Sticky that for eternity. Welcome newcomers to the reality and give them an easy start!

Absolutely agreed. Or put it in the sidebar

You can add to the list the conspiracy where black men were injected with syfilis in the 1930's to 1970's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

gross

no, thank you.

I posted a little bit in the thread. Perhaps you missed them, but I am still wondering if the list you posted is amendable? I like the concept of having a proven conspiracy thread, but I think it should be as comprehensive as possible.

Would be worth adding that a CDC whistleblower has recently confirmed the vaccines and Autism coverup, he admitted being there when the incriminating studies were destroyed. Wakefield was right all, yes, vaccines do regularly cause Autism and nothing is being done to fix them or warn people

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546453/senator-posey-calls-investigation-cdc-fraud

So non-vaxers aren't the crazy/silly folk that I keep hearing they are?

"No way!! Vaccines are 100% safe. I fully trust my government. You anti-vac people are fucking delirious" ~ sheep of Reddit

it'll be good for them to know early that no one plans on doing anything about them, and that they should only discuss these atrocities and circlejerk about how terrible the government is and how informed they are.

While you're assassinating bank CEO's and liberating puppet governments or something right? Thanks bud.

no need to kill anyone dipshit. all you got to do is take the money they would normally be using to buy your governments out from under you. isn't this supposed to be the center of creativity and intelligence on the internet? you mean you can't think of one way to achieve that without death? you could get 1000 times better at this and still be the worst.

Thank you, that affirmed so many thing. You have fun uh, buying your government back? (Are you a lobbyist?)

if you where any denser we could use you for radiation shielding. did you not read robin hood, or maybe something more real like the boston tea party? you take the money, either literally or by destroying products and denying the ability for businesses to maintain services. are you really that fucking stupid, that i have to spell that out for you? fucking wig wearing british inbred peasants figured it out centuries before you did. how are you so bad at this? no wonder we are fucked, you wouldn't know what to do if you were finally forced to take action.

Wait, you want to literally take money from the rich without killing anyone? I knew you were something but wow.

i'm something? i'm not the one that believes a broken system can fix a corrupt one. i'm ot the one that thinks talking is the same as taking action. i'm certainly not the one that thinks trying the same peaceful protesting over and over is going to provide positive results. i guess i am something technically, i'm right.

You avoided the point. How do you plan a revolution with no deaths?

i didn't avoid the point you waste of carbon. i told you to take their money buy either taking the money itself or denying their ability to provide goods and services. if you are too unintelligent and unimaginative to do that without killing someone it isn't my fault. if they don't pay attention to you dumping tea in the harbor for a few years then yeah, people might have to die. that is just how revolution works.

it won't happen i am aware, your a sissy that thinks bitching with a sign might work eventually. even though it never has, and never will.

You're gonna be in for a big fuckin surprise when you turn 16 and realize we're a little past dumping tea in a harbour. Would love to know what you're doing to help but you'll deflect and insult me like a child. Your first sentance starts with no need for killing anyone now youre saying itll be necessary if a little civil disobedience doesnt work. Youll figure it out soon.

me? 16? someone is projecting I think. the 'tea party' was a metaphor for the kind of action that needs to be taken. a revloution does end up having to kill people if civil disobedience doesn't work first. did you not pay attention in history class? I said we don't need to kill people yet, not that it might not have to happen if things still do not improve. pay attention to history and politics your freshman year of highschool, you obviously missed out so far.

1st "banthetruth" -"no need to kill anyone dipshit" 2nd "banthetruth" - " people might have to die. that is just how revolution works. " 3rd "banthetruth" - a revloution does end up having to kill people if civil disobedience doesn't work first.

Your kind of naivete is scary. The 1% won't give up their power peacefully, they kill countless people daily for profit. I too hope like you shit will work itself out violence free and a broken system will fix a broken system, then I wake up.

Also never did I say peaceful protest was the way to go but thanks for making things up it helps your case.

it is possible to remove money from someone without death. if this doesn't work, then death will be necessary. the fact that you can't comprehend my meaning from what i have said only shows just how fucked all of us are.

Sooooo salty. Hope you have some happiness come your way /u/banthetruth

not salty, just telling the truth. i don't need your hope to be happy, i took care of that a long time ago.

Then why you have to add all that "you idiot" extras on your posts? It doesn't make your points stronger. Just makes you seem bitter and upset. That's why I hoped for some happiness for you. Usually happy people don't feel the need to insult others during a conversation. Theres just no point to it.

i add 'you idiot' because you are. an idiot is someone who is stupid but doesn't realize it ( in my opinion) and what you and everyone else is doing here is stupid, and you don't realize it. i insult because you need to hear it. you have been in a nice comfy bubble your whole life, and soon you aren't going to be. if you can't handle some light insults you sure as fuck aren't handling the take back of your country from corruption. what you believe there is a point in is not necessarily what i believe.

Being civil is the core of rational debate. You have no idea who I am, my level of education or IQ, where I'm from, what life experiences I've had etc. You also don't know that for the other posters. But by doing this you reveal to me that you are antagonistic and therefore are psychologically weak also the fact you think others have been raised in a bubble means you believe you have not. Probably someone else in your life calls you these names and this is a way for you to vent. Probably easy to get you riled up. That's in Art Of War as one of the potential faults of a general.

If what we are doing here is stupid then you have two options. Point out a superior path or leave this community. You think you're doing a service with low level and vague insults but it only reflects on you and makes it look like you can't have a rational discussion.

If you're on this board and you know what's going on then you're one of us. If you're full of rage direct it at those people posting about total bullshit on /r/politics or something

this isn't a rational debate. these are facts, facts are not up for debate. you either start taking action, real action, or you're fucked. that is all their is too it. if you lack the imagination or intelligence to do so, it isn't my fault. that is all there is to it. good job educating people, but everyone doesn't need to do that, most of you should be taking action against corruption. if ISIS worked like you fuck ups they wouldn't have a kill count, they'd just be a bunch of sad sacks talking about how much they hate westerners and other non Muslims.

Lmao so you think ISIS has a good model for changing society? Most of the planet hate them and they will end up Being eradicated after they've served their purpose. This is an internet forum. If you come here and post some plans you have to do something radical (form a militia etc) you're guaranteed to fail. The only useful purpose this site has is to show people who are unaware of what's going on the truth.

lol, what a terrible job of trying to put words in my mouth. i never said ISIS is the way to go, but ISIS is a group that knows why they are mad, make plans against what they are mad at, and carry those plans out. a bunch of mostly retarded goat fuckers understand the need for real action, yet the best and brightest of the internet can't seem to get the hang of it.

no need for millitias at this point, it is still possible to take power without taking life. like i said before, if you lack the imagination or intelligence to do so, you're fucked. end of the human story.

They have no idea who their enemy is. They are funded by Saudi and America and fight everyone but Israel. They are taking action in a way that fundamentally undermines their apparent goals. But they're a puppet proxy army to destabalise the region anyway. They are the perfect example of the opposite of what youre saying.

So please share with us your abounding intellect and creativity on how to do what exactly? ( or are you going to cop out and say if I tell you then its not using creativity etc. )Stop the US government from bombing everyone? Stopping agenda 21? NWO? The Fed? Most people have no idea about what's going on. Rationally showing them the issues at hand helps activate the minds of people who are already in positions of strength.

jeez, if that analogy was any further over your head it might be able to confirm planet X for us. you need to be a group that makes plans and takes action on them, besides just educating people, as an educated person not taking action is as useless as turn signals on a BMW.

if i make this any simpler sean penn will try to portray it in a movie.

politicians need money to be corrupt, there is no such thing a free corrupt politician. you take the money from the people buying the politicians, no more bought politicians. if that doesn't work, you're going to have to take a lot more than their money.

believe me or don't. call me a troll or don't. your fucked if you don't do something about this soon. that is the truth, and the truth isn't up for debate.

Ok brb, taking the money

doubtful.

Thanks for putting it all together, and there's stuff on there that I've only seen in recent months, very extensive.

If you had told me that there was a "global fascist master plan" 10 years ago, I would have scoffed. But there's no more denying it, people who can't see it are living a fantasy. The globalists have plans for all of us, and if we're not a profit-making asset we're liable to be discarded.

