5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

I follow the evidence.

 

You follow your internet friends. What they send you is what you believe.

 

 

Don't disagree about 'evidence'. But before the evidence is taken as gospel, one should ask who is supplying the evidence, and are they that trustworthy, that they wouldn't falsify it.

 

Look at the motives behind the people telling us it must be true; or otherwise. And we should believe them. Sometimes a simple 'follow the money' delve is enough to cast serious doubt.

 

Are you telling me the Epstein suicided himself? Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11? What about the c-19 pandemic?

 

What about Princess Di? She virtually escaped injury when the merc crashed. But somehow still managed to die.

 

What about the famous broadcast when the BBC announced the falling of building 7, when it was see to be still upright behind the broadcaster, and didn't fall for another 27 minutes?

 

Are you saying we shouldn't doubt these mysterious incidents?

 

7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

14 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Maybe not the "World Drug Trade", but it's likely that some CIA types profited off drugs, probably up to 30 years ago.

There's the theory that the USA went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power because the Taliban  outlawed the growing of poppies/heroin and that the poppies /heroin drug trade flourished when the USA went into Afghanistan .

   Fentanyl then  took over as the street drug and replaced heroin and because heroin was no longer a profitable drug, the USA departed from Afghanistan ?

   Conspiracy theory or fact ?

I can believe agencies such as the CIA sanctioned and aided the drugs trade in some nations as a means to fund their war against a common foe & of course purchasing weapons from the USA at the same time = good business. 

 

Such conspiracies are perfectly feasible and won't land someone the name of a 'conspiracy nutter'.... However, being a flat-earther will...  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Don't disagree about 'evidence'. But before the evidence is taken as gospel, one should ask who is supplying the evidence, and are they that trustworthy, that they wouldn't falsify it.

 

Look at the motives behind the people telling us it must be true; or otherwise. And we should believe them. Sometimes a simple 'follow the money' delve is enough to cast serious doubt.

 

Are you telling me the Epstein suicided himself? Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11? What about the c-19 pandemic?

 

What about Princess Di? She virtually escaped injury when the merc crashed. But somehow still managed to die.

 

What about the famous broadcast when the BBC announced the falling of building 7, when it was see to be still upright behind the broadcaster, and didn't fall for another 27 minutes?

Some more feasible than others. 

 

- Epstein suicided - Highly questionable (= Feasible conspiracy).

 

- 9-11 planned in a cave ??? (OBL was from an extremely wealthy background - est. US$5 bn family wealth), you've already altered the rhetoric to suit your bias (= Conspiracy nutter !!).

 

- SarsCov-2 (Covid-19) - Lab escape / mistake theory is most feasible IMO (= Feasible conspiracy)

- SarsCov-2 (Covid-19) - Deliberately planned (= Conspiracy nutter !!).

 

- Princess Diana - Tragic accident (conspiracy nutters want a conspiracy).

 

- 9-11 Broadcasting - loads of confusion & Chaos, plenty of reporting mistakes made on the day (it was reported elsewhere that #7 was burning and at risk of collapse - the BBC made a mistake and reported it as collapsed) - A simple error in the chaos does not indicate or prove a scripted conspiracy as some wish to suggest (= Conspiracy nutter !!).

 

36 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Are you saying we shouldn't doubt these mysterious incidents?

It could be said that we should 'think' about events reported to us. 

It could also be said that some events are more feasible than others.

Conspiracies exist, but not everything which could be questioned is a conspiracy, sometimes the answer we already have is the answer.

 

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11?

9/11 as masterminded by numerous members of Al-Qaeda who were World travellers and educated in Western Universities and they communicated by E-mail and Bin Laden was very rich and could bankroll it .

   They didn't "live in caves" , they had internet access , but some of them did have beards though .

14 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

37 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11?

9/11 as masterminded by numerous members of Al-Qaeda who were World travellers and educated in Western Universities and they communicated by E-mail and Bin Laden was very rich and could bankroll it .

   They didn't "live in caves" , they had internet access , but some of them did have beards though .

