Which Conspiracy Theories Do You Find LEAST Convincing?

[Walter Ego]

My list in roughly descending order.

1. The Nazis didn't mass murder Jews with Zyklon B in concentration camps during WW2.

I listed this first because it's the most offensive.

2. 9/11 was an inside job.

(Interestingly the above two were conspiracies… by the Nazis and Osama bin Laden, et al, respectively. There is no convincing evidence whatsoever that the fingered culprits didn't do the dirty deeds.)

3. The Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

Again this defies credibility. Those radio astronomers in England, Australia and other places not in the U.S. or in U.S. controlled territories were listing to something that went to the moon and back. (The Russkies were listening in, too, would they have let us get away with such a massive hoax?)

4. JFK and MLK were not killed by "lone gunmen." There was a wider conspiracy in both cases.

I've lumped these two together because the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray though largely circumstantial in both cases is convincing. (Oddly, there don't seem to be very many proliferating JFK assassination CTs. I wonder why?)

These four are the least convincing in my mind because we know the truth in each case and we have strong evidence for the "official" versions. The more diffuse NWO/ Illuminati/Masonic world domination CTs fail for other reasons. I could go on but you can add to the list.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, since all these have been debunked up hill and down dale all over this forum, chewed up and spat out and the pieces stamped on and flushed down the toilet, what do you hope to discuss here?

Sounds like a statement of the bleedin' obvious, to be blunt about it.

Rolfe.

 

[Walter Ego]

Well, since all these have been debunked up hill and down dale all over this forum, chewed up and spat out and the pieces stamped on and flushed down the toilet, what do you hope to discuss here?

Sounds like a statement of the bleedin' obvious, to be blunt about it.

Rolfe.

Which begs the question of why you're still hanging around here, doesn't it?

The fact that millions of people actually believe the CTs I listed and that the first two are morally offensive and are actually socially and politically dangerous and debilitating should indicate why they should be discussed.

Or must we search out the most fringe, nutty or obscure CTs before we can "hope" to discuss them?

Would you say it's more important to discuss the merits of chemtrails, fluoridation, etc., or nutball ideas with a few mostly mentally ill adherents than to discuss whether planned genocide happened in WW2 or the U.S. government murdered its own citizens on 9/11 and lied about the space program and covered up political assassinations?

 

[Rolfe]

Which begs the question of why you're still hanging around here, doesn't it?

Not really. I'm interested in the ones that are more convincing. And I like to be entertained. The Stundies is always a good read.

I just don't see the point of this thread.

Rolfe.

 

[Walter Ego]

Not really. I'm interested in the ones that are more convincing. And I like to be entertained. The Stundies is always a good read.

I just don't see the point of this thread.

Rolfe.

Please see my amended post above. I do agree the Holocaust denial is not "entertaining." I assume you're not suggesting it shouldn't be discussed.

 

[SOdhner]

My problem with questions like this is I start to think of the ones that are so out there that they require actual mental illness. The David Ickle forum kind of stuff. Compared to those, the ones listed in the OP are downright rational.

 

[Travis]

I find the HAARP ones to be particularly laughable.

 

[Rolfe]

The fact that millions of people actually believe the CTs I listed and that the first two are morally offensive and are actually socially and politically dangerous and debilitating should indicate why they should be discussed.

Or must we search out the most fringe, nutty or obscure CTs before we can "hope" to discuss them?

Would you say it's more important to discuss the merits of chemtrails, fluoridation, etc., or nutball ideas with a few mostly mentally ill adherents than to discuss whether planned genocide happened in WW2 or the U.S. government murdered its own citizens on 9/11 and lied about the space program and covered up political assassinations?

Replying to the part of your post that you added after I'd replied, where did I say these things should not be discussed? I merely pointed out that they were being discussed all over the forum, so starting a new thread to discuss them all over again seems a bit redundant.

There's a bias in this forum area in favour of debunking the ridiculous. No harm in that, whatever floats your boat. But there's certainly no shortage of it in this neck of the woods.

The thread you were mimicking has a more obvious utility, in that there's a bias against discussing the plausible conspiracy theories. If it isn't debunkable, a lot of people aren't interested. So talking about the ones that have or might have truth behind them is a valid point, I think.

Talking a heap lot more about what most of the forum is already saturated with, maybe not so much.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Please see my amended post above. I do agree the Holocaust denial is not "entertaining." I assume you're not suggesting it shouldn't be discussed.

Would you try to read for comprehension?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

My problem with questions like this is I start to think of the ones that are so out there that they require actual mental illness. The David Ickle forum kind of stuff. Compared to those, the ones listed in the OP are downright rational.

What, the reptiles? Thetans as well, come to that.

You could go on all day. And you probably will. No shortage of batsqueak crazy CTs out there. All already discussed in excruciating depth already though.

Rolfe.