Wow great post. NASA have also implicitly admitted to their Moon landings hoax.

“We must SOLVE these challenges before we send people through this region of space!”

I suppose they didn't do it in 1969 then?

http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2015/06/nasa-confirms-never-went-to-moon-van-allen-radiation-belts-2491592.html

NASA have also implicitly admitted to their Moon landings hoax

No, they have not.

I suppose they didn't do it in 1969 then?

Not really. The Apollo missions were quite impressive, but what we know now makes it fairly apparent that the measures they took to avoid radiation exposure were not sufficient for long-term missions like those that would take astronauts to Mars or the asteroids.

As far as the Van Allen belts go, getting through those regions is actually quite difficult and the method used by Apollo doesn't really work for modern missions which have very different weight profiles. Shielding the astronauts is key, but more importantly (if you want them to live at all) you have to be able to absolutely shield the electronics and still keep your craft light enough that it can carry sufficient fuel to inject it into its trajectory.

Lol do you know what they used to protect the ship from the Van Allen Belt?

Tin Foil LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You could follow the link I provided to the actual paper on that very topic...

To quote:

... by use of neutron-resonant metal foils that have a known activation response for the type of neutrons expected.

So yes, we're talking about a foil (the goal is to reduce weight as much as possible, so clearly if there is a metal that can work in thin sheets it would be used) but tin would not fit the metric (nor would aluminum which is what "tin foil" typically is made of).

One foil mentioned in the footnotes is tantalum. You can see a picture of tantalum foil here.

''Not really. The Apollo missions were quite impressive''-he talks like he was there overseeing the missions. God I hate that.

It was as thin as aluminum foil, it wasn't the same stuff you buy at the grocery store.

Is anyone surprised that Mr Freemason thinks nasa is legit?

Really? Ad hominem is the best you've got?

I don't know if it's really an ad hominem if you're a Mason like almost all NASA astronauts were/are. Masons often stick together and defend each other.

I don't know if it's really an ad hominem

Then you don't understand the nature of ad hominem. Responding, not to the point at hand, but the nature of the person making the point is called an "ad hominem" and is a classic logical fallacy.

if you're a Mason like almost all NASA astronauts were/are

This is incorrect. Of the Apollo-era astronauts a minority were Masons (which Masonic sites are all too happy to list). But the fact that any were is usually enough to stoke the conspiracy flames.

Masons often stick together and defend each other.

I wasn't aware that there was anything to defend. The facts are the facts, and regardless of your desire to bring Freemasonry into the conversation, the facts remain.

Responding, not to the point at hand, but the nature of the person making the point is called an "ad hominem" and is a classic logical fallacy.

That which is so often called an ad hominem is not always necessarily a logical fallacy, though, it can be a valid argument under certain circumstances.

That which is so often called an ad hominem is not always necessarily a logical fallacy

It is a logical fallacy by definition.

it can be a valid argument under certain circumstances

In no circumstance is ad hominem a valid argument.

If I were presenting my own findings, then my qualifications would, of course, be valuable in weighting those findings. But as I'm pointing out public information, my qualifications and affiliations are moot and the discussion should always focus on the data, not the speaker. To do otherwise is, by definition, ad hominem.

It is a logical fallacy by definition.

Read my sentence again. Not all that is called ad hominem meets the definition.

Let me tell you a story about illumination. When I was a kid, the very first conspiracy theory I ever heard about is that light bulb manufacturers collude to shorten the life span of their product so they can sell more. I still distinctly remember the reasons given for why that is a conspiracy theory.

Yet they did conspire. It is "Wikipedia-true".

So when your reasons why NASA landed on the moon sound just like the reasons for why a healthy market will self-regulate and manufacture the best product at the best price, you are doing it wrong.

The point is you provided no real data. A strong technical, logical argument was presented, and you tried to distract from it. It was fair game to let lurkers know you are a sympathizer.

In the words of a wise man: the facts are the facts, and regardless of your desire to get Freemasonry out of the conversation, the facts remain.

When I was a kid, the very first conspiracy theory I ever heard about is that light bulb manufacturers...

So when your reasons why NASA landed on the moon sound just like the reasons for why a healthy market will self-regulate and manufacture the best product at the best price, you are doing it wrong.

Well, a healthy market will self-regulate. That's not to say that any given market (or even any possible market if you're of a socialist mindset) is healthy. But I fail to see the "argument" that I made regarding NASA that sounded like an economic argument... All I did was point out the science and the fact that the science is pretty clear on this point.

The point is you provided no real data.

Well, I did is the problem. Perhaps you've forgotten. See my original comment.

A strong technical, logical argument was presented

Okay, let's look at that argument:

NASA have also implicitly admitted to their Moon landings hoax.

“We must SOLVE these challenges before we send people through this region of space!”

So, the claim here is that someone from NASA said that, for long-term missions we have radiation-related issues to sort out in modern missions. This is then used to assert that in short-duration missions in the past, we clearly had not solved the radiation problems.

The issues I raised with this are a) the solutions to those problems are a matter of public records b) the problem with applying those to long-term missions that contain modern materials is also a matter of public record.

I linked to part of that public record and the rest is trivially searchable, now that you know what you're looking for. Have at it. You'll find that it comes down to materials science, weight, the extreme variability of solar weather (note the comments in the paper I linked to about this, it's key) and duration of mission.

All I did was point out the science and the fact that the science is pretty clear on this point.

I was once a huge NASA fanboi. If I defend the arguments against NASA hoaxery, it is not out of a belief system, but from drawing logical conclusions, and weighing the arguments for and against the conspiracy theory, and comparing them with other conspiracy theories on topics I'm more knowledgeable about than rocket science. And there is a distinct pattern in the arguments for the plutocratic system, for the official 9/11 explanation and NASA VFX.

You sound like someone who thinks he knows he's right, because "the science is clear". But it is not, and has been proven not to be.

When people try to convince others you can't make technology as it used to be they may be allowed to reserve some skepticism. I have a working breadbox standing right here.

I was once a huge NASA fanboi.

Well, that's neither here nor there. One does not need to be overly enthusiastic in order to acknowledge the history and the science of what's been done.

You sound like someone who thinks he knows he's right, because "the science is clear".

Pretty much, yes.

But it is not, and has been proven not to be.

That is not my understanding, and it was clearly not something that the person I responded to was able to bring to bear. Out of context quotes that might be read to hint at the idea that we're just now solving radiation shielding as a problem isn't "the science," it's poor guesswork.

When people try to convince others you can't make technology as it used

No one is trying to do any such thing.

One does not need to be overly enthusiastic in order to acknowledge the history and the science of what's been done.

I said it to emphasize that it is not out of religious zeal that I argue, but out of scientific curiosity.

You sound like someone who thinks he knows he's right, because "the science is clear".

Pretty much, yes.

And that's the problem. Someone who uses his own brain sounds differently. Forwards different arguments. Allows for doubt and correction.

But it is not, and has been proven not to be.

That is not my understanding, and it was clearly not something that the person I responded to was able to bring to bear. Out of context quotes that might be read to hint at the idea that we're just now solving radiation shielding as a problem isn't "the science," it's poor guesswork.

Within the context, a NASA scientist said they are working on a problem that must have been solved decades ago, at least in principle, if man really went to the moon. Whether the destination is Mars or Moon, the Van Allen Belt is in the way in either case. And it is just one of many problems with the official explanation, as so often. Bring them up all at once, they are dismissed as gish gallop. Bring them up one by one, each is just a "coincidence" or must be attributed to the "crippled epistemology" of the "conspiracy theorist". Be it the Ponzi scheme that usury is, be it the mechanics of top-down collapses of steel skyscrapers or be it the exploration of so-called "outer space".

It is about the form of the argument, the pattern of handwaving, the style of discussion. You are using it. Schopenhauer would be proud.

Within the context, a NASA scientist said they are working on a problem that must have been solved decades ago

So, I explained this, and linked to the paper from the original missions in their solutions. Why are we still discussing this as if I'd never responded?

