summerisle
The rain, it raineth every day
Is this conspiratorial enough for this thread ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Conspiracy theories
- Thread starter gorgeousgeorgeEFC
- Start date
- Status
I'm in a plenty fine comfort zone called rationalism, parsimony, and evidence-based reasoning. I don't need to make statements, as you did, like "Point being, nobody knows jack really and to vehemently dismiss theories as well as uphold them with closed minds keeps us static and nothing ever changes" because 1) that's not true--we actually do know quite a lot, 2) it is possible to dismiss theories (technically you mean hypotheses) outright on the basis of them not being rational or parsimonious or fitting known-facts (as when some idiot says something like "humans were created by an alien space-tribe...just look at the evidence"), and 3) rationality and evidence-based reasoning--unlike "never wrong" conspiracy "theories"--is what keeps the mind open, it's how we got antibiotics and air-travel, among other things.
Walter Ego
Player Valuation: £30m
What are you on about. You've touched a nerve? You mean we don't agree? You think I'm sitting here all angry that you've won an argument that hasn't even started?
I've posted the original clip for people that are interested in the subject, not for those such as yourself. I'm not here to preach about it or to post masses of info to back it up. It's for those who are interested to decide for themselves.
From what I read there’s no redacted bits
Oh so you weren't kidding then you actually have spent all of your time looking into and the subject.
and your admitting we are debating as you say we don't agree yes we don't the very definition of a debate.
See why not just say that then. I said touchy because you got upset or defensive when you thought i called you and idiot so you called me sad because i was discussing the subject with you in a football forum. I clearly wasn't insulting you. From then on you tried to play it off as you were taking the piss. Clearly you are not.
Who said i wasn't interested in the subject matter. If i wasn't i wouldn't have commented on your original post. I had decided for myself so decided to engage with you about said subject.
You are making assumptions and conjecture very much like the people in your original video.
Yep when they release it i believe they have to be the full documents with no redaction, unless of course it is personal information that by law cannot be released.
magicjuan
Player Valuation: £60m
I used theory as a rational point, that you assumed that hypotheses fitted better displays a convinced and defined thinking, definitely not open minded and certainly wouldn't lead to 'antibiotics'. To be confined to definitive rationalities completely negates the point I believe you are trying to make.
JFK was shot by
Gareth Gibson
Player Valuation: £8m
Groucho is right to say that none of the JFK documents that the current U.S. President is releasing today have been redacted.
However, I wonder if there are other official documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination that aren't being released? Or is the current President literally releasing everything?
However, I wonder if there are other official documents pertaining to the Kennedy assassination that aren't being released? Or is the current President literally releasing everything?
Okay.
They say all 3000 documents and all 3000 declassified also.
Walter Ego
Player Valuation: £30m
I don't want to argue about it mate. I think you've misunderstood what I've wrote. Often the case with the written word. I was just being sarcastic.
Anyway if you are interested have a look at the clip from 33 mins in, as it talks about the censorship on Wikipedia. You may find that bit interesting, but then again you may not.
I was using ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ the way that scientists use them. And calling this 9-11 conspiracy stuff a hypothesis is far to generous of me.
Last edited:
Wikipedia has long had a policy to removing unsupported hypotheses and other nonsense. It’s not censorship, it’s just pragmatic since otherwise any wingnut with their own pet idea can start a page.
Fair enough.
I saw it that part alright. I don't dispute the fact Wikipedia is manipulated. I well believe it. It's a little or possibly well known fact that because the guy who runs it is skint and always looks for donations, that periodically interest groups and Major corporations pay him and his company to manipulate their pages or block people from saying or mentioning their group, cause, company etc...
But the problem with Wikipedia for me is that although it has some good information it is probably not ones best source for facts.
How often people edit pages and take screenshots before its caught by someone who changes it back or simply stuff is missed by their moderators.
Some of the sources in some of the articles on it don't go anywhere or are linked to a special interest group.
I will say it think you have me pegged as a skeptic but in reality that's not me. I like to look at something and then research more into what i read or watched. I will always go to varied sources even if i don't necessarily agree with the person just to see what is said. Although i do draw a line at the Alex Jones types.
- Status