 

[Walter Ego]

My problem with questions like this is I start to think of the ones that are so out there that they require actual mental illness. The David Ickle forum kind of stuff. Compared to those, the ones listed in the OP are downright rational.

The OP was perhaps misstated. I probably should should have said what widely accepted CTs do you find the least convincing. (And don't make the mistake of underestimating the extent of Holocaust denial.)

I would say that the majority of Americans probably have bought into the JFK assassination theories which was why Oliver Stone was able to clean up at the box office. Mental illness was not an issue. (The college crowd I ran with thought you were mentally ill, of at best stupid, if you thought otherwise.)

I was really trying to single out the most popular and pernicious CTs.

Edit: If the consensus is that the only reason for this forum is to laugh at marginal and extreme kooks to demonstrate our superiority, and that we should discuss nothing of social or political importance, then so be it. Let this thread die a natural death.

 

[Rolfe]

Edit: If the consensus is that the only reason for this forum is to laugh at marginal and extreme kooks to demonstrate our superiority, and that we should discuss nothing of social or political importance, then so be it. Let this thread die a natural death.

Once again, do try to read for comprehension.

Just take a look around. Threads about things that are easy to debunk, and that includes holocaust denial and all sorts of genuinely serious matters as well as Icke and FOTL and "two moons", are seldom short of posters. The issues are well discussed. The threads grow fast and long.

Threads about things which are not easy to debunk, or maybe can't be debunked at all, languish. They fall off the bottom of the listings. They lack interest.

So, the thread about plausible CTs seemed to me to have a useful purpose. This one, not so much.

Rolfe.

 

[Dogzilla]

The idea that the Jews are capable of forging mountains of documents, making up a story about being exterminated, disseminating this story to all the Jews in the world without the non-Jews catching wind of it, using some Jedi mind trick to make Germans confess to trying to kill them all, fake millions of deaths, and keep the story going for seventy odd years. It just doesn't sound very plausible to me.

 

[Walter Ego]

Once again, do try to read for comprehension.

This condensenion is not helping you. I understood you completely the first time.

I'm interested in the ones that are more convincing. And I like to be entertained. The Stundies is always a good read.

You want this forum to be "fun." So you would prefer us to discuss "fun" topics, not downers like the Holocaust. Got ya. The "E" in JREF is for education, btw, but we should put that aside so as to provide you with entertainment. No need to explain further.

 

[Mashuna]

This condensenion is not helping you. I understood you completely the first time.



You want this forum to be "fun." So you would prefer us to discuss "fun" topics, not downers like the Holocaust. Got ya. The "E" in JREF is for education, btw, but we should put that aside so as to provide you with entertainment. No need to explain further.

If you understand completely, why misstate Rolfe's position?

 

[Walter Ego]

If you understand completely, why misstate Rolfe's position?

I didn't misstate it.

I'm interested in the ones that are more convincing. And I like to be entertained.

Though we might quibble about which CTs are "more convincing," the important thing is that Rolfe should be entertained. I failed to do so.

But this is of no importance at this point because Rolfe is now on ignore as are you after I post this. I would suggest you both reciprocate in kind and get back to whatever you find entertaining.

 

[Sledge]

Freeman on the Land. Least convincing conspiracy theory ever. I can understand people who say "but you weren't there, so how can you REALLY know?" about the moon landings or JFK. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I can understand it. Then you get to FOTL. Anyone who believes it can put it to the test for themselves and find it doesn't work. AND THEY DO.

 

[Mashuna]

Freeman on the Land. Least convincing conspiracy theory ever. I can understand people who say "but you weren't there, so how can you REALLY know?" about the moon landings or JFK. I don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I can understand it. Then you get to FOTL. Anyone who believes it can put it to the test for themselves and find it doesn't work. AND THEY DO.

And when it fails, it's not because they were wrong, it's because they got the magic words in the wrong order, or forgot some other component of the spell.

 

[Mashuna]

I didn't misstate it.



Though we might quibble about which CTs are "more convincing," the important thing is that Rolfe should be entertained. I failed to do so.

But this is of no importance at this point because Rolfe is now on ignore as are you after I post this. I would suggest you both reciprocate in kind and get back to whatever you find entertaining.

You cherry picked one line and ignored the actual argument. Then ignored Rolfe, then ignored me. Thank you for your kind offer of reciprocity, but I prefer not to work from a position of ignore-ance.

 

[timhau]

The idea that the Jews are capable of forging mountains of documents, making up a story about being exterminated, disseminating this story to all the Jews in the world without the non-Jews catching wind of it, using some Jedi mind trick to make Germans confess to trying to kill them all, fake millions of deaths, and keep the story going for seventy odd years. It just doesn't sound very plausible to me.

No, but you could at least write an alternative-history novel about it -- not a good one or a plausible one, but one which would take place in an universe where physics and biology worked like they work in our own. Not so with people who claim that Elizabeth II, George W. Bush, and Boxcar Willie are shape-shifting reptilians from outer space.