Indeed... when someone 'cherry picks' flawed information and ignores other facts it tends to scream 'conspiracy nutter'.... 

 

The issue I have have with a lot of conspiracy theories is that they completely ignore the facts debunking them. 

 

Its interesting watching the 'fake moon landing' conspiracy videos which in the throws of heavy bias can be quite believable, however, when watching the videos which counter the conspiracy theories the explanations presented very quickly debunk the whole fabric of the conspiracy idea and destroy the feasibility of each individual thread of suspicion. 

 

Conspiracy theorists tend to remain within their chamber and are unlikely to seek out alternative view points such as 'counter conspiracy' videos and information.  I don't know why, but suspect this is because on a subconscious level they've put effort into their beliefs and don't want to be wrong.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Princess Diana - Tragic accident (conspiracy nutters want a conspiracy).

Have to disagree with you on Di.

 

The official narrative on this one, could have been disproved, perhaps more easily than many others. But there was a blanket refusal for the authorities to produce their evidence and investigate. Sound familiar??

 

There was reports that Di - although obviously shocked - was able to stand, walk and get into the ambulance herself.

 

Oh yes! The ambulance. Took 105 minutes. to travel 4km. None of the 14 cameras were working on the route from the hotel to the tunnel, or on the route the ambulance took. Not before, or since, has a mass camera malfunction, as was the case on that fateful night, happened.

 

The CIA have refused to hand over their documents. As have MI5. Both quoting 'National Security'.

 

If the evidence is to go by, then I don't think anyone could believe that the tragic death of Princess Di was an unfortunate accident.

 

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Don't disagree about 'evidence'. But before the evidence is taken as gospel, one should ask who is supplying the evidence, and are they that trustworthy, that they wouldn't falsify it.

 

Look at the motives behind the people telling us it must be true; or otherwise. And we should believe them. Sometimes a simple 'follow the money' delve is enough to cast serious doubt.

 

Are you telling me the Epstein suicided himself? Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11? What about the c-19 pandemic?

 

What about Princess Di? She virtually escaped injury when the merc crashed. But somehow still managed to die.

 

What about the famous broadcast when the BBC announced the falling of building 7, when it was see to be still upright behind the broadcaster, and didn't fall for another 27 minutes?

 

Are you saying we shouldn't doubt these mysterious incidents?

 

some have reasonable supporting evidence, in other cases, your understanding of events in wrong.

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Absolutely agree...   when standing on the centre-line we can often get accused by those with the loudest voices on the fringes of spectrum of having extreme views - almost as if it is only the extremes which exist and if our views do not represent one extreme then they do the other.

 

I've of been accused of being a Thai-hater because of my observation are not in alignment with someone else view that 'we're guests in this country' and shouldn't have formed any opinions other than wholly positive. 

 

I've also been accused of wearing 'rose tinted glasses' when taking the balanced view and siding with the Thai perspective.

 

 

With conspiracies its similar - in reality there is whole range of views and the view point for most of us falls around the balanced centreline. 

 

With the moon landings most believe they occurred, perhaps some footage was fabricated - thats a possibility, but we went to the moon.

This view seems extremely bias for someone who does not believe humans went to the moon. 

This view also seems bias for for someone who believes 100% that there was no fabrication etc to the extent that the accusation may be levied of being a 'moon-denier' etc.

 

 

Regarding conspiracies theories.... we can't band all together and call all supporters of conspiracy theories 'conspiracy nutters'.... But there are some 'silly debates' where the people most certainly are and that depends on the data available vs trustworthiness of the data source. 

 - People who disbelieve we went to the moon = 'conspiracy nutters'

 - People who believe the earth is flat = 'conspiracy nutters'

 - People who beleive there was something more to JFK shooting = Not nutters.

 - People who beleive the CIA are involved in the 'world drugs trade = Not nutters.

 

 

But you are ignoring the Overton Window, i.e. the accepted paradigm at a given time, which shifts. For example, until the 1990s, your last two points would have landed in the 'conspiracy nutter' category.

57 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Have to disagree with you on Di.

 

The official narrative on this one, could have been disproved, perhaps more easily than many others. But there was a blanket refusal for the authorities to produce their evidence and investigate. Sound familiar??

