What's the craziest conspiracy theory you believe/entertain

Post Reply New Topic

The fleet of missing steam locomotives.

If you want to know why there are so many conspiracy theorists in this country, it's simple. This country was founded on being highly suspicious of those in power. The settlers who came to this country were fleeing tyranny in foreign lands.

It's not a bad thing to question those in power, especially when you take into account how many times we've been lied to.

On the one side you have the likes of Alex Jones on the other just people who want answers to things that don't add up.

how can I remember what I never learned?

I think that view is a least over generalizing,

but considering the way you slipped 'crazy' into it and the second poster ran with it,

is it not reasonable for me to suspect this is a data mining thread, flushing out crazy 'boogiemen'?

It certainly can work that way, but that does not mean OP has that intention.

If OP does have that intention and is gossiping behind the scenes with certain 'sceptics', then it is a conspiracy.

Kind of a crazy one too, huh?

PS, salad, I dont know your posts that well, but do find you interesting and likable, dont take this as an insult, it is just a theory.

Heard "theories", but none were even remotely convincing.

Why would the mafia steal an airline? Terrorist would have a motive. But what motive would the mob have? If it were "commandeered" then where did they take it?

This thread was made for fun and should be treated as such

Assuming otherwise is a conspiracy more ludicrous than....well, its such a bad theory

Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

Maybe not "end of the world" as most people believe, but the whole "entering a new age" definitely seems to apply.
...although at this point in history, I'm beginning to lean a little closer to "end of the world" >_<


Uh...something like that =)
But the whole "US gov. was behind it so we could start a war" seems pretty plausible, especially since it was attempted before (Operation Northwoods, but JFK wanted no part in it...which is part of the reason people believe he was assassinated).

But like I said, I don't know how much of it I believe...
A lot of people say that the towers went down as if it were a planned demolition, but I could totally see the building being set up that way intentionally (especially after previous terrorist attempts). It would make sense to me if they would want to set off charges in such an emergency, so that the towers go straight down, instead of falling over and causing much more death and destruction.

Am impressed that you know about that contraversy.

Have seen documentaries, and even read a whole book about the question. Still lean toward being pro Stratfordian. Shakespeare prolly really was Shakespeare in my humble opinion. But Christopher Columbus is another matter.

I am rather convinced that Columbus was probably not "Columbus" (ie not a guy named "Columbo" from the Italian city state of Genoa).

It does look like the guy who discovered America stole the identity of a Genovese sailor killed in a sea battle, to conceal his true identity. And that he was really from somewhere on the Iberian peninsula.

A recent pair of investigators made a rather convincing case for him being a Portugese nobleman.

Cant find their video now for some reason, but here is another on the same subject.

Yes, asking maybe there are other naturalistic options than just Darwin's views. This is usually greeted with angry ridicule.
How can blind chance produce new features in an organism?
Why would life evolve at all?
Why do organisms evolve new abilities at all rather than adapt to the environment in which they live? (sight for instance)
Anyway these are a few of the questions that produce a lot of angry responses but no answers.
Again I'm not wanting to derail this thread just this is a subject that I personally believe to be a hoax.

1) mutations.

2) This question is at least two kinds of inane: inorganic matter evolves over time (mountains get washed into the sea, stars evolve) so why wouldnt living things, which are more dynamic than non living matter also evolve? Second: organisms compete with other, and have to adapt to changing enviroments. So how can life not evolve to survive?

3) They get new abilities in ORDER to adapt the environment they are in the first place. Or to adapt to new environments the invade and migrate into, or because of new pressures in the same environment. The reason folks give you the fish eye when you ask that is that...in essence you're saying "organism dont need to adapt to their environment, because all they have to do is...adapt to their enviroment." Makes you sound ret*d. You might wanna drop that question from your repertoire.

If you really believe evolution is a hoax, but dont wanna derail the thread why dont you start your own thread about it?

I don't believe in survival of the fittest.

But I do believe in evolution.

"Survival of the fittest" means survival of the organisms that are best adapted to their environment, not necessarily the biggest or strongest.

So when innocent well-adapted people are murdered by psychopaths with unfit mental health, who wins?

It's not about the individuals, it's about their genes. The one who's more likely to have had socially successful kids most likely wins, at least from that angle.

The murderer probably gets exiled, killed in revenge or executed by their state; detained for a significant part of their adult life if it's an more recent incident. This would reduce their chances of passing on genes, supposing they haven't already.

Unfortunately if the current circumstances make brutal, self-serving personalities more successful than those traits would eventually end up being selected for. Civilization might be slowly domesticating us. Based on the level of neoteny humans in general show the process might have started even before anything we'd recognize as civilization.

Autistic and neurodiverse people seem the most fit to me: Careful thinkers, adapted to self-preservation, often very intelligent, often very aware of their environment and sensory issues. Quick to pick up on danger and threats (active fight / flight). But they seem the least likely to have children. So evolution is kind of working against itself here.

I'm not saying that the psychopaths always win or come out ahead, but there's a lot of good, well-adapted, law-abiding citizens who are very well adapted to their community. Hard working, tax paying, socially amenable people, who get desecrated by monsters and maniacs via physical force, mental illness, gang mentality, or any other form of victimisation. Good people who are great parents or would make great parents are mowed down in the prime of life by freaks of nature who aren't adapted to their community standards, and who likely have a slew of illegitimate children as well -- carrying on their depraved gene pool.

I'd say it's quite often survival of the most merciless. And that's not a good thing.

Last edited by Mr Reynholm on 06 Aug 2021, 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.