1. Genetically modified Food.

2. Fracking.

And anything regarding wtc 7

4, sandy hook

5, arora

6, boston bombing

7, anti-oil

8, snowden/greenwald

9, anti-nuclear / Fukushima

10, aniti-vaccines

11, zionist exposes

12, Obama eligibility (fake birth certificate, stolen SSN)

13, NASA hoaxes

So, essentially every conspiracy discussed here?

I've been posting here for a long time, and the biggest and most predictable shillstorms that I have personally encountered related to Obama's ineligibility (from 2009-12) and the Sandy Hook hoax (ongoing).

9/11 threads attract a lot of attention...

Very true - I tend to spend less time on 9/11 threads as the evidence for an inside job is so overwhelming.

Yeah. I used to dive head first into them. Not it's almost annoying the same people keep showing up and pushing the official narrative, using all the tricks in the book.

Now I just glance them over to see the general opinion and provide some input here and there when people have questions.

I guess that is what they want though, those of us that are vocal to shut-up.

Well, now that you mention it...

Especially NASA hoaxes... but not necessarily all shills, even most people on this sub are completely unaware of some of these things.

Post some good material on the subject and I'm sure those of us who don't know much about NASA hoaxes will listen. I researched some of it, like Planet X and faked moon-landings and both arguments require too much faith to be worth wasting energy worrying about. (for me). What NASA hoaxes have taken place that are worrisome?

I found Jay Weidner's spin on it quite fascinating, especially the parts about Kubrick's experimentation with new photography styles and such (precursor to modern green screening).

Google Kubrick's Odyssey by Jay Weidner.

I think Weidner fought some copyright battles about youtube uploads, but I did get to see the entire video once... before it got pulled and battled over.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Stereoscoping parallax image analysis which proves that multiple images were taken in a studio.

Go ahead and try to refute it, because it uses verifiable mathematical equations which you can do yourself, not being chiding when I say go ahead and try to refute it.

The obvious rebuttle is that you can't really use parallaxing to do what he's claiming. The long winded response is something that's not quite as easy to just say. So get your reading glasses, a nice cup of coffee, and prepare to read a long post (or ignore me and call me an idiot whichever suits your wants/needs.) Here's a couple of really good rebuttles I found on another forum that go into why you can't use it in the way he's claiming:

POST 1:

Objects further than two kilometres distant, with a minor camera shift, have zero parallax. Quoting: aulis

Wrong. Or, at least, overstated.

Ever hear the term "parsec?" It wasn't invented for "Star Wars." It is a well-known astronomical term of distant measurement. The term is a concentation of the phrase "PARallax of one SECond of arc."

What does this mean? It means that a star that is 3.26 lightyears away will, over the course of six months observation from Earth, show a parallax of one second of arc.

The point being -- there is no magic distance over which objects no longer show any parallax. There is only the distance at which some specific method or imaging system is unable to resolve parallax.

Oh, and this is being used incorrectly by the writer anyhow. Parallax is generally used as the shifting of an object against a static reference (usually infinity.) There ARE no objects at infinity in the Lunar Surface Hassleblad record.

So any failure to line up any specific object in the field of view can ONLY be due to either rotation of a 3d object, or failure to resolve the known aberrations of the lens and film.

Optical transformations are applied: axes x and y scaling, rotation, distortion, perspective and in addition a shift to the requirement specified above Quoting: aulis

This, from the list of steps, fails entirely to mention any corrections made in reference to lens model.

How can I put this. You know the movie "Wall-E?" Do some reading up on Pixar's work on the 3d rendering model. You will find multiple mentions of the way the team recognized the way a real camera lens differs from a mathematical model.

This has been known in the SFX industry since, oh, at least "Terminator 2." It is a well-known problem; having to apply the correct lens model in order to integrate the 3d renderings into the distorted view captured by the camera.

What the Aulis commentator above is describing is simply applying corrections to ONE PART of an image, by eye, and assuming that this somehow magically transforms the entire image correctly.

It is a long-winded version of the typical conspiracy nut trick; play with the sliders in PhotoShop and claim you are doing "Photo Analysis."

The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. Quoting: aulis

But he hasn't shown he is looking at St. George. The Moon has lots of craters, down to much smaller than are indicated on any topo map. Where has the writer shown that he has ruled out other choices? Where has he used photographs taken from other stations to confirm that he is looking at a distant crater and not a smaller foreground crater? Where has he compared verified photographs of the Apennines with the shape he claims is the Alpennines?

I am not saying he is wrong. This may indeed be the objects he claims. But he has shown none of the steps he has taken to verify them. This is clumsy work. It is impossible to achieve a zero stereoscopic parallax using only previously-mentioned image transformations Quoting: aulis

Rather telling. Let me emphasize this; the writer is applying random PhotoShop distortions (scaling, skew, and others) without any guide other than his eye and a "feeling" for what is right, AND THEN MEASURING THE RESULTS.

How about if I correct a perspective view of an airplane by eye and then measure my picture to tell you the wingspan? How about if I apply numerous distortions to a picture taken at a party and then tell you the exact height of a guy near the back of the room?