The same discussion is had each time someone explains the expanding earth theory, links to a paper proving the hypothesis and someone else charges the author is a known conspiracy theorist anyway and therefore, is to be dismissed.

And what can I say about the paper. Why is 2016 not able to replicate something that worked in 1969?

Not that 1969 knew how to build a pyramid, but that's something different.

The same discussion is had each time

So, you're still ignoring my response and the data I presented. If you don't want answers don't ask questions.

I wasn't asking a question, I was pointing out an ad hom is not what you think it is.

And no, I do not ignore your response or the data. I do not accept it as fact, that's a huge difference.

I see you are a fellow grey. Why did you not press the button?

I wasn't asking a question, I was pointing out an ad hom is not what you think it is.

It really is. When someone says, "this statement is false, here's some data to demonstrate that," and the answer is literally, "Is anyone surprised that Mr Freemason thinks nasa is legit?" ... there is only one name for that: an ad hominem fallacy.

And no, I do not ignore your response or the data. I do not accept it as fact, that's a huge difference.

You have written a great amount of text and not responded to either it or my comments and conclusions based thereon. That's pretty much my definition of "ignored".

I see you are a fellow grey. Why did you not press the button?

I saw no particular value in doing so... or perhaps I'm the secret master that created the button in order to control the masses through... um... MKULTRA something, something oppression something. :-)

I saw no particular value in doing so... or perhaps I'm the secret master that created the button in order to control the masses through... um... MKULTRA something, something oppression something. :-)

...and I see when I stretch out my hand as a token of peace, you slap it away.

You have written a great amount of text and not responded to either it or my comments and conclusions based thereon. That's pretty much my definition of "ignored".

Then, by your own definition, you are ignoring the arguments opposing your portrayal of the... "facts".

It really is. When someone says, "this statement is false, here's some data to demonstrate that," and the answer is literally, "Is anyone surprised that Mr Freemason thinks nasa is legit?" ... there is only one name for that: an ad hominem fallacy.

We know well how the discussion went. You linked to a pdf that does not support the claim you are making. /u/Ambiguously_Ironic was even friendly enough to point out a reasonable argument why it might not be an ad hom in this case: "I don't know if it's really an ad hominem if you're a Mason like almost all NASA astronauts were/are. Masons often stick together and defend each other."

So the part you are missing is: it is not about the moon mission, you are probably opposed to a great deal of other conspiracy theories too, as you have indicated, because you have... "facts". The issue at hand is whether you, as a member of a religious cult, would make an objective judgement of the case at hand... or whether your loyalty to a cause clouds your judgement. Have you tried /r/exittors?

...and I see when I stretch out my hand as a token of peace, you slap it away.

You're taking this conversation far too seriously.

Then, by your own definition, you are ignoring the arguments opposing your portrayal of the... "facts".

I will respond to any point made. Thus far that is zero. Exactly no comment has been made on the facts I provided. Zero. Zip. Nada. The closest anyone has come was dismissing what I said out of hand because of the social organization I happen to belong to.

We know well how the discussion went. You linked to a pdf that does not support the claim you are making.

Well, then, it should be easy to demonstrate HOW it fails to do so. What statement I made which was unsupported... go ahead...

So the part you are missing is: it is not about the moon mission, you are probably opposed to a great deal of other conspiracy theories too

And there's the strawman!

The issue at hand is whether you, as a member of a religious cult

I'm not a member of any religious cult ... or any organized religion for that matter. Try again.

would make an objective judgement of the case at hand... or whether your loyalty to a cause clouds your judgement

Fortunately, we don't have to debate that point. We can let the facts speak for themselves, and debate them openly and honestly without resorting to flinging mud at each other's choice of social organization.

You're taking this conversation far too seriously.

Admit it, you enjoy the attention.

I will respond to any point made. Thus far that is zero.

See, you ignore the point that WAS made and pretend zero points were made.

Exactly no comment has been made on the facts I provided. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Simply not worth the effort, since you are going to dismiss them anyway because you are enlightened.

The closest anyone has come was dismissing what I said out of hand because of the social organization I happen to belong to.

Yeah, if a NSA agent showed up to defend mass surveillance, /r/conspiracy would be obliged to keep his employment out of the debate because it totally has nothing to do with the case he's making for mass surveillance.

You linked to a pdf that does not support the claim you are making.

Well, then, it should be easy to demonstrate HOW it fails to do so. What statement I made which was unsupported... go ahead...

Read it up again if you already forgot what this is about.

So the part you are missing is: it is not about the moon mission, you are probably opposed to a great deal of other conspiracy theories too

And there's the strawman!

You are just trying to name as many logical fallacies as possible. No, it is not a strawman. We would have the same debate if someone had said that buildings don't disintegrate from top to bottom. You would have linked to NIST or Bazant and claimed the science is settled and complained the rest of the way that nobody is addressing your "facts".

I'm not a member of any religious cult ... or any organized religion for that matter. Try again.

That's what all members of religious cults say. "Nah, my club is different! Is is a.... social organization! Well yes, with a few occult and spiritualistic undertones here and there and strange rituals, but you can't exactly call it a 'religious cult'... just some harmless fun."

We can let the facts speak for themselves,

Okay, let us do just that. Fact 1; in 1969, NASA claimed to have sent men to the moon. Fact 2: decades later, NASA engineers claim that the problem how to pass the van Allen belt is yet to be solved. Fact 3: the 1973 paper you linked to does not solve the contradiction. Fact 4: as a freemason, you are obliged to uphold the policy of your... "social organization". Fact 5: most moon landing astronots were affiliated with the very same "social organization".

I need say no more, because the facts speak for themselves.

and debate them openly and honestly

How do you debate facts?

without resorting to flinging mud at each other's choice of social organization.

Nobody flung any mud.

And stop calling freemasonry a "social organization" as if it were a ninepins league.

Exactly no comment has been made on the facts I provided. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Simply not worth the effort

Well then, I see no way to proceed with a rational discussion. Have a great day.

I'm a non-presser out of conviction, you wanted to press (and be a 33) but then it was over sooner than you thought.

The facts:

NASA 1969: we passed the van Allen belt.

NASA 1973: this is how we passed the van Allen belt.

NASA 201x: we gotta find out how to pass the van Allen belt first.

Now make a rational argument and draw a reasonable conclusion. OP made a point here. It deserves more than a wishy-washy dismissal.

Tyler seems to have a fanbase and I feel a little OOTL, so I thought I might get to know him as well.

Some universe /r/conspiracy has created :)

NASA 1969: we passed the van Allen belt.

Correct

NASA 1973: this is how we passed the van Allen belt.

Correct

NASA 201x: we gotta find out how to pass the van Allen belt first.

Incorrect. You've taken part of a statement out of context. For extended missions with radically different materials and radically different technologies, we have to solve different problems that become an issue in many places, the VA belt being one of those places.

In 1969 through the 1970s, the radiation exposures of the crew are well documented in the document I linked to. You'll see that the number of rads is quite variable and depends on solar activity at the time. In one mission, the exposure levels were quite high, amounting to a little more than the highest dose you would get in a modern CT-chest scan (the highest dosage used for non-radiotherapy purposes). That's not terribly good, but on a short mission it's entirely reasonable.

On a longer mission, it's an unacceptable starting point, however, and solar activity can vary even more... essentially we played the odds and won, but the more missions you run at those altitudes, the more risk there is that you will hit a solar event, at which point your crew is BBQ. That is the problem that needs to be solved.

The larger problem that needs to be solved is with respect to long-term missions. Even with the sort of shielding we can build today with light materials, the exposure over the course of years (which a mission to Mars would be, for example, is entirely lethal). There's just no way around that. If you take the exposure of the Apollo astronauts and multiply it by a dozen or two... that's unacceptable exposure.

Then there's the issue of technology. Modern electronics are much harder to harden than the sorts of equipment we sent up with Apollo, but today's space program couldn't really do the work it needs to do with 1960s electronics (just compressing a video feed requires electronics that are vastly more sensitive to high energy particles and radiation).

These are all hard problems. There are a number of solutions on the drawing boards, and lots of testing is necessary. Basically, if the Apollo program had been aimed at Mars or long-term missions to the moon, they would not have been able to succeed. It was their duration and a certain amount of good solar weather that lead to their success.