 

There was reports that Di - although obviously shocked - was able to stand, walk and get into the ambulance herself.

 

Oh yes! The ambulance. Took 105 minutes. to travel 4km. None of the 14 cameras were working on the route from the hotel to the tunnel, or on the route the ambulance took. Not before, or since, has a mass camera malfunction, as was the case on that fateful night, happened.

 

The CIA have refused to hand over their documents. As have MI5. Both quoting 'National Security'.

 

If the evidence is to go by, then I don't think anyone could believe that the tragic death of Princess Di was an unfortunate accident.

 

Your "facts" are wrong.

5 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

some have reasonable supporting evidence, in other cases, your understanding of events in wrong.

What ones don't you agree with?

2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Your "facts" are wrong.

Wikipedia is not a source of information but an intelligence and propaganda tool, according to the site's co-founder.

 

Ex-Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Hijacked by US Intelligence for ‘Info Warfare’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/alert-ex-wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-hijacked/

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Don't disagree about 'evidence'. But before the evidence is taken as gospel, one should ask who is supplying the evidence, and are they that trustworthy, that they wouldn't falsify it.

 

Look at the motives behind the people telling us it must be true; or otherwise. And we should believe them. Sometimes a simple 'follow the money' delve is enough to cast serious doubt.

 

Are you telling me the Epstein suicided himself? Are you telling me that a bearded man in a cave, with a rifle, but no internet access masterminded 9/11? What about the c-19 pandemic?

 

What about Princess Di? She virtually escaped injury when the merc crashed. But somehow still managed to die.

 

What about the famous broadcast when the BBC announced the falling of building 7, when it was see to be still upright behind the broadcaster, and didn't fall for another 27 minutes?

 

Are you saying we shouldn't doubt these mysterious incidents?

 

I have no idea what happened with Epstein. It could have been anything.

 

The rest of your conspiracy theories are low probability.

 

Concerning the BBC reporting prematurely about Building 7, there would be no reason for a conspiracy to report to BBC ahead of time. The more reasonable explanation is that BBC was told by reporters on the scene that Building 7 looked ready to topple.

9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Your "facts" are wrong.

I don't agree with the above.

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

Wikipedia is not a source of information but an intelligence and propaganda tool, according to the site's co-founder.

 

Ex-Wikipedia Co-Founder Says Site Hijacked by US Intelligence for ‘Info Warfare’

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/alert-ex-wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-hijacked/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2017/08/31/princess-diana-timeline-day-she-died/533000001/

 

Approximately 1:20 a.m.: After attempting to stabilize Diana onsite, the ambulance transports her to the hospital

 

Approximately 2:01 a.m.: Diana arrives at Pitié-Salpétrière Hospital, undergoing surgery minutes later, according to Andersen.

 

https://www.huffpost.com/archive/in/entry/princess-diana-death-timeline-minute-by-minute-events-that-led-to-fatal-crash_in_5c12c66ae4b0d73db4b46a2c

 

01.25: One hour later, Princess Diana’s ambulance leaves for hospital. She has already suffered a heart attack.

01.55: Princess Diana’s ambulance stops for five minutes so medics can inject adrenaline into her body.

02.06: The ambulance arrives at Pitie-Salpetriere Hospital. She receives open heart massage for almost two hours.

Just now, owl sees all said:

I don't agree with the above.

I am sorry that you don't like the facts.

The mystery of Polio.

 

A documentary of the origins of Polio by Dr Samantha Bailey.

 

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Toxicology-vs-Virology-Rockefeller-Institute-and-the-Criminal-Polio-Fraud:1

 

Well worth a watch. Goes someway to explaining covid.

 

 

6 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

The mystery of Polio.

 

A documentary of the origins of Polio by Dr Samantha Bailey.

 

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/Toxicology-vs-Virology-Rockefeller-Institute-and-the-Criminal-Polio-Fraud:1

 

Well worth a watch. Goes someway to explaining covid.

 

 

The Egyptians were aware of Polio thousands of years ago.