This is not analysis.

if the distortion grid has a curved surface, then it corresponds to projection at the rear onto a circular panorama screen, Quoting: aulis

So close and yet so far. Yes, there is a distortion. IN THE LENS. It is DOCUMENTED.

What -- does he think a camera lens records in perfect linear perspective?

Any distant object such as the Apennines and the crater St. George also move as a whole. Shadows on the mountains and on the crater change as well. Quoting: aulis

So, let me get this straight -- the backgrounds are all a still projected image, but the shadows change? And, for that >matter, in larger base stereo sets it is possible to "see around" the objects.

This is the difference between true 3d and the "posterboard" scheme that has been applied retroactively to certain modern movies. The former can actually see partially around objects. If you are shown a sphere, you see more than 50% of its surface. The latter can not.

Incidentally, he's wrong. The shadows aren't changing in the pair he cites. The exposure is changing (either as a processing result or because of his own manipulations).

POST 2:

Oh goodie, Apollo 15, my favorite mission out of the whole bunch!

THIS is not parallax:

link to www.aulis.com rehosted on imgur

That is optical distortion. That's why it looks like the entire mountain got pushed in one direction in the animation. Try as you might, you can't see the mountains in 3 dimensions by constructing a stereoscopic image with those frames. The astronaut turned quite a few degrees between taking those two pictures, and like it or not the image rendered by the camera is not perfectly flat. We have to correct for that properly, which is not what this jackwagon did. I ran the mountains through several iterations in Microsoft ICE to correct for the optical distortion and while I could run it through a few more times to get it perfect, you get the idea, there's no parallax there, it was just optical distortion:

link to i319.photobucket.com rehosted on imgur

As you can see, it's nothing at all like what the jackwagon on AULIS was trying to present.

Now for one more for you, the first image he presents is actually easier to do and see that there's no parallax; the astronaut didn't turn as much and the relevant portion isn't as close to the edge of the field. Once again, throwing those through Microsoft ICE to overlay them and see if there's parallax...

link to i319.photobucket.com rehosted on imgur

Nope, no parallax there either, though the focus was better in one than the other :).

Now you may be wondering, how do I know Microsoft ICE isn't magically erasing parallax? Because it doesn't work like that. Let's take two photos that should show a great deal of parallax between them because the astronauts drove a good distance before pointing back to the same mountain range and taking another photo. Like say, AS15-82-11082 and AS15-82-11057. Well, when you try to do that, this is as good as it gets in terms of making them overlap properly:

link to i319.photobucket.com rehosted on imgur

Reason being? There's real parallax there. Those mountains really are many miles away and you really do have to drive a good distance on the moon to get enough baseline to see parallax. We can use that parallax to construct a 3d stereoscopic image of the mountains. Here's a cross-eye 3d picture link to www.starosta.com of that valley I just showed you:

link to i319.photobucket.com rehosted on imgur

Microsoft ICE can't erase real parallax, it can just compensate for lens distortions, and that's all that guy on AULIS was seeing and measuring.

Thanks for this, first time I see it.

Admittedly, those two are fairly weak theories anyways (i assume the NASA thing is the moon landing hoax)

They are not, I do not have the link right now nor do I have time at the moment, but google parallax stereoscopic analysis fake moon landing, something along those lines should pull up the side where they analyze the images to prove how some were taken on a photo stage.

They prove it through the image analysis wherein it's revealed there's a foreground and background, the latter of which is being projected onto a concave projection screen some distance from the stage, the edge of which is clearly revealed through the image analysis.

I know what argument you're talking about, and the answer to that is this quote;

"Detailed comparison of the backgrounds said to be identical in fact show significant changes in the relative positions of the hills that are consistent with the claimed locations that the images were taken from. Parallax effects clearly demonstrate that the images were taken from widely different locations around the landing sites. Claims that the appearance of the background is identical while the foreground changes (for example, from a boulder strewn crater to the Lunar Module) are trivially explained when the images were taken from nearby locations, akin to seeing distant mountains appearing the same on Earth from locations that are hundreds of feet apart showing different foreground items. Furthermore, as there is only an extremely tenuous atmosphere on the Moon, very distant objects will appear clearer and closer to the human eye. What appears as nearby hills in some photographs, are actually mountains several kilometers high and some 10–20 kilometers away. Changes in such very distant backgrounds are quite subtle, and can be mistaken for no change at all. As the Moon is also much smaller than the Earth, the horizon is significantly nearer in photographs than Earthbound observers are used to seeing (an eye 1.7 m above completely flat ground will see the horizon 4.7 km away on Earth, but only 2.4 km away on the Moon). This can lead to confusing interpretations of the images."

Where did you copypasta that from?

That answer in no way refutes the mathematical analysis of said images.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

There's the link, which nothing in your copypasta answer addresses.

Stereoscopic Parallax image analysis provides real answers based on verifiable mathematics which hold true on the moon the same as they do on the earth, the atmosphere does not affect it.