NASA 201x: we gotta find out how to pass the van Allen belt first.

Incorrect.

No, it is correct. It is exactly true. Why do you start out by saying "incorrect"?

You've taken part of a statement out of context.

No I haven't. The whole context is "we gotta find out how to pass the van Allen belt first."

Is that what you meant when you talked about "debating the facts openly and honestly", and letting the facts speak for themselves?

Look at all the explaining you are doing for the "facts". That is not "letting the facts speak for themselves". You provide no sources for your claims, it is fan-fiction at best and your own personal attempt at a rationalization at worst. You are literally using the same arguments like those who handwave away that 9/11 was a cover-up. Butbutbut the Twins were so big, and they were made of steel, no other building that big was ever blown up...

...and you are shifting the goalposts. The topic at hand is explicitly how to pass the van Allen belt, not how to survive radiation in interplanetary space due to solar weather long-term.

"Openly and honestly"? No, you are an obfuscator, not an illuminator.

Freemasons have installed themselves at the highest positions of all organizations and are clearly subverting them.

Replace the word "Freemasons" with "Reddit users". Why is that statement any more or less sensical? Sure, there are some powerful people who are Freemasons as is true for any large organization that has members from all walks of life. There are many who are not. But why is the defining attribute of interest for you their membership or not in the Fraternity? Why not their use of reddit? Why not whether they are proponents of the A or B theory of time?

... ad homenim, when it's not really. Unless you think calling someone a freemason is an insult ...

You misunderstand the nature of ad hominem. Ad hominem need not be insulting at all. If you suggest that the sky is blue and present various observational data to back that up, and my response is to say, "you're a Stanford graduate, so there's no point in even looking at your data," then that's an ad hominem. It doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with being from Stanford. The point is that if your refutation of a point relates not to the point itself, but to the party making the point, then that's ad hominem.

you've shilled yourself

Sounds painful.

your relationshp to freemasonry

Freemasonry has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. That was my point.

Gabby Gifford gets shot straight through her brain, also her husband is an astronaut. (the guy wasn't as dumb as Wolf Blitzer on celebrity Jeopardy.)

edit: that discontinuous flow in that comment leads you to the discontinuous flow in the "actaual happenings."

Further edit: I forgot, those bastards now expect you to believe some federal judge, whom no one knows the name of, was the intended target.

Jared Laughtner probably wasn't real and his bullshit assassination was PHUCKED

Come on. Every famous NASA astronaut was a Mason, with a few exceptions only. And of the exceptions, many of them had fathers who were masons (Neil Armstrong, Allen Sheppard, William Pogue, Vance Brand, Anthony England, etc.). Why even try to deny it? It just makes you sound suspicious.

Every famous NASA astronaut was a Mason

That statement does not constitute proof. Do you have knowledge of Masons other than the ones I listed?

Your list has 10 of the most famous Apollo astronauts (all of them masons). I mentioned five more famous ones (all had fathers who were masons). Masons are a tiny fraction of the population and yet the Apollo missions were full of Masonic influence. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence or is irrelevant or that these guys didn't know the others were masons? Because none of those three scenarios are believable.

What are you arguing? That because astronauts are Masons the moon landing must have been a hoax?

Next its that since the astronauts were Masons the moon landing was a hoax and it was a hoax because it's scientifically impossible to get to the moon (or else they wouldn't have faked it) and the reason they faked it is because the earth is flat...

All of which hinges on the logical fallacy that 'astronauts are Masons, Masons are part of verified conspiracies, therefore the Moon landing was a hoax and a conspiracy.'

Maybe I typed this for no reason the but the argument going on doesn't seem to make much sense, and the way the belt was bypassed is scientifically sound for the reasons the original guys stated.

logical fallacy

The only one is your strawman here. You're putting words in my mouth.

What are you arguing? That because astronauts are Masons the moon landing must have been a hoax?

It isn't cause and effect, and I haven't made that argument, but I would say that secret society members are automatically difficult to trust for obvious reasons. And I find it interesting that a lot of the most famous astronauts in history were all members of the same one. It's only one data point of many that make me distrustful of NASA, but if nothing else it shows how large of an influence masons have on society. And not just "society" but specifically (as the masons in NASA prove) government, science, engineering, and space travel.

I can get behind that, my example was extreme but I've heard similar "logic" used. My question was serious though, I wasn't sure what you were arguing.

I'm more of the school of thought that our government has far far more advanced technology than we know about, and is just withholding it until its deemed necessary to release. I have many reasons for believing that to be the case from scientists like Tesla's work to the Thorium coverup to anecdotal evidence from engineers I've been personally acquainted with, its not exactly proven, but fairly logical to assume that the supposed 5 year gap between civilian and govt tech is at least 15 and probably more true is that there are entire fields of study that have never gone public.

And just playing out the scenario of how I would get the public to eat out of my hand I know exactly what I'd do. Manufacture crisis, make myself the savior with solutions I had pre-selected.

I'm of that school of thought as well. I think it's being kept secret and hoarded specifically because those who have it know it could help to free us and they don't want that. Even if it's only as simple as the fact that it would cut into their profit margins if we were to move away from oil or rockets or AC current, that would probably be enough for those who own these massive corporations and this technology to try to keep it hidden. And we can assume or at least speculate that there may be other reasons beyond simple profit as well.

Think of it this way. We're in the year 2016 and we're still using Tesla's AC current from a century ago, we're still using rocket propulsion that functions in basically the same way as the rockets we had during WWII or the '60's at the latest. Where are all the advances? Why was all of Tesla's work classified when he died and continues to be so until the present day? There are reasons for these things.

As a mason I can only laugh at some of the statements being made here.

Any questions you have I'd be happy to address but the notion that we control the world the way you think is laughable.

But I do believe there are other factions in the world with their own agenda that control the media to placate the general public and divert attention away from themselves.

I don't think you personally control anything, nor did I ever say anything of the sort, but laugh away. And yes, the media is very much controlled from the top down.

Your list has 10 of the most famous Apollo astronauts

Okay, great.

Masons are a tiny fraction of the population and yet the Apollo missions were full of Masonic influence

In the 1960s, Masonic membership was still at its post-war heights and a larger percentage of war veterans were members than the average population because they tended to join Lodges while in military service. The numbers are not shocking if you're a student of history. Still, these are not a majority of the members of the program, not even close!

Hahaha okay man. "Nothing to see here, move along." Got it.

Also look at the logos they used for the missions and the symbolism is coherent with what I understand to be masonic symbolism.

However I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Whether it's good or bad, the symbolism and influence are obviously there, and I think we'd do well to acknowledge them. If we try to ignore or deny them it just makes it look like there's something to hide (not saying you personally were trying to hide or ignore).

I think everyone on this sub should go talk to their local freemason chapters. I spoke with mine and they were very friendly and well read people. They were probably more open to the kind of posts made here than most people would be. I think the use of symbolism gets a bad rep sometimes but using a symbol to help solidify a concept is a great memory technique.

However I think their influence is not as strong as some people would have you believe. At the highest levels of course influential people collude and Freemasons occupy high ranks. But I think thats because of the kind of people it attracts. Those who seek a deeper understanding of this universe and its various dimensions. I think skull and bones is a sinister death cult though. So go figure lol.

It's the secrecy that's the biggest issue, the non-transparency. Symbols are just symbols and masons don't have a monopoly on them. In fact, I don't even find most of their symbolism even very interesting or profound, most of it is just stolen from earlier religions and doctrines. But secrecy breeds suspicion for obvious and justified reasons, and a lot of Freemasons have a defensiveness to them when questioned that doesn't do them any favors either.

I do agree that there are much higher levels of power than simply saying, "It's the masons", but even so we have to acknowledge how many masons have found themselves in positions of vast influence over the last 300+ years. To ignore it or act like it's a total non-issue is naive at best.

Agreed

I think everyone on this sub should go talk to their local freemason chapters. I spoke with mine and they were very friendly and well read people. They were probably more open to the kind of posts made here than most people would be. I think the use of symbolism gets a bad rep sometimes but using a symbol to help solidify a concept is a great memory technique.