4 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

The Egyptians were aware of Polio thousands of years ago.

Really. Well there certainly have been similar illnesses down the years, but Polio exploded on the scene about 100 years ago.

27 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Really. Well there certainly have been similar illnesses down the years, but Polio exploded on the scene about 100 years ago.

Polio was first medically descrived in 1789:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Underwood_(physician)

 

The disease was widespread for millenia.

1 hour ago, Danderman123 said:

Polio was first medically descrived in 1789:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Underwood_(physician)

 

The disease was widespread for millenia.

There are many symptoms of poisoning. Shouldn't be all lumped together.

23 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

There are many symptoms of poisoning. Shouldn't be all lumped together.

https://www.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/neurology-illustrated/spinal-cord/ancient-illness

42 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

https://www.tuftsmedicalcenter.org/neurology-illustrated/spinal-cord/ancient-illness

Polio was defined as being caused by a 'pathogenic virus' about 100 years ago. That, of course, has been debunked since.

 

The real mystery of Polio to me, is how could it be, that with overwhelming evidence, the thinking behind the illness was not re-thought.

 

Looking back to the 1920s and 30s, and after WW11, it was clear what was causing the illness. But even to this day, there is a dogmatic belief that a pathogenic virus is the culprit for causing Polio.

2 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

there is a dogmatic belief that a pathogenic virus is the culprit for causing Polio.

So what is the cause????

28 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

So what is the cause????

Poisons and toxins. Generally deliberately administered/exposed to humans.

33 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

The real mystery of Polio to me, is how could it be, that with overwhelming evidence, the thinking behind the illness was not re-thought.

 

Looking back to the 1920s and 30s, and after WW11, it was clear what was causing the illness. But even to this day, there is a dogmatic belief that a pathogenic virus is the culprit for causing Polio.

https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/index.htm

 

The virus that causes polio is well known.

44 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

https://www.cdc.gov/polio/what-is-polio/index.htm

 

The virus that causes polio is well known.

I don't believe the CDC has it at all correct. Plenty of evidence out there - albeit greatly suppressed - that shows up a number of things about Polio. this evidence don't put the medical authorities in a good light.

 

Fallacies.

 

One is that it is caused by a virus. Not so in my book.

 

It can be passed from person to person. Again not so.

 

Another, that is utter nonsense, in my view;  'People who don’t have symptoms can still pass the virus to others and make them sick.' That sounds like the c-19 all over.

 

I don't necessarily want to get into a debate about viruses. The mystery with Polio, for me, is why the causal evidence was suppressed, and disregarded, for many years. Who was behind the Polio outbreaks?

 

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

I don't believe the CDC has it at all correct. Plenty of evidence out there - albeit greatly suppressed - that shows up a number of things about Polio. this evidence don't put the medical authorities in a good light.

 

Fallacies.

 

One is that it is caused by a virus. Not so in my book.

 

It can be passed from person to person. Again not so.

 

Another, that is utter nonsense, in my view;  'People who don’t have symptoms can still pass the virus to others and make them sick.' That sounds like the c-19 all over.

 

I don't necessarily want to get into a debate about viruses. The mystery with Polio, for me, is why the causal evidence was suppressed, and disregarded, for many years. Who was behind the Polio outbreaks?

 

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/poliomyelitis/facts

 

Poliomyelitis, also known as polio or infantile paralysis, is a vaccine-preventable systemic viral infection affecting the motor neurons of the central nervous system (CNS).

 

24 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/poliomyelitis/facts

 

Poliomyelitis, also known as polio or infantile paralysis, is a vaccine-preventable systemic viral infection affecting the motor neurons of the central nervous system (CNS).

 

Polio is an illness caused by the disruption of massages being sent electrically, from one part of the body to another.

 

It is not a transmissible illness, and is essentially, caused by toxins disrupting the flow of energy in the Central Nervous System.. The specific toxins, that were mostly responsible for the illness, were in most cases later banned.

 

The Polio Vaccine has never been shown to be effective, and the data shows this.

 

There were studies that showed Polio, could be reversed in many cases. Again suppressed information.