Firstly, it kinda does, which is my point. Secondly, the guy who wrote it, not only doesn't actually have a phd (phd c means phd candidate), isn't mentioned as an author in the "about the authors" page which is weird, and there are errors, as he doesn't account for the significant differences between earth and the moon. Also, the fact that that site also makes claims regarding the "face on mars" being made by aliens, and the pyramids also being made by aliens, doesn't look that great for an academic source.

The level of dedication shown by the "deniers" on these issues suggests otherwise.

Or it can mean they are just easy to debunk. Obama even released his long form birth certificate. And I'm still not sure what you mean exactly by the NASA hoaxes.

Obama's long form birth certificate is a very obvious fake. If you do some research you will find overwhelming evidence that the PDF on the White House website was produced on a computer and is NOT a scan of a genuine, real world document.

So no matter what Obama releases, you still believe he's from Kenya or something? What can he release that would change your mind?

An independently certified, genuine birth certificate. The PDF on the White House website would not be acceptable in a passport application.

Which is what was released anyways. There is really nothing else that he can release.

My instinct tells me you're trolling, but in the unlikely event you are genuinely unaware of the problems with Obama's birth certificate, here is one of the better known videos which analyses the different layers which make up that computer-generated document.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

And here's a pretty good response to the video from an adobe certified expert;

He said the layers cited by doubters are evidence of the use of common, off-the-shelf scanning software — not evidence of a forgery. "I have seen a lot of illustrator documents that come from photos and contain those kind of clippings — and it looks exactly like this," he said.

Tremblay explained that the scanner optical character recognition (OCR) software attempts to translate characters or words in a photograph into text. He said the layers cited by the doubters shows that software at work — and nothing more.

"When you open it in Illustrator it looks like layers, but it doesn't look like someone built it from scratch. If someone made a fake it wouldn't look like this," he said. "Some scanning software is trying to separate the background and the text and splitting element into layers and parts of layers."

Tremblay also said that during the scanning process, instances where the software was unable to separate text fully from background led to the creation of a separate layer within the document. This could be places where a signature runs over the line of background, or typed characters touch the internal border of the document.

Sorry about the size, but it's all relevant.

This is obvious disinfo - even a child should be able to see through that. Every credible expert who has analysed this says it's a fake.

So everyone who doesn't support your position, but has experience in the field is a disinfo agent? That's a pretty serious accusation. And can you show me an expert who has a good response to the quoted argument?

Do some more research and try to get a balanced view on this issue. Your debunking effort is frankly risible.

How am I at fault here? I've given evidence, and refuted yours. You, on the other hand have just dismissed everything I've said so far.

Tremblay, on his own blog (denying what you excerpted) saying that Fox News quoted him out of context.

http://www.proficiografik.com/2011/05/02/rectifications-regarding-obama-birth-certificate-pdf-validity-foxnews.html

Two more links examining different aspects of the forgery.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/305705/

http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/308397/

There are dozens of computer, typography and other experts who have problems with the Obama birth certificate. It is an obvious, blatant forgery. This is my last comment, because for me this argument is like iteration #998 of groundhog day.

we have one here alrdy

admitted by who? you? heh

The fact that even most of /r/conspiracy disagrees with the birth certificate thing, and the arguments for both that and the moon landing hoax tend to be quite weak and very easy to disprove (i.e. no stars)

stop trying to speak for the sub, you are clueless and it is painfully obvious

Oh is it now? The fact that most arguments for the moon landing hoax are pretty weak somehow means I'm speaking for the sub? Unless you're talking about the birther thing, in which case, the fact is that even many conspiracy theorists don't agree with it (especially after they released the long form certificate).

the moon landing hoax theory, as with most, has as much or as little evidence as you have time to investigate. i have spent the time, you have not.

Then please show me a strong one, since you've probably looked into this more then I have (and not the parallax thing, I've already heard that)

The "no stars" garbage is misinformation meant to discredit theorists.

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Try to refute that however.

Firstly, I have seen the no-stars argument used here repeatedly, and secondly, I gave you an answer to the parallax argument (not to mention that the evidence to the contrary is exponentially greater in size anyways).

Stop claiming to speak for the sub.

I'm speaking from experience. Whenever the topic comes up, this argument often comes up too. It's observation.

Again, says who? you are talking out of your ass while plucking "facts" from thin air. There is plenty of evidence the birth certificate is a forgery and likewise plenty to suggest the moon landings were faked. If you take the time to find it.

The problem is that all the facts i've found so far are pretty weak, and can be explained, or are just bad science sometimes. If you can provide something to the contrary that would be great.

Admittedly, most uses of WTC 7 are the phrase "two planes took down three buildings"

Says who?

Do you have proof of this?

Just because one group coins a phrase doesn't mean that it's what a majority of people say about the topic.

I'm saying that most of the uses (not all), are people saying that, based on my experience here.

I get a ton of hate whenever I bring up discussion about 9/11, even in this subreddit. Typically my comments will end up with a large number of downvotes, and nobody actually addresses my points. They resort to ad hominems or change the subject rather than start a decent discussion. I've even been told I don't understand physics (I have a engineering degree). I've been called a shill, disinfo agent, and everything under the sun just for disagreeing with people who support the conspiracy theory.