However I think their influence is not as strong as some people would have you believe. At the highest levels of course influential people collude and Freemasons occupy high ranks. But I think thats because of the kind of people it attracts. Those who seek a deeper understanding of this universe and its various dimensions. I think skull and bones is a sinister death cult though. So go figure lol.

Yes.

Is it completely outside the realm of possibility that the scientist who in fact theorized, analyzed, and ultimately aggrandized their existence into the research field of magnetospheric physics, which would grow to involving more than 1,000 investigators in more than 20 countries; 11 years prior to the Apollo 11 lunar mission itself -- that any amelioration whatsoever wouldn't come about in this time?

Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts; this was hypothesized by the man after which they would be named. In 1958, James Van Allen had chosen to equip the Explorer 1 [the first satellite of the United States] with a Geiger-Muller tube, which would ultimately confirm his theory of radiation surrounding the Earth.

The Van Allen belts span only about 40° of Earth's latitude -- 20° above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

Side-note: In July of 1962, Van Allen himself addressed the American Rocket Society on radiation and Apollo. The protons of the inner Van Allen belt, he said, could be a serious hazard for extended manned missions. But, he went on, it might be possible to clear out that radiation by detonating a nuclear payload in the vicinity. The additional material might give the particles the extra energy they needed to escape the Earth’s magnetic field. America’s nuclear testing program of the early 1960’s was called Operation Dominic. Within this program was a group of atmospheric tests named the “Fishbowl” events designed to understand how nuclear weapon debris would interact with the Earth’s magnetic field in the event of nuclear war. The highest of the Fishbowl events was one called Starfish Prime. This test saw a 1.4 megaton bomb detonate at an altitude of 250 miles. Rather than clear out the inner Van Allen belt, Starfish Prime added more radiation around the planet.

But even with Starfish Prime, additional research into the Van Allen belts determined they weren’t a deal breaker for missions to the Moon [by 1969, the high-energy electrons injected into the lower Van Allen belt by the Starfish Prime event had decayed to one-twelfth of its post-test peak intensity]. By February of 1964, NASA was confident that Apollo crews would be passing through the belts fast enough that the spacecraft’s skin and all the instrumentation lining the walls would be enough protection. It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of sending astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission.

To monitor radiation exposure during the flights, Apollo crews carried dosimeters on board their spacecraft and on their persons; these readings confirmed NASA had made a good choice. Over the course of the Apollo 11 mission to and from the moon, the crew incurred ≥ .036 rem [roentgen equivalent in man], or 0.018 rads [radiation absorbed dose] which is far lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials.

A question since you seem knowledgeable about this. Isn't all of space awash in radiation? Isn't the sun throwing out radiation in all directions at all times? If so isn't the van allen belt not just a strip of radiation but a boundary after which is deadly radiation everywhere?

Nice compilation, thank you!

I have no idea how anyone could argue with this list. It's incredible

Corbet Report such a legend.

Corbet Report such a legend.

Now that's a list man. Wish my macbook was working so I could spend time reading all you posted. Difficult on a mobile. Bookmarked it anyway for future readng.

Sometimes I wish I'd never entered the rabbit hole but then I see this kind of thing and I feel better about my choices. Good to know one is not alone!!

Top notch post!

Archived… (((Just in case)))…

Where are Operation Condor, Cyclone, Fast and Furious?

Put in in a book and name it "The A to Z of Confirmed Conspiracy Theories" or something like that.

But then of course people will find out who you are and mute you...

Well done 911bodysnatchers322.

May I ask what the bodysnatchers is for?

Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Think that's where Skull & Bones got their number from?

There is no evidence of that. Here is the US military doctrine number 3-22

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_22.pdf

There is no evidence of that. Here is the US military doctrine number 3-22

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp3_22.pdf

Awesome job.

posts like this shouldn't even need a sticky request

anything that makes a super strong or smoking gun case should be automatically stickied

Now that is a sweeeeeeeeeeet list!

Also I would have used Archived links since anyone can edit so wikipedia.org!

Shouldn't the Trans-Pacific Partnership be on here as well?

They definitely conspired.

This is why conspiracies are so much fun. History is so much more complex and complicated than the way that we are told in history books in high school. Currently reading A People's History of The US by Howard Zinn. Great stuff OP. More shit that I need to learn about. So many rabbit holes I still need to go down.

Nice comp.

OAKlahoma tho. I lolled

"I think there may have been a massive piece of money laundering committed by a major government which ought to know better

I have a feeling this is what he was referring to.

This is a noble idea - but i fear there are simply too many to ever list

Excellent Post.

Upon a brief scan I did not see an entry for INSLAW - WIRED Article / PROMIS Promis Software by Mike Ruppert | PRISM'S Controversial Forerunner

This has to be one of the biggest stories rarely told; tale seems to be a genesis for PRISM/Echelon/NSA/Intel Data Mining etc.

Also: Operation Garden Plot : WIKI | http://www.constitution.org/abus/garden_plot/garden_plot.htm | http://www.uhuh.com/control/garden.htm

The Casolaro Conspiracy Maze

Doug Moench created a cool piece for sure; with The Big Book of Conspiracies...

JACKPOT.

Thank you for the compilation, been searching for content for a while now, see plenty of new stuff here :D

Great post. As others said, there are a handful of big ones you left out (Fast and Furious for example), but that's cool. Just an excuse to post this again in the future! Keep it up.

You missed the Archer Daniels Midland Lysine Price Fixing Conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

Great list...you've really come a long way.

The Lavon Affair / Operation Susannah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

Failed Israeli false-flag operation.

Yes indeed.

Came to say that this definitely belongs on the list.

Thanks OP

BTW is there place here for Planet X ? Not necessarily a "conspiracy" but academia ridiculed all those who proposed it, the belief fell into fringe and esoteric territory, until resurfacing recently.

casually left out gang stalking didnt you? if you dont think it exists, rent an apt or room in my neighborhood. a day is all the convincing you need.

or watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h_-1a1Zkuw

P2 -- Propaganda Due : Massive-scale, Italian-Swiss-Argentine cryptofascist intrigue revealing an Italian Deep state

Well, revealing a clique within the Italian government. I'm not sure that calling it a "deep state" is anything more than dramatic license.

operated out of a secret Freemason lodge

1. Not a secret. P2 was no more a secret than any other Lodge in the Grand Orient.
2. Not a Masonic Lodge after its dealings with politics came to light. The Lodge was officially cut off and told to close down (of course, no one can force people not to meet, but they were no longer doing so as Masons).

run by Licio Gelli

He was one of the Masters of that Lodge. Lodges generally elect a new Master every 1-3 years, but Gelli is remembered because he was the Master of the Lodge when it was officially shut down by the Grand Orient.

attempted a coup of the media, constitution, attempted assassinations of several figures

I think you're making some of this up...

P2 was implicated in a possible connection to one death. Their membership were also involved in some very shady international dealings and Italian/Vatican banking scandals. If you want to assert more than that, I'd like to see your non-conspiracy sources.

Mae would applaud your diligence & perseverance. Please continue your journey & keep us informed of what you encounter.

I now have enough understanding to believe the user /u/Tyler_Zoro is a freemason defender shill

Well if by shill, you mean that I'm a Freemason who knows what I'm talking about and a conspiracy theorist who demands quality sourcing, then I guess you're right.

who has been cropping up only lately

I've been around for quite a long time...

to chime in and discredit anything that has to do with freemasonry.

I don't really discredit much. Most of my posts in non-Freemasonry subs are supportive. Only when people start trotting out silly inaccuracies or long-debunked hoaxes do I correct them.

He questions my claims constantly

Well, you do tend to drop all incredulity when it comes to Freemasonry, so there's a lot to correct.

You're low level.

In this one statement you identify yourself as having no understanding of Freemasonry whatsoever. This is the crux of the failure of the conspiracy theories surrounding Freemasonry. They honestly think that this is a statement that has any relationship to the real world, and because they're so deeply wrong from the very first assertion, they can't really go anywhere.

There's no such thing as "low" or "high" level that is physically possible in such a decentralized organization whose only universal structure is a loose-knit system of inter-recognition.

