Jump to content

The Official JKB Conspiracy Theory Thread


AlphonseCapone

Recommended Posts

Geoff Kilpatrick

Its only interesting in that it shows exactly the silly mindset of conspiracy theorists.   So a murderer turned up at a party and pushed one of them down the stairs at a party.   Then a murderer drove a lorry into another one.  

 

Presumably the police and families of the deceased are all "in on it".  Has the guy making the accusations checked through the evidence?  No.   He just jumps straight to the conclusion he wants.    

Quite. It needs a YouTube video first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • niblick1874

    370

  • maroonlegions

    200

  • Geoff Kilpatrick

    192

  • deesidejambo

    156

Its a conspiracy!!!!

And how does a conspiracy theory start?

 

Mad Person, let?s call him Cliffie after the mad postman in Cheers ? ?Paul McCartney died just before Sergeant Pepper came out and some bloke has been standing in for him since?

 

Person with normal to above intelligence ? ?No he didn?t?

 

Mad Postman ? ?Prove it?

 

Two avenues are now open for the person with normal to above intelligence, the correct one and the mad one.

 

The mad response is to engage Cliffie by offering evidence ? he was on telly last night, last week, last year, I saw him live, I saw him with the queen etc. All of these statements will not only encourage Cliffie but will be met by a blank refusal to accept any evidence offered, along with claims that they have read everything on Paul McCartney?s death followed by a rant, probably in some form of ?pidgin? English, pointing out that you haven?t read anything because you have a closed mind and haven?t conducted any ?research?.

 

The correct response is to say that, of course I haven?t read up on this as it is utter bollocks. It is not up to me to prove the contrary as I didn?t make the original brainless statement. If they believe this drivel, then it is up to them to produce concrete and irrefutable evidence from reputable sources, which does not include persons with bogus affiliations, persons with bogus qualifications, persons who have been fired because they claim either of the former, persons who have published theories in bogus journals, persons who have been fired because they are overly reliant on drink, drugs or both, persons whose nose glows in the dark, persons who are plainly loopy.

 

There are many mysteries in this universe, which as a scientist I am glad about but to believe, for instance, that a small group of ?people?, who look like lizards when they take their masks off and control the world?s wealth is not amusingly eccentric, these are the views of people who have underdeveloped and uncritical minds coupled with many deep seated psychological problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo 4 Ever

And how does a conspiracy theory start?

 

Mad Person, let?s call him Cliffie after the mad postman in Cheers ? ?Paul McCartney died just before Sergeant Pepper came out and some bloke has been standing in for him since?

 

Person with normal to above intelligence ? ?No he didn?t?

 

Mad Postman ? ?Prove it?

 

Two avenues are now open for the person with normal to above intelligence, the correct one and the mad one.

 

The mad response is to engage Cliffie by offering evidence ? he was on telly last night, last week, last year, I saw him live, I saw him with the queen etc. All of these statements will not only encourage Cliffie but will be met by a blank refusal to accept any evidence offered, along with claims that they have read everything on Paul McCartney?s death followed by a rant, probably in some form of ?pidgin? English, pointing out that you haven?t read anything because you have a closed mind and haven?t conducted any ?research?.

 

The correct response is to say that, of course I haven?t read up on this as it is utter bollocks. It is not up to me to prove the contrary as I didn?t make the original brainless statement. If they believe this drivel, then it is up to them to produce concrete and irrefutable evidence from reputable sources, which does not include persons with bogus affiliations, persons with bogus qualifications, persons who have been fired because they claim either of the former, persons who have published theories in bogus journals, persons who have been fired because they are overly reliant on drink, drugs or both, persons whose nose glows in the dark, persons who are plainly loopy.

 

There are many mysteries in this universe, which as a scientist I am glad about but to believe, for instance, that a small group of ?people?, who look like lizards when they take their masks off and control the world?s wealth is not amusingly eccentric, these are the views of people who have underdeveloped and uncritical minds coupled with many deep seated psychological problems.

What are the lizards you are talking about that some crazy people believe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

What are the lizards you are talking about that some crazy people believe?

:laugh:

 

For someone who posts some amazingly shite links about Obama and other nonsense, your "questions" are so fecking obvious it is tragic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo

He is pointing out that no one on here has brought up the subject of lizard people other than shallow drama queens like you. I might add that you're unprovoked verbal diarrhea of a reply is consistent with the rest of the shit you come out with.

The biggest conspiracy of all - how come niblick gets away with all these personal insults?    Are the mods "in on it"?   I'll ask David Icke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Niblick being insulting again is he?