I have a engineering degree

There's nothing I want more than to test that claim.

why?

Because I don't believe you.

Well yea, but why is there 'nothing you want more than to test that claim'

It's a hyperbole, but again, it's simply because I don't believe you.

For someone with an engineering degree, you certainly need things excessively explained to you.

No, I just find it interesting that you focus so strongly on that anecdote out of everything I said.

GMO is hit hard by, you know, those guys.

Those guys?

Monsanto shills. They are legion.

edit: to add an example, when that Aussie politician did an AMA recently the most upvoted question was about why he doesn't advocate GMOs.

In a thread where many topics were adressed answered and highly upvoted, I found it curious that that issue was apparently at the top of the reddit userbase's agenda.

I mean, I'll fully accept many aren't anti-gmo, but I certainly wouldn't consider it the 'hot topic'.

Raised my eyebrows, is all.

They are JF_QUEENY

I'll second the monsanto shills.

I'll third it. Got into it with one a while back. Mention the rat tumor study and and if it gets traction you see about a half dozen humans and each of the with about 10-20 accts start the brigading. They mst get paid good on that one.

4th it. I don't buy into the whole paid shill thing.. they don't need to pay when they put forth so much effort to "educate" useful idiots.. BUT if there ever was paid tools they would be originating from the Monsanto scam.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/18/revealed-air-force-ordered-software-to-manage-army-of-fake-virtual-people/

You are wrong, here is direct evidence of paid shills.

Sorry, it's not that i don't think it happens at all. I think their operation is sophisticated enough that many of the shillers don't require payment. The majority are brainwashed useful idiots who fully subscribe to the propaganda. They are an engineered resistive borg.

I see what you are saying and I agree it is entirely logical that rather than hiring people whose only job it is to shill for pay, you would simply add "internet discussions" as an additional task to people you already employ who agree with your agendas, which is where the Persona software comes in handy.

Can confirm this. Source==Facebook. Not paid and spitting, unintelligible pit bulls passionately fighting the good unwitting shill fight.

It's interesting - I've found that you can post about politics all day long, but anything that touches genetically modified food or medications (psych meds, vaccines, etc.) gets buried & trolled immediately (they also wait a few days and come back again to ensure they have the last word on it).

Leads me to suspect that corporations are far and away the biggest payment-providers for shilling vs. the government. (Of course, it's worth arguing that corps & govt are one and the same...)

On edit - I also remember getting brigaded and berated for talking about using Y-shaped sticks to find water. That was an odd one...

I had an argument with a gentleman that goes by JF_QUEENY yesterday. It was about gmos. Within 39 seconds he had 3 points. And this was a dead post. Like 10 comments overall. Nobody was there. It's so hard to prove anything for sure though.

He/she/they/it's a well-known attack-dog, spends all day searching for the keywords, I believe, and is known to link /r/conspiracy threads from other groups to aid the pile-on. This plant's username is really hilarious - the name of the otnasnoM founder AND the name of a specific manufacturing plant. The plant's a plant! :)

Out of curiosity, how does the stick thing work? I never understood the science behind it.

There is no science behind it.

That was my assumption, but I'm curious as to the what explanation is said to be.

I was a kid, but that's how my grandparents found and dug a well that still gives water decades later. Basically, the entire family, engineers and all, just walked around in circles around this country property with Y-shaped sticks, it made an impression, a memory I'd totally forgotten about until someone posted something about the Coral Castle guy and I found some docs about his Y-shaped whatever-tool-it-was-he-invented.

After that, I looked up a bunch of YouTubes on it, but they all look fake--I remember it being a subtle, almost undetectable tug downwards when you walked over, not pulling severely and suddenly down like in the posted videos (i.e., more like gravitational pull, not a freaking supermagnet). But who knows, I was a kid. We kids tried it over and over again after this in our own yard, but to no success. :)

I'm kinda skeptical about this, since water isn't inherently magnetic, nor does a Y shape change magnetism.

I'm skeptical, too. But I'm supercurious about the fact that when I say "Y-shaped stick" on Reddit, I get attacked out of nowhere by a bunch of accounts that don't frequent this sub. It's spooky and it's really interesting.

You're "Y" shaped stick thing is called dowsing. Here's a short video that explains how it's done:

http://youtu.be/xOsCnX-TKIY

And another, just in case you're not convinced one way or the other yet.

http://youtu.be/rMtuWymUzz4

Yep, downvoted already. What threatens these people so much about goofy country folk walking around with y-shaped sticks? It's WEIRD. It really makes me want to give it a try.

With a lot of the shills, you can see the monetary or political motivation behind it. But the y-shaped stick brigade, what's the angle? Anyone know?

There's no angle, it's just that dowsing is ridiculous.

Yeah, I have 8 cats. All free-roaming, indoor-outdoor cats. They all come inside before dark and find places to curl up before a cold front arrives. It's ridiculous, man.

You are a new account and don't even frequent this sub (neither does souporsaladz or any of the users who attacked me the first time I mentioned the goofy y-shaped sticks).