I'm not even a Freemason according to hundreds of thousands of people who identify themselves as Freemasons around the world. Should I be a high-level Mason in the Swedish system where members must be Protestant Christians? Should I be a high-level Mason in the Northern half of the US Scottish Rite system? I know folks who sit on the governing body of that latter group and let me tell you, they aren't going to listen to someone from the Southern half of the US's version of that organization who tries to tell them what to do! So which sort of high-level are you talking about?

When you make a statement like this, it becomes immediately obvious to the informed observer (be they Mason or not) that you're talking about a fantasy world that you and other conspiracy theorists have constructed, in which anyone who called themselves "high level" within Freemasonry would be anything but a laughing stock. It's a fine fantasy to entertain, and if only as a cautionary story about why the current loose-knit structure of "Freemasonry" is important, I find it fascinating. But you have to move past it if you want to discuss reality.

Dude, c'mon. You're really bad at this. There are levels of freemasonry. Degrees. Everyone knows this. It's hierarchical

So, it turns out that what "everyone knows" is often wrong. The reality is that there are two degrees in Freemasonry that convey any kind of "rank" or "status" that's universal to regular Freemasonry (important to note that there's lots of irregular Freemasonry and a fuzzy boundary between the two): the first degree which makes one a Brother to all other Masons and the third degree which makes one able to travel to any other regular Lodge of Master Masons around the world.

But that's it. The Grand Lodge of Texas doesn't have any rank or status that lets one of their members "out-rank" anyone from the Grand Lodge of Iowa. There's no Grand Lodge of the United States, and so when the Grand Lodge of Texas does something that the Grand Lodge of Vermont thinks is wrong, Vermont can stop recognizing them as Masons if they wish, but that's all they can do, and they can't change how Nevada will deal with Texas, except via diplomacy.

So, where is this hierarchy and why can't it resolve these issues that periodically arise and often take decades to work out (or never are as with the Grand Orient de France, which has not been recognized by mainstream Freemasonry since the 19th century, but which mainstream Freemasonry has no power to shut down!)

If you're not a 32 or 33 degree freemason

Okay, so now we get into appendant bodies. Let's talk about those.

I've gone through about 70 degrees in my time as a Mason, some variants of each other, but in terms of unique degrees, it's more around 40. But they're not a hierarchy either and Freemasonry has just three. The Shrine has its own degrees. The York Rite has a series of 10 degrees, numbered 4-13 to make note of their dependence on their members being Master Masons first (3rd degree), along with various side-degrees. The Scottish Rite has 29 primary degrees numbered 4-32 and various side degrees including an honorary 33rd. You can be a 10th degree York Rite Mason and a 10th degree Scottish Rite Mason at the same time.

But this is all just in the US (some countries don't have one or more of those bodies, and some countries have different versions of each) and even in the US, those bodies are broken up into jurisdictions which operate independently. And a 7th degree York Rite Mason is not "junior" to some more "senior" 18th degree Scottish Rite Mason. There's no relationship.

So when you claim that you have to be a 32nd or 33rd degree "Freemason" to know the good stuff, you're demonstrating again that you don't know how Freemasonry works. Don't feel bad, most conspiracy theorists are equally unaware.

I cannot tellif you are legitimately frustrated with me spewing all this truth

Heh. You can go ahead and say whatever you like. Conspiracy theorists make up lots of things all the time. We got used to it a few hundred years ago. It reached a fever pitch in the 19th century where making things up about Freemasonry become sort of a sport (c.f. the Taxil Hoax, one of the best known fabrications about us from that period).

Read morals and dogma

I have... I wonder, have you? Or have you read the bits that conspiracy theorists often take out of context? Or worse, have you read only the hoaxes about its author Albert Pike? M&D is available on Google Books for Free. It's not a great intro-to-Freemasonry, and I'll be impressed if you can make it through the whole thing. It's a hard read, with lots of very deep symbolic philosophical analysis of the Scottish Rite's degrees that requires a true classical education to grasp. But go for it if you wish. I'd actually suggest that you start with some of Pike's other works. His rebuttal to the Pope's Encyclical on Freemasonry, Humanum Genus, is well worth a read! He performed what was widely used as the definitive translation of that encyclical to English and then proceeded to respond to every point it made. It's probably the finest example of formal public debate I've ever seen.

Taxil hoax wasn't a hoax because it's all come true.

I don't think you know what the Taxil Hoax was... there was no predictive element to it. Are you talking about the WWIII Albert Pike letter hoax? That wasn't even introduced until the mid-20th century, well after Pike's death, so it's really a non-starter.

Same with protocols of elders of zion.

Well, if you're going to claim that that's real, I suppose the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus can go along for the ride...

I'm not a freemason so of course I don't know how many real degrees or real bodies of freemasonry are. You just admitted to having 70 degrees so you already discredited what you said initially.

Your reading comprehension can't be that poor. I'm chalking this up to trolling.

If it turns out, you aren't luciferians...

That's like saying, "if it turns out that you don't beat your wife..." You're begging the question. You're also still stuck on Freemasonry as a monolith and that still isn't true.

Shit, Tyler. Just stop already.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you were conceding the point. Take care.

if you aren't 33rd, how can you really know what occurs at or above that degree?

That's just an argument from ignorance. First off, there have been Grand Masters who haven't been members of the Scottish Rite, much less 33rd degree Scottish Rite Masons. Second, are you a 33rd degree Scottish Rite Mason? How do you know what 33rd degree Scottish Rite Masons know and why do you think that what you know is so secret that 6 million Masons around the world don't know it?

if you aren't 33rd then surely everything you said in this thread is " argument from ignorance" no?

i never said there hadn't been grand masters who weren't scottish rite, there is more than 1 path.

How do you know what 33rd degree Scottish Rite Masons know and why do you think that what you know is so secret that 6 million Masons around the world don't know it?

i never claimed to know, i claimed you do not know and neither do the vast majority of that 6million

if you aren't 33rd then surely everything you said in this thread is " argument from ignorance" no?

Clearly you do not understand what the logical fallacy, "argument from ignorance" is.

Again, the 33rd degree in the Scottish Rite isn't special.

The York Rite's 13 degree progressive system has the KYCH which is their equivalent of the 33rd. But conspiracy theorists don't get all excited about the KYCH because it's not a big number...

Still, even if I were a 99th degree member of Memphis-Misraïm (not offered in my jurisdiction, but it is in some Masonic jurisdictions, still) that number wouldn't be interesting either.

The core argument from ignorance is, "None of the 'lower degrees' contain the secret evil that we wish to ascribe to the Fraternity, but we don't know what the 33rd degree Scottish Rite Masons do, so Freemasonry is evil."

That's an argument from ignorance, which can be discarded trivially. I choose to evaluate the Fraternity as I see it. When a good man who I know well and who cares deeply for his fellow man is awarded the 33rd in the Scottish Rite, I know his character, and I know that if he found anything morally repugnant in what was revealed to him, he would abandon the Fraternity immediately. The fact that he does not confirms for me the character of the organization.

Thank you for stating actual facts. As a uk freemason we are not split as much as our US counterparts. We are aligned under the grand lodge of England and but the history of American freemasonry is of particular interest to me and even as a master mason my studies always continue.

What is "confirmed" about Ruby Ridge? Where can I find this "confirmation" of a conspiracy?

Why is Sandy Hook not on this list?

Zero evidence of any conspiracy

Hey /u/911bodysnatchers322, not a regular of this sub but I was bored and decided to pass the time by reading up some of your links when I noticed you have the wrong one for the Family Jewels link.

Here's the proper link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Jewels_(Central_Intelligence_Agency)

Great post. Thanks for all the resources.

Is the list amendable? If so, I have some inclusions for [S]:

Holodomor - millions of Ukranians were purposely starved to death and there was a lot of shootings too because the starving people tried to scavenge for food.

The above was part of the larger famine, the Soviet famine of 1932–33. It was treated as 'meh' by Stalin, mentioning it was anti-Soviet propaganda. He also denied that he was starving the Ukrainians to death, he treated the mention of it as an outrageous conspiracy theory and either threatened those people into thought control or had them excommunicated.