 

Oh well, this YouTube video should allow him to create an email account and subscribe to Hearts.tv. I like to be magnanimous.

 

Edited by Geoff Kilpatrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise an interesting point here, I wonder if there is a YouTube clip of Cliff clips where he is spouting all his theories that we could play on this thread so certain individuals could see how they sound to the rest of us.

I always liked his Buffalo Herd Brain Cell theory.

 

Even if he never actually said it.

Edited by Normthebarman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo

You raise an interesting point here, I wonder if there is a YouTube clip of Cliff clips where he is spouting all his theories that we could play on this thread so certain individuals could see how they sound to the rest of us.

I like the one on Icke where they say Armstrong and Aldrin while on the moon saw alien structures, but at the same time, Armstrong and Aldrin have never been to the moon!     CTs aren't smart enough to recognise the flaw in that statement.

 

And in David Ickes "Hollow moon" theory, where he states the moon is actually a spaceship inhabited by reptilians, he uses the seismic data from, you guessed it Apollo, to justify his arguments.

 

Its simple - CTs just use whatever "evidence" they need to substantiate their stupidity.  Then they ignore the same evidence when it doesn't.

 

I have no issue with challenging mainstream views and MSM reports, but when it turns to stupidity it defeats the purpose, hence the MSM love CTs as they destroy their own credibility again and again.

 

Delusion is an issue that, if taken to extreme, becomes a serious mental illness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GlasgoJambo

I've got a mega conspiracy - supranational if you will. The conspiracy theorists are actually planted by the illuminati/Billderberg/lizards/Jews (delete as applicable) to distract us from any real issues.

Their continuous irreverent spraffs about 9/11, Jade thingmy, the moon landings etc mean any actual concerns are dismissed by the tired public under the collective category of conspiracy theories.

Most likely Niblick is an agent (or sophisticated bot) of the grand masters, putting his outlandish claims in the public sphere so when an actual conspiracy happens anyone pointing it out will be ridiculed and dismissed.

 

YouTube video with atmospheric music and expert voiceover coming soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

niblick1874

Conspiracy theorists, WWE fans and Hibs supporters, all the same deluded "ladies front bottoms".

You've just described most of the so called debunkers. Check out the WWE thread and tell us which ones are on these threads. :2thumbsup: 

 

I've got a mega conspiracy - supranational if you will. The conspiracy theorists are actually planted by the illuminati/Billderberg/lizards/Jews (delete as applicable) to distract us from any real issues.

Their continuous irreverent spraffs about 9/11, Jade thingmy, the moon landings etc mean any actual concerns are dismissed by the tired public under the collective category of conspiracy theories.

Most likely Niblick is an agent (or sophisticated bot) of the grand masters, putting his outlandish claims in the public sphere so when an actual conspiracy happens anyone pointing it out will be ridiculed and dismissed.

 

YouTube video with atmospheric music and expert voiceover coming soon.

I like it. I think I'll pop over to the mega election thread and suggest that teachers are spies.

Edited by niblick1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think New York was built partly on marshland way back, maybe a bit wear and tear after all these years!  (or sheight workmanship :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite possibly to do with its glaciated past and the large band of softer rock and glacial till in the centre.

Look at an aerial view of New York...you'll notice there are no skyscrapers in the middle.

 

Everyday's a school day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, look, a very common thing has happened and it's being ascribed eschatological importance because it happened on the 3% of the world where humans live.

 

I guess it's the sort of reasoning you'd expect from people who claim to be best pals with the creator of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bridge of Djoum

Quite possibly to do with its glaciated past and the large band of softer rock and glacial till in the centre.

Look at an aerial view of New York...you'll notice there are no skyscrapers in the middle.

 

Everyday's a school day.

This happened in Brooklyn though, not Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This happened in Brooklyn though, not Manhattan.

OK...OK.....I didn't read the article.

 

Most likely gay pro gun terrorists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...a bit disco

Good job this hasn't happened in Edinburgh.

Already has.

 

Difference is we call them potholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ibrahim Tall

What do they actually do in this situation?

I remember watching a horizon programme on sinkholes particularly ones in Florida swallowing houses etc and they generally just seemed to fence off the area and prevent anyone going near it. Permanently doing so to a busy New York street doesn't really seem practical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp

Oh, look, a very common thing has happened and it's being ascribed eschatological importance because it happened on the 3% of the world where humans live.

 

I guess it's the sort of reasoning you'd expect from people who claim to be best pals with the creator of the universe.

 

:cornette:

 

It's definitely end times. FFS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The People's Chimp

How can you be sure of this?