So I ask again, what's your angle?

I do frequent this sub, I just usually lurk. But dowsing is a ridiculous pseudoscience - that's my angle.

Why? How does it hurt you if people in 1980 found a well that way? Are you super-religious and consider it "witching?" Or a militant atheist? What angers you so much about the mention of a y-shaped stick that it brings you out of lurking?

I'm not trying to be combative, this whole phenomenon of Reddit reaction to the mention of a stick is fascinating and I'd really like to know what about it is so provocative to you and the others that have freaked out when you see someone even mentioning the practice.

The reason people get defensive on stuff like that is that quackery has a long and storied history of being used to take advantage of the less knowledgeable/intelligent. Whether it's miracle tonic, a Y-shaped stick, or homeopathic cures, people will always make shit up and dupe others into believing it. If you're going to make a bold claim about something working you should have some bold evidence to back it up, otherwise people will assume the worst that you're trying to peddle something.

Peddle a pre-teen with a stick wandering around a plot of land? Give me a break. Who's selling y-shaped sticks?

Seriously, what's the deal? I can say Edward Snowden is a limited hangout all day long and nothing. I say I once walked around with a stick as a child and it's a beatdown. It's creepy, y'all.

Although you're right, all I have to do is say, "Homeopathy, Homeopathy, Homeopathy" and it's like conjuring Beetlejuice. Most of the abusersdon't even know what the basic definition of homeopathy is, yet will come out of the woodwork to burn me at the stake. I know for a fact that people aren't paid shills on this, but they're more vicious and abusive (and some, present company excluded, it appears, pretty science- and grammar-illiterate) than the JFQueenies of the world.

Why? Where's the religious fervor coming from? What's the campaign?

Because homeopathy actually is a scam, and makes people rich by taking advantage of others' false hope.

Most people take issue with such actions.

The definition of homeopathy is same-cure. I know you guys like to say that it's reducing the agitating agent to nothing, but that's your definition.

They just cured a significant number of peanut allergies using immunotheraphy (http://healthland.time.com/2014/01/30/scientists-to-cure-peanut-allergies/) and vaccines themselves follow the same principles.

The amount of energy the atheist/(typically non-scientist) "science" community spends hysterically attacking anyone who dares mention a keyword could be seriously better spent supporting real research into actual cures.

You can use whatever definition you like, but that doesn't mean it's the commonly-used definition. Homeopathy is typically used to refer to the theories of Samuel Hahnemann, which have zero actual validity behind them. If you want to make an argument that the word should be used differently, fine I guess, but that's really besides the point.

If 9 out of 10 people use a word to mean one thing, then that ends up being the meaning of the word.

You use the word to support your own perspective. And people should adopt your perspective because it's negative? Do you own bitcoin?

When it comes to the definition of "homeopathy," 9 out of 10 people don't care. The one that's left is comprised of crazy people viciously slurring old ladies on the Internet that found some way to cure their own asthma using deep breathing methods and want to tell others about it to save them from being 'roided up. Why?

So is the majority of the pharmaceutical industry. The number one cause of avoidable deaths in the last few decades. But.. hey, pharmaceuticals are made in a lab so it's legit.

'science' has a long and storied history of being used to take advantage of the less knowledgeable/intelligent.

Today's "science" is tomorrow's quackery. It's sad that so many Religion Of Science parishioners cannot see that.

So its a rescue complex?

You feel you are rescuing others who might not be as smart as you are and would fall for an evil dowsing hoax?

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

Ah, Dawkins zealots. That's all y'all had to say. I think it's funny you guys give Christians such a hard time, but they've never acted like your people. Are there points given for Internet abuse to strangers? Like a Dawkins-zealot video game? Because that would explain a whole lot.

Honestly, I still don't understand the hate and vitriol I see from that side of the aisle. Hoping your people get a new priest at some point that gets the whole "outreach" thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI#t=280

The religious group I grew up in labelled it part of the Occult. It was as forbidden as a Ouija board. One name for these sticks is "divining stick," and divination is a sin.

I've never heard anyone give an explanation. It works though. I've used it to locate underground utilities before. Instead of a Y shaped stick I used two L shaped brazing rods.

That is because takes on politics and ideologies can be subjective whereas most views posted here on those topics rooted in science blatantly fly in the face of scientific facts and are simply the result of ignorance and a lack of understanding. Spreading nonsense about things like dowsing rods is just promoting an anti-scientific mindset and quackery.

Can I ask you what brought you here? For, you know, scientific reasons, I'd like to know what conjured you here to downvote and slam when all I did was mention something interesting that happened when I was a kid.

It's interesting - I've found that you can post about politics all day long, but anything that touches genetically modified food or medications (psych meds, vaccines, etc.) gets buried & trolled immediately (they also wait a few days and come back again to ensure they have the last word on it).

I've noticed that if one so much as mentions the fact that cattle are ruminants (their digestive systems are specialized for grasses), there is sure to be a comment telling you why this fact is basically irrelevant. One of the more usual talking points is that cattle are usually grass-fed while they are calfs. At first, I just thought there were quite a few people who were passionate about their beef being raised on an artificial diet; but in light of recent revelations, I do wonder about it*.

