Conspiracy theories - the test

To Petermac & The doctor

We all believe that conspiracy theories are too difficult to co-ordinate and you guys believe they aren't. Therefore I suggest a test, you succeed in spreading a false rumour on the windsurfing forums of the world.

It can be anything but it needs to demonstrate co-ordination, run for three months, be believed and be impressive.... it can't be slanderous or libelous either.. You'll need to set up some fake users and build some credibility, but that's not difficult because conspiracies are easy to spread and everyone is stupid.

Feel free to whinge about lack of resources...

Here's a conspiracy for you:

I propose that the song "total eclipse of the heart" never was, and had it's lyrics substituted at the last minute by and evil music corporation.

My evidence if this youtube link, containing the original audio track and subtitles

Ahhh Doc, Doc.

Please don't put me in with you and yours (if you were).

I feel my beliefs are more than just a poo-pooing of other's beliefs.

My issue with much of what is said is summed up in Carnicoms Goals and Visions:

Many now recognize that governmental agencies often no longer adequately provide even the most basic privileges of civilization at par, including those of a society in good health.........

With the prospect of broadly deteriorating conditions before us........

I find it hard to keep reading after this. Truth is today, we have the most healthy population, the lowest infant mortality rates, the longest life expectancies, the highest standard of living, than at any time before.

When is this glorious period that is implied to have existed not so long ago before all the evil started ? When did governments provide the 'basic privileges of civilisation' and what are the 'basic privilages of civilisation' ?

Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that rich and powerful people act in the best interest of rich and powerful people. I also believe that members of Carnicom Institute act in the best interest of Carnicom Institute, and that I act in the best interest of me.

There is much done in the world that is not for the total benevolence of all people. I think you can be pretty sure that rich and powerful people haven't become rich and powerful through growing organic papaya and selling it down the hippie market on a Tuesday.

But - the notion that any of this is either new, globally co-ordinated, conducted in a consistent and planned manner or 100% nefarious, well sorry but I think that it is naive and paranoid to believe so. And to think it is new, globally co-ordinated, conducted in a consistemnt and planned manner AND 100% nefarious is probably verging on the point of insanity.

Personally I like my life the way it is, I have done some things that have not been 100% benevolent to others, I am sure others have done things that have not been 100% benevolent to me. I am sure my non-benevolent actions have had similarities with non benevolent actions conducted by others, but they certainly haven't been co-ordinated with them all to acheive a specific goal.

I would support the Caricom and others to research bettter ways to administer drugs, better ways to make drinking water safe, better ways to improve life, but so much of what the conspirators think seems to be a project to find something evil, and something that has been planned to be evil in an immoral, rather than an amoral way.

There is nothing on the Carnicom site that compares pros and cons, that details pluses and minuses, that details the good things vs the bad things. Everything is presented 100% one-way. I think that meets the definition of fanatical.

And I find it hard to believe anything said by a fanatic. Telll me the benefits and downsides of Chemtrails and let me decide for myself. Tell me they are evil and nefarious because <<insert Youtube link or Google result>> and I have issues with the premise of the argument.

Buy the way, how rich are the owners of Youtube and Google ? Is it not in their interest to see controversal subject matter posted on thier sites to generate much discussion and much internet traffic ........ bollocks we have all been had, well done Doc, you got us all. How much have your shares in Youtube gone up ?

my internets have a 12 month safety delay on them

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill

Geez Pweet!
That vid was just painful to watch. I only managed to get three quarters of the way through it before I had to turn it off. My intellect couldn't take any more.
With every breath he utters complete rubbish. And it's so easily proven to be rubbish.
I would wonder on his motives except I did notice that he threw in a mention of "his book", which I'm sure he makes a tidy profit on. Not that this would influence his thinking of course.

His statement that the Polish aircraft crash which killed the polish president was a set up job is baseless.
Both flight recorders were recovered and the evidence from the recorders clearly show that the crash occurred due to the aircraft continuing with an approach to land in zero visibility. It just plain flew into the ground.
It was also reported that the president had a prior history of insisting the pilot land in unsuitable conditions.
He had previously got away with it. This time he didn't

And yet Mr. Icke ignores all this and uses it as the base for yet another one of his bizarre conspiracies.
He waffles on about some photographer not being allowed to walk around the wreckage taking photographs. Really? What a surprise!


His suggestion that the american government caused the recent Haiti earthquake with satellite technology is hysterically laughable and highly vindictive at the same time. He makes such laughable statements such as saying america can cause earthquakes with the Alaskan HARP satellite technology and it's "no problem". Really?
And that they have "energy directing weapons" which can cause tsunamis, and even set off volcanoes.
This guy is incredible! And the fact that anyone can put this rubbish up as an authoritative scource, or proof of anything other than stupidity is indeed boundless, is even more incredible.

