Conspiracy Theories You Believe

The celebrity part is complete bullshit. Those people are fucking dumb, let's face it. But don't ever doubt that there is an elite group controlling companies and governments.

 

I've never heard of this so naturally your post has caught my eye. Elaborate, please, and I'll come back later.

 

There's absolutely no way Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

 

Tom cruise is a lie

 

I think alot of conspiracy theories are outlandish crap but I do however believe the following:

- Kurt Cobain didn't kill himself
- Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK
- 9/11 was an inside job
- The illuminati exist
- There is a plan for a world government

I think these are not only plausable but less evidence has been presented for me to think otherwise. That said, I don't believe a fair proportion of what happened in the cases of any of the above. I more believe the theories because both sides have been presented to me and I have gauged what actually makes sense. I think it's important to keep an open mind and constantly challenge the authenticity of what's presented to us by the media.

 

You know what I don't understand? Why is everyone afraid of world government? Especially if we're looking to expand beyond planet Earth, it's almost a necessity that federal governments come to cooperate on that scale at some point.

 

*rolls eyes*

 

It's a lot to elaborate on. You'd be better off Googling it.

 

1. 2Pac's death (I'm not saying he's alive, but something is definately fishy)
2. I think the iluminati exists, but to a point where they are tiny and cannot really do much about anything.

 

Can I ask why?

 

This.

 

I think there comes a time when folks just have to stop and think "Hey! how could all of this be an elaborate set up to fool a bunch of people instead of it being the truth that people really don't want to believe?"

and then they stop there and don't get into why people think it is a lie... probably because questioning the accepted truth seems pretty crazy when it seems like EVERYBODY believes it.

which makes me think of this..

I don't think that most of the USA think that 9/11 was an inside job, so why did Obama publicly come out to dismiss the claims that it was. That's like knowing that 10 people are calling you a whore, so you announce that you aren't and people shouldn't listen to those people while you stand in a room of hundreds.

 

There's nothing wrong with skepticism. People should question what they're told. But a lot of conspiracy theorists go so far beyond healthy skepticism that it's comical. It's one thing to say "This is shady. Maybe we're not getting the whole story." It's another thing entirely to say, "This is shady, but this totally nutshit conspiracy theory championed by fat bloggers sounds totally legitimate!" It's like the impulse to question the accepted truth makes people gullible to accept anything that contradicts it.

 

These ones I guess:

1. 2Pac's death
2. maybe Kurt didn't kill himself. Still not sure what i believe on this, I'm half and half.

 

I've pretty much noticed that many mindsets of conspiracy believers are like those who have blind faith. Except it's not blind faith so much that it's blind anti-faith. It's like a bind rejection of everything mainstream. It's popular so it must be wrong. It's supported by experts so it must be wrong too. The part that annoys me the most is that conspiracy believers will masquerade under the banner of Skeptic, without actually using proper skepticism. A proper skeptic is skeptical of both sides, and is most moved by evidence.

That's the keyword there. Evidence.

Take the 9/11 inside job silliness for example. A bunch of amateurs point to video of the towers collapsing and say it is caused by explosives (that were somehow magically placed without anyone noticing). They can tell by the pixels. They have an idea that only the explosives could make the air go out sideways like that. That explanation seemed off to me (pretty much anything with the word "always" and "only" in it is a red flag), so I went to look for other explanations. Experts, as in people with backgrounds in engineering and physics, had a much better explanation that follows the rules of physics and aerodynamics, and actually makes common sense. The believer's response? OMG they're part of the conspiracy too! Evidence doesn't matter squat to believers.

There's also the matter of Occam's razor. In general, the safest position to make is the one that makes the least assumptions. 9/11 being an inside job? You have to assume that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people being paid or forced to keep secrets somehow, without anybody knowing about it (that's a lot of money). And yet at the same time all these people making youtube videos about the conspiracy are for some reason not dead (inconsistency). And you have to posit that somehow they got explosives in there without anyone noticing and that they took enough care at the same time to detonate in a way to make the building fall downward (assuming they cared about making the building fall straight down in the first place). And then there's the whopper of the assumption that the USA had no other choice to stage some theatrics on their own soil to achieve some end goal (because there's certainly no other ways to justify making a war some other way *rolls eyes*).

The terrorists: coming from a war torn, third world country, running high on anti-american sentiment? We know those kinds of people exist. That's not a big leap to take.
That some of these people would be angry enough to commit suicide and take a lot of people with them? Also not a big leap to take.

Which explanation is easier to take? The second (most commonly) accepted one, of course. That has the most evidence in favor of it, and it marred by the least amount of unsupported assumptions.

 

I believe that the Illuminati is a conspiracy created to convert people to Islam.

 

I don't want to turn this into the 9/11 thread, but....

*Prescott Bush was a man that was investigated for war profiteering in WWII (for Germany) and actually really pushed for the power of the president to be limited during JFK's time. JFK obviously was not having that. He was killed by CIA agent Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly. The president's power took a loss and then President Johnson escalated the Vietnam war. The war that nobody really supported.

*George Bush (Sr.) was head of the CIA before he became president. During the Vietnam war, the CIA drugged soldiers to see how they respond on LSD. He is also a part of a family oil company. When he was president he started a shady war in a country filled with oil. Nobody supported that shit either.

*George W Bush doesn't really have a shady history and seems like an idiot, but Osama Bin Laden used to work for the CIA. He started a shady war in a country with oil that even my army friends don't support.


So to recap...

*GWB's grandfather was investigated for war profiteering/helping Germany during WWII and didn't like JFK

*The organization that GWB's father was the head of had hired Lee Harvey Oswald and Osama Bin Laden. He started a war

*GWB instigated a war that was blamed on Osama Bin Laden.


TL;DR

3 generations of the Bush family have connections to starting shady wars and an organization that drugs/kills Americans and that is probably a better reason to believe that 9/11 was an inside job more than anything.