The thing is, even if I disagreed with a person, I would have great respect for them if they'd just be honest and say, "Yes, cattle are meant, by natural design, to graze upon grasses; however, modern industrialized farming makes feeding them an artificial diet more efficient and profitable."

*I don't mean to suggest that anyone who defends industrialized meat production is a "shill" working at the behest of a large corportation. One thing to keep in mind, however, is that the goal of corporate "shilling" is to insert talking points into discussions so that they are spread memetically by others; they have others defend their practices, they merely give them a bit of prompting on what to say.

They always have to have the last word. I saw that too. You could give up with sentient posts and just type in rap lyrics and they WILL keep responding till you quit.

They wont let go of the dowsing thing in /r/conspiratard. They've been obsessed with it even since you've made that comment, it really is extraordinary.

Posts critical of the Bush family, particularly the postwar to 00' stuff get assaulted

I have not seen this at all. While some have softened (especially when a warm and fuzzy picture is posted), Bush and his policies are still bashed and disliked on a regular basis on this site. He has few supporters on Reddit and in r/conspiracy.

shit about Bitcoin and it's NSA/NATO cryptography origins get hammered

Probably because Reddit has a whole has a collective circlejerk going for Bitcoin, so anything that can be construed as negative is likely to be downvoted. This is typical of anything that Reddit has a hard on for.

Posts about reptilians are routinely downvoted, too. I would not argue that that is a good indicator of validity.

I made a post actually providing a reference to a question and it was downvoted as much as upvoted:

http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1zisjw/russian_president_putin_accuses_us_of_double/cfu67f8?context=3

All anti-Monsanto stuff gets downvoted like in seconds.

Nuclear / Fukushima posts always attract downvotes and often shills who talk down to you. Which is sad, because the Fukushima shills are murderers.

Catholic church / pederasty news also attracts a few downvoters.

Edit: hello, shills... you are murderers and molesters.

Fukushima. First comment.

1. Sandy Hook

2. Questioning vaccines (not being anti-vaccine, merely questioning vaccines)

3. Geoengineering

4. GMOs

5. 9/11 (specifically exotic technology being used)

6. Questioning any aspect of the Holocaust

7. Questioning general scientific "facts" and dogmas

9/11 (specifically exotic technology being used)

Guilty as charged. If I could downvote Judy Wood to death, I would.

And that's one of the many reasons why I'm on the fence about you.

I'm assuming the reasons are all related to me being aggressively against pseudoscience like the Townsend-Brown effect, especially those who sully genuine 9/11 truth like AE911Truth.

pseudoscience like the Townsend-Brown effect.

Nope, but now that you've said that my eyebrows are raised even more.

Since they're the same eyebrows that don't get raised when hearing what Judy "circus-clown" Wood has to say, then I'm not all that worried.

Here's the difference between you and me:

I've read Judy Wood's book in its entirety.

I highly doubt you can say the same.

Now, instead of engaging in an educated, rational discussion on the validity of her work, you dismiss her unequivocally and call her names!

That's what raises my eyebrows. You have every right to question her work and this hypothesis...in fact I encourage that...however the way you've approached this is what's suspicious to me.

Interesting behavior from someone who wants to be a mod here so fervently...

I'm sick of arguing against Judy Wood. As I've said before, it should be used as a litmus test for scientific literacy.

Now, instead of engaging in an educated, rational discussion on the validity of her work...

That's fine and dandy, if many of those who support her actually understood fundamental theories of physics that have taken centuries to build, but they don't, which you personally have admitted to. Unfortunately, it's a complete waste of time to engage in a long "educated and rational" discussion on her garbage, which I have done many times. Afterwards, I always get accusations of being a paid shill.

Interesting behavior from someone who wants to be a mod here so fervently...

I definitely changed my mind during these last few days. I wouldn't want to be part of a group that doesn't do anything against the sock-puppet accounts and don't address clear corruption-charges I PMd you about. Meanwhile, I put my neck on the line to call out the shills, get viciously attacked, without any form of support from the mods. It's like you accept that this sub is long gone to those who want to subvert it. I don't get it.

I'm going to minimize my activity here in the future. Maybe this sub isn't worth fighting for anyway.

I'm sick of arguing against Judy Wood.

Fair enough, but is it too much to ask for you to link to your "arguments"?

if many of those who support her actually understood fundamental theories of physics that have taken centuries to build

Again, you're making vague statements without backing any of it up, regardless of whether or not you're "tired" of arguing about it.

What about her theory breaks the "fundamental theories of physics"?

You do realize that the "fundamental theories of physics" were turned on their heads just 100 years ago, right? The fact that you maintain that they took "centuries" to build exposes your bias.

We understand woefully little of our world, despite our unreasonable reliance on science to explain everything.

Obviously you haven't read her book, otherwise you would've directly responded to me with respect to that.

Honestly, I can't consider you informed enough to dismiss her case if you've merely watched a couple of youtube videos and actually haven't taken the time to look at all of the evidence she provides.