 

Gates of hell have started opening, and you are asking how I can be sure? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Gates of hell have started opening, and you are asking how I can be sure?

Do you definitely know they are the gates of hell?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Open your eyes.

 

ghostbusters27.jpg

Where was this taken?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inane questions continue ad nauseam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Hell, so there are no Gates of Hell, opening or otherwise.

 

Forward thinking Christians have decided that Hell is not an actual place, and the references to Hell in the Bible are all metaphor. Hell is actually 'separation from God'.

 

Heaven, on the other hand, is an actual place.  Confusing, I know, but they've only had 2,000 years to figure this stuff out, so give them a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jambo 4 Ever

There is no Hell, so there are no Gates of Hell, opening or otherwise.

 

Forward thinking Christians have decided that Hell is not an actual place, and the references to Hell in the Bible are all metaphor. Hell is actually 'separation from God'.

 

Heaven, on the other hand, is an actual place. Confusing, I know, but they've only had 2,000 years to figure this stuff out, so give them a chance.

Where did you hear about these type of forward thinking Christians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did you hear about these type of forward thinking Christians?

 

I haven't heard about them, I've read about them.  And I've read about them in several places.  One Christian has made the same statement on JKB.

 

Please do a little digging on your own.  You can start here:

 

http://www.gotquestions.org/separation-from-God.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalamazoo Jambo

It has already been proven that the origami association of America were in on the attacks as they contain large amounts of Jewish members who wanted to start the war on terror..   You can try to Google that but the ptb keep on shutting-down the sites that expose this.

 

Don't think that's true, TBH. The organization you refer to folded a long time before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

There is no Hell, so there are no Gates of Hell, opening or otherwise.

 

Forward thinking Christians have decided that Hell is not an actual place, and the references to Hell in the Bible are all metaphor. Hell is actually 'separation from God'.

 

Heaven, on the other hand, is an actual place.  Confusing, I know, but they've only had 2,000 years to figure this stuff out, so give them a chance.

 

 

Ha ha ML, like it. :2thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

I prefer when people quote songs at me to try and prove a point lol. Ohh wait YouTube clips are defo my favourite :-)

 

Why do you call people who don't agree with you hibbys? It's not even a very good troll on hearts message board.

 

I was genuinely kind of interested.

 

Though I guess 'people like you' won't understand anything that doesn't match your view.

 

Ever been to tynie other than to watch your team get humped lol.

 

Not any old song BJ, the well respected and openly critic of the system that was  Bob Dylan and yes a very successful band called Muse who openly write songs on HARRP and  various governments , Uprising being one of them.  

 

No matter who you spin it Dylan and Muse are credible and respectable  musicians and like you have said  people  tend to believe in what they want but i take that a stage further . people tend to smell a rat too.

 

 

Talking of songs and bands, here is one mother fecker of a band, in the sense of a anti system  movement , CRASS;

 

There should be a thread of its own on CRASS.That they are  conspiracy theorists, don't make me laugh, they were in the real world of this shitty and corrupt system that sees no wrong in the abject misery it creates for millions of ordinary people. Their lyrical content of their songs speaks for its self. 

 

 

 

and one of my favorites below;

 

 

 

 

:laugh4:  :conspiracy:  :punk:

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo

Don't think that's true, TBH. The organization you refer to folded a long time before that.

It took me two reads but I got it eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

Well seems that a study of online discussions of 9/11 conspiracy theories done by psychologists and social scientists  from the the US and the UK show that those in favour of the 9/11 conspiracy of building 7 are not  so loony as some would like them to be viewed as.

 

Seems like those advocating the official version are more included to come across as more aggressive or lack decorum in  their general debating manner or rather that their "mannerism" or "respect" for those expressing concerns  with their "personal believability" with official accounts or explanations is negative and  more along the lines of character assassination.    

 

I may add that i am not saying that  all conspiracies are plausible or  true or even have credibility and yes there are those of an unbalanced mental mind set that have and are involved in conspiracies.

 

But there are those of a balanced mind set who are suspicious of some official explanations of various world events too.

 

To me it's all about a personal believability perception when both sides of a conspiracy debate lack or even share some credibility, especially on the conspiracy side but while various claims of conspiracy theories need challenging so do some official versions or explanations.

 

On the last point of "personal believability" is it  then fair or justified to berate, troll , badger and attack someone's character openly online just because their  "personal believability" is  on the conspiracy side.???

 

 

 

?What about building 7?? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

 
*Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Keynes College, Canterbury, CT2 7NP, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
 
quote;
"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled ?conspiracy theorists? appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. "      :laugh4:  :laugh4:
 
"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: ?For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.? 
 
Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well seems that a study of online discussions of 9/11 conspiracy theories done by psychologists and social scientists from the the US and the UK show that those in favour of the 9/11 conspiracy of building 7 are not so loony as some would like them to be viewed as.

 

Seems like those advocating the official version are more included to come across as more aggressive or lack decorum in their general debating manner or rather that their "mannerism" or "respect" for those expressing concerns with their "personal believability" with official accounts or explanations is negative and more along the lines of character assassination.

 

I may add that i am not saying that all conspiracies are plausible or true or even have credibility and yes there are those of an unbalanced mental mind set that have and are involved in conspiracies.

 

But there are those of a balanced mind set who are suspicious of some official explanations of various world events too.

 

To me it's all about a personal believability perception when both sides of a conspiracy debate lack or even share some credibility, especially on the conspiracy side but while various claims of conspiracy theories need challenging so do some official versions or explanations.

 

On the last point of "personal believability" is it then fair or justified to berate, troll , badger and attack someone's character openly online just because their "personal believability" is on the conspiracy side.???

 

 

 

?What about building 7?? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*

*Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas, School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Keynes College, Canterbury, CT2 7NP, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

quote;

"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled ?conspiracy theorists? appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events. " :laugh4::laugh4:

"Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: ?For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.?

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full

 

 

The thing that people need to ask themselves is who benefits .

Who benefited from 9/11.

 

Theres certain posters that bite straight away at any suggestion of questioning the official line.

 

Conspiracy and politics have been around since at least roman times

 

I questioned the moon landings.

All questions were answered all be it by standard nasa answers that have changed over the years.

 

I question the official line on JFKs assassination.

I question the WMD official line that took us to war in Iraq.

I question the official line on 9/11.

I question every thing that is pronounced by those in power.

Because most of the time the opposite is true.

 

Who benefits?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

The thing that people need to ask themselves is who benefits .

Who benefited from 9/11.

 

Theres certain posters that bite straight away at any suggestion of questioning the official line.

 

Conspiracy and politics have been around since at least roman times

 

I questioned the moon landings.

All questions were answered all be it by standard nasa answers that have changed over the years.

 

I question the official line on JFKs assassination.

I question the WMD official line that took us to war in Iraq.

I question the official line on 9/11.

I question every thing that is pronounced by those in power.

Because most of the time the opposite is true.

 

Who benefits?

 

 

You make the very important point of "who does it benefit".

 

Dick Cheney had financial interests in various companies  that engaged in building the infrastructures of war torn countries , he was a director in one  i think , then there's the infrastructure of directors in various multi national arms dealers, no doubt that there are those who make fortunes out of world conflicts but is it enough to say that the invasion of Iraq and the consequent war that unfolded with millions of civilian deaths was done for profit and oil??

 

Is this one particular world event down to  a personal believability perspective  or  is it a question of conspiracy substance due to the actual facts of that case that turn it from a conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact?? 

 

Have the investigations into the justifications for the Iraq war been made public yet??

 

Why the delay??

 

Did Blair and Bush push for a war based on lies of the WMD ,(weapons of mass destruction), claims??

 

A conspiracy seeks to become a theory  when facts emerge that give it substance , it becomes conspiracy fact and certain facts about the Iraq war and the justifications for it do not sit well with me but this is my personal believability trait that leads me to go down that particular conspiracy road.

 

 

On the topic of conspiracies in general there are some with substance and some with none but there tends to be too much of a sweeping generalisation or clumping ALL conspiracies and those who advocate them  into one pot of  lunacy.

 

Chucking the barin oot with the bather water  is a better metaphor in regards to labeling ALL conspiracies and their theorists as unbalanced minds and crackpot theories.  

 

There"s a thin line between madness and genius but i do feel that sometimes you have to clash with your environment to be good at thinking creatively, deeply and outside the box, to be able to question reality and so called truth if your personal believability smells a rat.

 

Conformists are usually not very good at those things but being a introvert is not always a bad thing either.  

 

I would ask this though who benefits from the following questions??

 

Are conspiracy types more willing to listen to ALL evidence from both sides??

 

Do those conformists who follow the official story of everything justified in not accepting anything else that smells of conspiracy no matter if that conspiracy has some credible substance to it??

 

And how often do those conformists who follow the official version of certain world events become angry, defensive and aggressive even when confronted with something that contradicts the official story?

 

 Both camps often show the above traits but both camps are also guilty of negativity , so who benefits?

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

What the feck is a "conspiracy fact"? :cornette:

 

Facts are facts. "Conspiracy facts" are not facts. They are conjecture, nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...