Stalin was the master of the Great Purge. The amount of conspiracies committed during the Great Purge is by its base nature alone a tremendous amount. Stalin's secret police, the NKVD, was lead by men like Nikolai Yezhov who gave orders to rendition innocent civilians, detain them indefinitely, torture them, execute them, banish them to a gulag to do hard labor, make them confess to crimes they did not commit.

Stalin and his willing executioners like the bloody dwarf did not always have targeted killings though, like mass surveillance the Great Purge was generalized. The "I want 500 dead from this town, 50 dead from this town" kind of thing - 'death by quota, not by name' it has been called. The NKVD would then round up anyone unfortunate enough to be in their designated hunting ground, and they came prepared with their legal system.

Most people snared in the web of the Great Purge were either executed or sent to a labor gulag. Some had to endure the infamous Moscow show trials. All of this was top-down state orchestrated conspiracies.

After all, 'conspiracy' is nothing more than "the action of plotting or conspiring".

Here's another one for [S]:

When the communist party began to take power, Lenin had his enforcers the Cheka use whatever means necessary - be it torture, summary executions, banishment to the gulags - to strengthen their grip of power and control. The Revolution had ushered in the Russian Civil War though and a lot of people died by the orders of Lenin, the other communist leaders and the men in charge of the Cheka. Perhaps Stalin's inspiration for the Ukrainian famine came when Lenin made the Russian famine of 1921 worse because of his policies -- millions died.

Lenin's reign killed millions of people, possibly over ten million. Stalin would exceed that far in excess. Lots of conspiracies between the two.

Thanks.

there is a wiki now

This?: https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/index

This is insane how many different events are confirmed. All these things they do to keep us scared and under their control... Thankfully we have the internet to share our information and wake up to this madness.

I like how you put Communism in [S]. I would suggest you do the same for Capitalism by putting it in the [U]. But i guess that is of no need for Capitalism is behind any crime out there

very nice.

Someone needs to articulate how Isis is managed by the west

Thank you sir !

The phrase "conspiracy theory" was definitely NOT coined in 1967. A quick search on google ngrams shows that the phrase was used well before that. Look on google books for the theory and see that the phrase had much the same meaning even in the early part of the 20th century.

I am not arguing with the evidence that the CIA tried to discredit truthseekers with this title, but it seems pretty clear to me that the phrase was in use, with a similar connotation, before 1967.

Well done. Not only should it remain 'stickied' for good and elaborated on, it should be sent to every media distributor if only to see what (if any) commotion there would be (or lack thereof)

This sub got murked. Not that long ago stories would break on this sub; hours, sometimes days later you would see stuff hit /r/all. Now this place is just /r/shittypolitics and reposts from the front page. Where did all the OC people go?

WTC 1993 is far from confirmed conspiracy. It is not even open secret... yet...

Hey guys, i came across this article from BBC, i was searching info. about the 9/11 hijackers and found this article. Let me know what y'all think about it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

Awesome list! I have always had this gut feeling that something was never right. Even as a young kid in school (27 now). I hated history, thought it seemed to easy, to straightforward, and literally seemed like child's play to what's actually been going on.

Once I got into college in 2007, I don't know how it happened, but I started learning about how 9-11 wasn't a real attack by terrorists....been sinking down the rabbit hole for the past 9 years.

God bless you guys.

This is fantastic list..all that is missing is any and all recordings don't by William Cooper..idk if I say anything about JFK Zapruder Film forgery, but if it isn't there you should add John Costella's research.

Something you should keep in mind about Lewinsky (you left of an I): http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-said-to-have-offered-lewinsky-tapes-for-pollard/

Really good work. Thank you

Could you add the 50's human testing of zinc cadmium sulfide on slum districts of St. Louis?

No shit, they chose those people because they "Looked Russian"

copy, paste, spread like virus

http://prop1.org/legal/prisons/9111wack.htm

why is the oklahoma city bombing crossed out?

Noticed that under School of Americas you characterize it as training for insurgents, in fact it is used for government operators mostly.

They also train torture too.

You can tell they're confirmed because dude wrote "confirmed" next to them on the internet. 100% verified fact!!!!!!

Bunch of antisemitic nutjobs...

Nice work!

a whole lot of nothing being done by anyone. most of these are older than you. how is it you chuckle fucks haven't talked enough about this shit to actually get something done? take action while you still have a society to fight for, or my annoying repetition will be the least of your worries.

my annoying repetition

Daddy....is that you?

Please please tell me the actions you're taking. I'll admit I'm a useless goatfucker or whatever you want if you just please tell me what kind of action you're taking besides insulting people on the internet.

i said nothing will be done by anyone. your reading comprehension must be as lacking as a male role model in your life. there is nothing one single person can do. that would be obvious to anyone with a human level of intelligence. something must be done by everyone. if you want your country back, all of you basement dwellers are going to have to come outside and do something about it. you are going to have to stop playing by the rules. they did before 98% of you were born, so i don't see why it is so difficult a concept to grasp. you can start by taking their money through removing their ability to make it. if that doesn't work, yeah people might have to die. that happens you know, people dying. at least your parents can say you died for what you believe in, instead of dying on top of a body pillow with a hole cut in it.

banthetruth - " ...nothing will be done by anyone."

So you're saying you're not part of "anyone" or that you're just as bad as us peasants?

banthetruth - " ...taking their money through removing their ability to make it."

This was easier before they owned 90% of the wealth. Have you never heard of a PMO before, they'll kill you before you can make any real progress towards your fairy tale revolution.

BTW you've still only deflected and insulted instead of providing anything more then a naive idea you have where everyone goes "OK powers that be controlling everything, that was neat but we'll be taking over from here now, so just tell the cops and military to stand down"

Then they go, "Oh jeez alright you got us guess we'll stop being sociopaths and hand over all our wealth and power to you now gg"

it isn't my fault you lack the intelligence and imagination to take money out of people pockets without the military or the police being able to track down more than 1% of the suspects, and any complaints that ' this is too hard, it is too far gone for this' only further proves my point that no one has been done, and no one will do anything.

enjoy being mediocre and letting your country go to shit.

Ok I'm fucking sick of you deflecting and dodging the question. Just explain to me with your superior intelligence how you're doing it. Is it like a fight club thing where you're doing stuff with soap made explosives or something?

It's looking like you lack the intelligence and imagination to actually say anything meaningful so you can only respond with vagueness and ad hoc insults.

I can't wait for your insults and vague naive nothing of a response.

you aren't here to take action so i'm not wasting my time. enjoy living under a government that doesn't care about you.

Give me a break dude. You come into every thread spouting your nonsense and then someone calls you on it and asks you for specifics and you respond with some vague, half-baked "remove their ability to make money" argument with no details and no context. How, specifically, are you going to "remove their ability to make money"? And now that you seem to have realized that you have no good ideas, you try to run away from the conversation while implying it "isn't worth your time". So it's worth your time to say empty talking points in every thread but not to actually flesh them out or justify them in any way?

You say people waste their time doing nothing on the internet, yet you spend your time on the internet doing nothing besides telling others they're doing nothing. You're like that guy who creates a "fuck Britney Spears" fanclub and spends more time on it than her own fans do.

if you think i'm going to give specifics on how to do illegal things to rich people, yo are either completely brain dead or actively trying to get people arrested.

if you really wanted to take action, you wouldn't be trying to get people to post horribly illegal information on a forum that has no problem with turning people over to authorities.

if your pitiful existence requires you to get the last word so you can keep daddy's shotgun out of your mouth for another day go ahead. I'm not about to continue talking to someone who bitches about what has to be done without giving alternatives themselves.

if you think i'm going to give specifics on how to do illegal things to rich people, yo are either completely brain dead or actively trying to get people arrested.

So you'll continue to spout your empty platitudes and insults without justifying them then? Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm not about to continue talking to someone who bitches about what has to be done without giving alternatives themselves.

Except that's what you do in every thread you comment in. In fact, that was the entire point I was making when I just responded to you. Aside from vague statements like "remove their ability to make money" you provide absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion, and you provide no alternatives of your own.

i'll try this one more time, in the hopes that the time you take to have someone read this to you keeps you still long enough for the orderlies to put you back in your padded cell.

i'm here to tell you that what you are doing hasn't worked, and it won't work in the future. I am also here to say that historically, the next step is taking money from the rich. lastly, i am here to say that the actions needed aren't being taken, and will not be taken.