I'd like to point out that although it may seem I'm wholeheartedly supporting this theory, I remain very skeptical.

However...I've devoted considerable time to this theory, as well as the work of brilliant minds like Paul A. LaViolette and Tom van Flandern, and I have to say that their research seems to possibly confirm Wood's hypothesis.

I wouldn't want to be part of a group that doesn't do anything against the sock-puppet accounts and don't address clear corruption-charges

How could you possibly know what the mods here deal with on a daily basis?

Meanwhile, I put my neck on the line to call out the shills, get viciously attacked, without any form of support from the mods.

Part of being a mod here is putting with attacks, again, on a daily basis.

Maybe this sub isn't worth fighting for anyway.

Perhaps you're fighting the wrong fight.

I'm fighting for this sub too...but I'm using a much different approach than you.

Fair enough, but is it too much to ask for you to link to your "arguments"?

I assume you weren't exposed to this thread. In it, you'll find another thread. Granted, I do use slurs against her, but it's only because I believe that she is poisonous to 9/11 truth.

Obviously you haven't read her book, otherwise you would've directly responded to me with respect to that.

Kind of like how you didn't respond to the corruption allegations? I wouldn't imagine reading her book in a million years, because I'd have to buy it, and thus support that evil ghoul. Seeing and reading her long presentations, debates, and other content is enough for me to get an understanding of her BS.

Using slurs is never justified and doesn't belong here. It's a method of argument you see again and again from thugs, especially from males towards female intellectuals. Use your words, if you need to resort to slurs, your arguments are empty.

The alternative is that I entertain her ridiculous ideas, which I have numerous times already, and it's driving me nuts that she is taken seriously for even a millisecond. It's also an indication that 9/11 truth is dead to me. Especially when semi-prominent people like Jesse Ventura give legitimacy to her ideas.

But maybe this is a sign that I need to put this behind me now. 9/11 truth never was and apparently never will be. People are too fucking stupid for it.

If you can't convince people of something worthwhile without calling them "fucking stupid" "cunt bitches," then maybe you should go for a long walk and do a little bit of serious introspection about what it is you're trying to share with the world and how better to convince people that your ideas are the correct ones.

cunt bitches

I called her a cunt bitch, not whoever I was speaking to. I think she's evil.

... convince people that your ideas are the correct ones.

I don't think that will be necessary. Axyotl is after my ass and he will find some loophole to ban me, I'm sure of it. If he wont, I will try not to come back anyway. To put it mildly, this place isn't for me.

Can you expand more on number 7?

Things like evolution, gravity (physics in general), and the history of our solar system come to mind.

I'm absolutely not suggesting that our entire concepts of these subjects are incorrect, rather they are incomplete.

Many of those who aren't in the sciences incorrectly assume that we have this shit pretty much figured out, while those who actually know their stuff admit that we understand very little.

For example, saying something like "our understanding of the timeline of human evolution is incomplete" will often invite significant amounts of derision from people who automatically lump you in with the creationists, when that's completely unfair.

However, knowing your history, I would imagine you'd be in that category of "lumpers" :)

Firstly, I don't deny that there is much we have to learn about the universe, as we really only understand a fraction of what there is. For example, due to a significant number of recent finds, we are beginning to realize that the original theory for the way people got North America (land bridge) might not be the only explantation. Secondly, the reason I asked was to make sure that you weren't referring to something like the flat earth, or geocentrism theories (which you aren't anyways).

Sandy Hook ? While the circumstances underlying the event are conspiratorial (though Adam Lanza's case deserves much more attention), but denying the event (and even school) even existed seems too much ...

Wait, wait wait...

Who said anything about denying the event and the school??

Here's your mistake, and the mistake of so many others.

Just because one person somewhere posits a theory, that doesn't mean that everyone else researching this theory will automatically agree. Think about that.

I should be able to say that I don't buy the official Sandy Hook story without being lumped into a broader category that accepts all aspects of the conspiracy theory.

That's like saying that questioning 9/11 automatically means you believe there were no planes that day, just because that just happens to be one theory of what happened that day.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Might be a good indicator of validity

Wouldn't it be the complete opposite?

9/11

How the secret leaders of the world are literally Jewish.

Global Warming topics get promoted a lot.

Also Snowden/Wikileaks is suspicious as fuck... these guys are supposed to be national secrets leakers of the greatest military power in the world, and yet they turned into celebrities and paraded on every mainstream media like it's nothing? The government will kill your kids, your dog and your grandma for practically no reason, and they let these guys walk? OK.

Might be a good indicator of validity

Except it's not.

What would happen to a valid conspiracy that is trying to be covered up? DOWNVOTE.

What would happen to a completely crazy conspiracy theory that people see as a waste of time or a distraction? DOWNVOTE.

My point is that you should not use the karma of a submission to determine the validity of a theory; you should use evidence.

9/11 being an inside job

From my personal experince, anything about 9/11, Sandy Hook, or Boston, even it's a geninue "what about this?" question, brings out the downvotes in waves.

