cost and effort of carrying out the conspiracy?
4) How is the benefit significantly better than the benefit they could derive by applying the same money and resources in a more conventional manner? (It has to be significantly better to overcome the inherent risk in the conspiracy.)
5) How does the conspiracy manage to cover itself up? (Especially relevant when a large number of civilians would have to keep secrets.)
Using those criteria, the most plausible ones are:
On the fence:
Most likely implausible:
-3 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Agree with you on vaccines, as well. My wife and I argue about that one.
-1 Qwertyact 2013-10-29
as far as i know, nobody believes that vaccines are bad on principle, the theory is that the "bad guys" are secretly poisoning us with dangerous diseases added to the vaccines.
2 thc1967 2013-10-29
So if the bad guys are poisoning us...
1) How do they benefit from poisoning us?
2) How does that benefit outweigh the cost and effort of putting the poisons into the vaccines and covering it up?
3) How is the benefit of the conspiracy (poisoning vaccines) significantly greater than the benefit that could be obtained by applying the same effort and money in a more conventional manner?
4) How are they keeping the hundreds to thousands of civilians who must know about the poisons quiet?
1 Ambiguously_Ironic 2013-10-29
A simple Google search and some logical reasoning would answer all of those questions for you.
0 thc1967 2013-10-29
No, I'm pretty sure they won't. The burden of proof is on the individual making the fantastic claims.
2 facereplacer 2013-10-29
No, the theory is high doses of mercury on a babies brain can be harmful. Not really a lot of room to disagree there.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Some people argue against the principal:
Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/037229_vaccinations_children_research.html#ixzz2j7oeou3y
-2 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Red herrings are not the four you picked out. Red herring would be naom chmsky being a good guy instead of a gatekeeper.
The ama does suppress cancer cures. Its profit. I have had direct friends beat cancer with alternative therapy. No radi or chemo. Just smart pharmacology and timing.
Chemtrails are legit as well as fema camps. Denying that is just dumb.
Haarp i am still unclear about but it was used as a testing site for years.
Most of the real red herrings are the disinfo artists that roam conspiracy ville
1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
I've had a direct friend who is an oncologist and his kid died of cancer. Was he just taking one for the team? My anecdotal statistical sample of 1 trumps yours.
1 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Not at all. All humans are different and react differently. Because your case died doesnt mean there arent ways to beat it, it smply means he didnt beat it. Shit happens, when its your time, its your time.
There are manyyyy ways of fighting cancer. Just because you personally havent seen doesnt mean its not there. Causation does not equal correlation
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Can you give a list of red herring conspiracy theories?
1 virgule 2013-10-29
A red herring is the bit the happen after the event. It's designed to send people on a wild goose chase. To misdirect down the wrong path. etc. It's designed to obscure the real nature of the event. Hence, people who follows the red herring won't find neither prove shit; making people who noticed or witnessed something odd with the event to conclude that there's nothing here... or am I just confused?
7 goober_boobz 2013-10-29
No but the lack of media exposure of this issue is a conspiracy. You cant ignore the elephant in the room forever.
2 noroseglasses 2013-10-29
I guess conspiracy in a sense that facts and issues have been misrepresented and hidden since the get go.
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
0 [deleted] 2013-10-29
Clearly things sprayed out of planes are the only thing that could affect soil and rainwater. Who are "they", anyway?
One time I woke up and it was really beautiful. The weather was mild and there wasn't a cloud in the sky. There were no planes flying through the sky, at least not any that were leaving trails.
But then by 5 PM it was totally cloudy. It rained even. WTF? My eyes weren't lying.
1 facereplacer 2013-10-29
That does not address cloud formations as it pertains to aircraft contrails. Because you know what? Contrails don't form clouds. We're being sprayed like roaches, dude.
2 Sabremesh 2013-10-29
Abshire, Marc - Air Force Lt. Col. Marc Abshire....
OK, so this is the first "eye witness" on your list, and it is clear from what he says that he didn't see "a plane" hit the Pentagon at all - he felt an explosion sitting at his desk. No mention of a plane.
There are many others on your list who similarly fail to mention a plane, so I guess you should abridge your list if you want it to "support your argument".
Those that do claim to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon - did they make their statements under oath in a court of law? What do we know them, their credibility, their motives?
If a huge airliner really did hit the Pentagon, the physical evidence would be overwhelming. And yet here am I, like many others who have spent far too long searching for the evidence, and I'm not even slightly whelmed.