What i am not here to do is hold your hand through the process. I am not here to lead you, or command you, or even give tips. i'm not really even here to help beyond telling you no one is taking action, and no one will. I am definitely not here to divulge how to steal from the corporations that bought you.

redditors are supposed to be the best the internet has to offer. they can get tens of thousands of people to send mail, bitch at rallies, and make pointless phone calls, so you don't need my help or direction. everyone of you is obviously better than me in every way, so it shouldn't be hard for you to just remove the corruption from government when you are ready to. unless i am wrong, and all of you really are just pieces of shit who are going to just sit around and circle jerk their way into a police state.

i know i said it once, but i really am done with what i can only loosely call this conversation. if you haven't figured it out by this point then nothing is getting through that hollow cavity you call a skull.

Do you realize that in this entire blob of text you've said nothing at all? You aren't the intellectual you imagine yourself to be. "Take money from the rich" is not some profound thought as much as you may want it to be. A 10 year old kid could come up with that without your help. Beyond that, the words on their own are empty and mean absolutely nothing if you can't put them in context or explain how you're going to do it. You call everyone else idiots but what could be more idiotic than wasting all of your time speaking gibberish that you obviously can't justify to these same people you think are idiots? Who is the real idiot here?

unless i am wrong, and all of you really are just pieces of shit who are going to just sit around and circle jerk their way into a police state.

While you sit around circle jerking to us circle jerking. Yeah man, you've really figured out the secret! You're doing God's work, keep it up. And FYI, childish insults don't make you any less transparently full of hot air.

what is your plan? he at least says we should be taking a specific action. i think we would all like to hear what your options are to take care of the corruption in our government.

Bullshit. Specific action? His brilliant master plan is "take money from the rich". When you ask him for specifics of this plan he insults you and refuses to provide any. Nothing about that is deep or profound or clever. It isn't a plan, it's a talking point.

And I never claimed to have a plan. That's why I don't go from thread to thread pretending to have one by repeating the same line of nonsense and then backing down whenever called on it.

well yeah, if he started writing down how to fuck people over he is probably going to prison faster than you can say 'terrorist.' i would even go so far as to say you would be the guy to report him.

if you don't have a plan, why are you even talking. he is right, we need to remove money from corporations, we can destroy products, remove products from stores en masse. get creative; we can make 347897895489 mostly different memes a day, but if we can't figure out how to save ourselves we aren't really worth the time.

You think I'm going to report him to the authorities because I want him to justify his puddle deep "plan"? L fucking o l. Who even are you? Five total comments since joining reddit and yet here you are defending this guy's pseudo-intellectual ramblings? Interesting.

if you don't have a plan, why are you even talking.

The other guy is the one doing all the talking while claiming he has a plan, when all he really has is a five word talking point. I'm calling him out on his bullshit and we're on an internet discussion forum so I can talk all I want. If you don't want to read what I have to say then don't read it.

he is right, we need to remove money from corporations, we can destroy products, remove products from stores en masse.

See right here you've already provided more in the way of an actual "plan" than the other guy has in all of his rambling comments. He should take a cue from you.

a cop would say that.

this is the top post on the subreddit. i'm new to r/conspiracy, read the comments, and felt that u/banthetruth is a little misunderstood.

since you can talk all you want i can too. and i say that someone who ridicules others for reminding us of what is important is a bigger part of the problem than a lobbyist bribing a senator. if he stopped because of you, then no one would be talking about a need to take action, and that doesn't get us any closer to our goal.

it looks like he wants us to take action and have our own plans. he seems more concerned about the lack of action being put towards this end, than actually telling people how to do it. which shouldn't be a problem, he shouldn't have to tell us what to do. we are adults, or we pretend to be, we should be taking care of this together already. he is doing enough by reminding us that action taken with new avenues is more important now than just talking and trying the same broken systems. why does he need to have a plan if his only purpose is to warn others of a need to take action?

if the most informed people are this unwilling to take actions of their own, how poorly is everyone else going to do?

Yeah man I'm a cop you caught me. I go from thread to thread looking for people to report to "the authorities". Nevermind that I have a post history going back years that's about as anti-authority and anti-police as one can possibly get, that's all part of my scheme. Brilliant detective work on your part.

Why are your first posts to this sub so concerned with defending this user? What's your real username?

if the most informed people are this unwilling to take actions of their own, how poorly is everyone else going to do?

Who said anyone is unwilling to take action? What do you know about the actions I or anyone else on reddit are taking in our everyday lives?

that was more of a joke. you know the one 'are you a spy' 'no' 'a spy would say that...'

well it was a joke, your desire to defend yourself with your post history makes it a little more suspect, bu it is irrelevant.

i literally just found r/conspiracy went to the first thread, and read a bit. from what i read it appears you wither don't understand his purpose, or you are trying to discredit him on purpose to keep people from taking the kind of action he suggests. i simply wanted to say what i had to say on the topic.

the lack of action being taken says people are unwilling to take action. i do have to agree that was is being done now doesn't fix the problem, so how can we say we are actually doing anything?

i also severely doubt anyone is taking money from corporations on the scale that is needed to make a difference, because the media would have been all over a internet hacker/terrorist story. lastly, you said yourself you have no plan, which i assume means you aren't taking action, and since you only ridicule others who suggest action, this leads me to believe you are unwilling to take action yourself.
since this isn't an issue that can be solved with action that can be taken in "everyday lives" i'd say what you are "doing" is either a lie at worst, or not helping at best.

Enjoy living on your oil platform in international waters.Wait you're not? You're living in a country that doesnt care about you too? Thanks for once again not being able to provide a simple answer and being a bigger hypocrite in each successive post.

i live in a country, but my status, employment and race will leave me unaffected by the worst of the changes that are going to be coming rapidly over the next 3 to 5 years. so i either get what i want, or get to say i told you so. i don't often find myself in situations that aren't win-win for me.

You're a white guy too? Crazy.

yep, i am so very white and so very a guy, and even though none of this will touch me, i still say action needs to be taken if you want to sleep as peacefully as i do at night. i would even go so far as to help when real action is being taken, even though my livelihood is in no way affected by the corruption in our government.

though, it is easy to say all this when i know nothing will be done by anyone.

Your faith that "none of this will touch you" is amazing. Your fairytale is going to come crashing right down soon enough. What a thing, faith.

faith has gotten me through a lot worse. i don't need faith for this, it's more statistics and preparation. i only have faith that we aren't so bad as to let trump start ww3. then we really are all fucked.

You sound like the kind of person who gets dragged out of your home in a revolt actually. I'm not near South Texas so I wont get to see it but it'll be neat.

Edit: I seen the first post before you edited it because it made you seem crazy btw. So happy to hear about your "Class", it's cleric right? Hahaha

don't have the money to be a target for either side. if there was a revolt id be swinging a torch and a pitchfork with the rest of the rabble though. i don't exactly appreciate what happens to other people as selfish as i may sound.

I actually have a legitimate bugout group with 3 properties across PA that are secluded for the most part. We have 2 properties in Montana and 2 stops in between for supplies. All of these properties are stationed with live in members of the group. They are ready to go with 2 years + food at each site for 3 people. You most likely dont have shit going for you but this thread.

cool story,bro.

Literally every thread you're in is a lose lose for you. You're a joke lol.

whatever you have to say to keep you from strangling the rabbits on accident.

I have no idea how anyone could argue with this list. It's incredible

That which is so often called an ad hominem is not always necessarily a logical fallacy

It is a logical fallacy by definition.

it can be a valid argument under certain circumstances

In no circumstance is ad hominem a valid argument.

If I were presenting my own findings, then my qualifications would, of course, be valuable in weighting those findings. But as I'm pointing out public information, my qualifications and affiliations are moot and the discussion should always focus on the data, not the speaker. To do otherwise is, by definition, ad hominem.

You're a white guy too? Crazy.

Literally every thread you're in is a lose lose for you. You're a joke lol.