After following a few of David Icke's pronouncements over the years, I now automatically take everything he says as total rubbish.
I suggest you do the same.

i never visit infowars or prison planet for that very reason

there is something very unsettling about alex jones

to me, he is clear evidence of how 'they' play boths sides of the field.

I say we send em after the Yowie. If they find that I'll read carnicom start to finish.

trevnewman......I don't visit that site for the same reasons plus that movie 'Endgame' scared me a bit and I don't like to think about it.



i cannot believe Alex Jones website infowars.com is controlled opposition.....but hey open to that possibility.

he exposes so much relevant information. i am aware he only touches on certain subjects but that is because he doesn't want to put offside the majority.

i heard colonel Craig Roberts[speaking in his video Matrix of Evil]say that every patriot in America is known.

these 'truth' websites are allowed deliberately to run so 'they' can keep tabs on the patroits/others among us. [this should explain why Maxm]

Craig Roberts 'we are all colour coded', [into 3 colours] that info to be used for later date. [F.E.M.A CAMPS]

not watched the movie Endgame,no doubt it's not for the faint hearted.

Yeah look,

I get what you are saying petermac, but unfortunately I think using David Icke as an example doesn't help your cause. On the one hand you point to the fact Tony Blair said Iraq has WMD and on the other you post David Icke, the bloke who stood up on national TV and declared he was the son of God and has been sent to this planet by giant lizard aliens.

If Tony Blair has no credibility following what he once said then I feel the same argument goes for David Icke does it not ?

I think you will find Tony Blair has since stated in interviews on national TV, and in print, that Iraq had no WMD, the information he had been given was wrong, the info collected was partially wrong and how it was interpreted was partially wrong and for him to assert that they had them was wrong.

Has David Icke ever posted a youtube clip saying that when he was going around stating he was the son of God he was wrong ?


Whilst youtube may well allow both sides of an argument to put forward their theories - my point is not against youtube. It is against the way the arguments are put.

I am willing to look at anybody who poses a hypothesis, presents data both for and against the argument and then draws a conclusion. I believe this is essentially refered to as analytical science, and as presented in such publications as the new scientist and the lancet.

I am not so willing to look at anybody who says look at this one sided argument, it is real, anything in it that doesn't stack up is because THEY make it so. This I believe is generally refered to as religous doctrine, and as presented in such things as the bible and Carnicom.com.

Show me where Carnicom weighs up the arguments for and against Chemtrails and I will reasses my opinion of the validity of the arguments for the hypothesis there is a world order and it is new.

Do they believe there is nothing good about Chemtrails at all ? they don't give pilots work ? they don't kill malaria infested mosquitos, they don't create a peaceful and harmonious world by subduing the human instinct of anarchy ?.

Surely nothing is 100% good, or 100% bad

(maybe except kiting)

There are gangs and counter gangs.

Seems to me that there are many people who only look at the Packer/Murdoch and other mainstream media and accept all there as truth.

Then there are others who believe all mainstream media is just lies to keep us conned and working away at the wall.

Then there are others who look at many different forms of media, analyse and compare what is being said and then make up their own mind as to what is truthful reporting.

It is my hope and expectation that all contributors to this forum fall within the latter group.

Yes.
Because what sort of a lame brained assassination team would make a key element of their plot reliant on jagging a foggy night at the airport, when they would have had to plan it months ahead?
Think about it!
Something so important to them that they deemed it necessary to rub out a whole plane load of passengers, but the plan relied on it being a foggy night so the pilot couldn't see they were flying into the ground. Really?
And they were so confident it would be foggy on that night that they went ahead and fiddled with the T-VASI approach lights to induce the pilot to fly into the ground. Not that any other aircraft would notice of course. Would they?
If anyone wanted to rub out the whole plane they would have used one of the many tried and true methods, such as a bomb in the cargo hold.
Pweet, you will have to accept that it is as it appeared. It was just another "controlled flight into terrain" accident, of which there are many.
And sadly, while human beans are at the controls, it wont be the last.



That's exactly what I am doing, but it is clear to me that you are not!
This includes me watching the products of delusional minds of people like Icke, just in case in amongst all his tripe he accidentally stumbles on something factual. So far he hasn't.
I wish you would take some of your own advice and weigh up the information according to the likelihood of it being reliable or even remotely possible.



Well here we go again. This sub plot is borrowed from the 911 conspiracy theory isn't it? Where they loaded the passengers onto a bus and took them off and shot them all. And nobody noticed. Just loaded them all up and away they went, never to be seen again. I found that a ridiculous proposition regarding 911 and it is a ridiculous proposition now, for a multitude of reasons which I wont bother to go into.

As to whether the guy running around with the camera and publishing his defamatory conclusions being shot, I haven't bothered to look up whether he was or wasn't. For the most part it's largely irrelevant.
I will say that places like Poland and Russia are probably not as tolerant of fools as we are here in the west.