There is constant sharing of disinformation propaganda, people who disrupt the conversation, and resort to ad hominem specifically when dealing with the subject of U.F.O.'s and the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Most 'normal' people will gladly play shill when it comes to UFOs. I don't know one way or the other myself, as I have never seen a UFO, but I do know the average person has lots of aggression and they often enjoy taking it out against the classic 'conspiracy tin-foil hat kook'.

I am not saying everyone who does these actions is a shill, there are a ton of ignorant/misguided folks who perpetuate JTRIG tactics without even realizing it. Also there are the jaded skeptics who let emotion get the best of them.

This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.

• [/r/conspiratard] Idiots in /r/conspiracy think that a lot of downvotes means a topic is valid (because shills, etc.). Never stop to consider that things might just be downvoted because they're fucking idiotic.

^{I am a bot. Comments? Complaints? Send them to my inbox!}

Idiots in /r/conspiracy think that a lot of downvotes means a topic is valid (because shills, etc.). Never stop to consider that things might just be downvoted because they're fucking idiotic.

by: /u/duckvimes_

Upvotes: 43 | Downvotes: 19 | Timestamp of this thread.

Upvotes: 2 | Downvotes: 1 | Timestamp of cross-posting thread.

If this was an error, send me a message

You ever think it's not shills or whatever, but just trolls?

They're too invested to be trolls. Trolls wouldn't lurk /new. Only a small amount of regular users here do.

In my experimce any anti nuclear posts or posts fhat mention radiation from fukishima get downvoted the most.

It shows fhe nuke industry pays for a lot of pr and supression.

Lately however I have noticed any negative comments about bill gates get voted down even quicker

I don't think being hated by Reddit hivemind gives or takes away from something's validity.

Nothing, absolutely nothing gets hit harder than vaccines, chemtrails, and GMO.

Some of that is probably useful idiots.

want real news? check /r/undelete

Scientology! I can't can't believe no one said this yet. Personally I couldnt give a shit about them.

Chemtrails

smartmeters, dangers/effects of emf in general, fluoride, tehtwntwrz, pretty much all the real ones, only ufos and crop circles seem to get a pass

9/11

Most affected targets (IMO):

anti-zionist/Israel - discredited as anti-semite

anti-free-market/pro-social - dismissed as communist or big government

Reductio ad absurdum !!

Anything regarding zionism/israel, GMOs, fracking, vaccines, and 9/11

ALWAYS stirs up a shitstorm

Ch3mtrails gets a lot of downvotes, especially when it's a solid post like this one:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1zoge0/everything_you_need_to_know_about_chemtrails/

But to add to the list:

• Fracking
• Vaccines
• Isra3l
• GM

Anything that isn't adamantly pro-vaccines is hit hard. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is on public record funding a program that would search the internet to identify anything skeptical of vaccines and counter it with misinformation.

GMO Fracking Vaccines Israel/Jews

You can use /r/conspiro to see what posts on /r/conspiracy have higher than average "shill" percentages. Check it out, just use the search bar to find the corresponding conspiracy post on conspiro.

holocaust, 9/11, global warming
people go batshit insane when you dare even remotely question the official story on those

crisis actors.. 100% here's a typical response to a post from those believers/trolls at conspiratard:

[–]onlyforwork 6 points 7 hours ago

They are the worst types of bullies. The ones who harass murder victim's families are on the same level as Westboro Baptist Church, IMO.

apparently examining and discussing video and photo evidence constitutes the worst type of bullying. the most amazing thing how they try use cognitive dissonance by accusing us of exactly what they are doing. as if we aren't even human. it's psychopathic behavior.

4, sandy hook

5, arora

6, boston bombing

7, anti-oil

8, snowden/greenwald

9, anti-nuclear / Fukushima

10, aniti-vaccines

11, zionist exposes

Admittedly, most uses of WTC 7 are the phrase "two planes took down three buildings"

12, Obama eligibility (fake birth certificate, stolen SSN)

13, NASA hoaxes

With a lot of the shills, you can see the monetary or political motivation behind it. But the y-shaped stick brigade, what's the angle? Anyone know?

Post some good material on the subject and I'm sure those of us who don't know much about NASA hoaxes will listen. I researched some of it, like Planet X and faked moon-landings and both arguments require too much faith to be worth wasting energy worrying about. (for me). What NASA hoaxes have taken place that are worrisome?

That was my assumption, but I'm curious as to the what explanation is said to be.

Or it can mean they are just easy to debunk. Obama even released his long form birth certificate. And I'm still not sure what you mean exactly by the NASA hoaxes.

I do frequent this sub, I just usually lurk. But dowsing is a ridiculous pseudoscience - that's my angle.

we have one here alrdy

Firstly, I have seen the no-stars argument used here repeatedly, and secondly, I gave you an answer to the parallax argument (not to mention that the evidence to the contrary is exponentially greater in size anyways).

So everyone who doesn't support your position, but has experience in the field is a disinfo agent? That's a pretty serious accusation. And can you show me an expert who has a good response to the quoted argument?

No, I just find it interesting that you focus so strongly on that anecdote out of everything I said.