More Crazy Conspiracy Theories at JREF.org

So I added a poll recenrtly and many JREF'ers ventured into wild cospiracy theorizing, but not Oystein, (thanks) take look at these comments:

cjnewson88 said:
6 to 57 now. No doubt there is a conspiracy against 'Debunking the Debunkers' at foot

John-Michael Talboo said:
[It's funny taking a jab about conspiracy theories using the derogatory connotation. It's even funnier/ironic/ and hypocritical when JREF members do it, read below.]

NoahFence said:
16 Yes
132 No
1 Maybe

oops. Not going according to plan?

Oystein said:
I am emailing with JM Talboo, one of the contributors to that blog, and we are on friendly and respectful terms. ...

JM actually thanked me briefly for posting the link here

Spanx Muse said:
It must have been an inside job !

If that's not evidence of an inside job, then I don't know what is

It's a good job there is an option to change your vote.

BangBang said:

Just goes to show the dishonesty of these people

JohnG said:

LOL The poll has changed now

It must have been an inside job !

If that's not evidence of an inside job, then I don't know what is

It's a good job there is an option to change your vote.

Wow, that is some staggering, ridiculous, shameless dishonesty And if enough people change their vote the poll question will no doubt magically transmogrify yet again.

Just like I always say, you don't have to be a sociopath to be a Truther...

...but it certainly would explain a lot.

Oystein's commentary on other posts, his text bolded, the quoted text italisized:

Originally Posted by Spanx LOL The poll has changed now

It must have been an inside job !

If that's not evidence of an inside job, then I don't know what is

It's a good job there is an option to change your vote.

Uhm - in what way has the poll changed?

Originally Posted by BangBang 

Just goes to show the dishonesty of these people Originally Posted by fitzgibbon Wow! Just wow. The irony that 'truthers' would stoop to dishonesty is epic

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon   

Wow! Just wow. The irony that 'truthers' would stoop to dishonesty is epic
Originally Posted by JohnG:

Wow, that is some staggering, ridiculous, shameless dishonesty And if enough people change their vote the poll question will no doubt magically transmogrify yet again.

Just like I always say, you don't have to be a sociopath to be a Truther...

...but it certainly would explain a lot.

Where do you guys spot the dishonesty there?

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay:

The poll question should read, "Did this poll receive inside help"?

It received outside help from whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/node/226497 - that was posted on March 17, the day before you noticed the "Yes" had gone up sharply. JM told me they got most traffic to their post and poll from there (more than 1700 page views, compared to 130 from forums.randi.org).

I don't think anything was manipulated

Spanx Muse reply to Oystein:
Originally Posted by Oystein Uhm - in what way has the poll changed?

It was a jump of 700 yes votes, As to whether the poll was manipulated before it was posted on WRH we will never know.

fitzgibbon said:

Wow! Just wow. The irony that 'truthers' would stoop to dishonesty is epic.

John-Michael Talboo:
Go ahead and use the poll option on blogger.com and you will find this... just as I suspected.

Create a poll

You cannot edit this poll because someone has already voted.
Question
Answers
	Allow visitors to select multiple answers
	Poll closing date and time

Save Cancel Remove

My Top 10 Insane Conspiracy Theories

For Infowars Nightly News last night, Paul Joseph Watson counted down his top 10 insane conspiracy theories which distract from exposing real coverups. Many of them were about Alex Jones and himself. His humorous list inspired me to make a slightly more serious list of my top 10 insane conspiracy theories.

10) YouTube meddling with view counts 


It's a conspiracy!

Okay, it wouldn't surprise me if YouTube does meddle with view counts, but I'm sick of people making a big deal over the fact that every video on Alex Jones' channel and other big truth/conspiracy channels gets stuck on 300 views for a while shortly after they've been uploaded. It happens to every channel!

9) The Pentagon no-plane/missile/flyover theory



The circular reasoning of Pentagon no-planers: "There's no plane debris, therefore a plane didn't hit the Pentagon." *Shows pictures of plane debris* "Those pieces of debris were planted!" "Oh really?!" "They must have been, because we know a plane didn't hit the pentagon!" "How do you know a plane didn't hit the pentagon?" "Because there was no debris!"

*Facepalm*

And don't even get me started on the flyover theory.

8) Vaccines do no good



Contrary to what some may assume, I'm not actually "anti-vaccine". Vaccines are 250-year-old technology that obviously have done a lot of good. I actually agree with skeptics on this point. It's not vaccine technology in general that's the problem, but the specific products that the pharmaceutical industry puts out.

7) Lady Gaga is a man


Stefani Germanotta as a little girl

Lady Gaga is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine. Most people in conspiracy circles believe she's an Illuminati puppet who's part of some demoralization agenda. While there probably is some truth there, you have to admit she's very talented, at least compared to many other popular "artists" today (*Cough* Justin Bieber *Cough*). Also, her songs translate quite well to heavy metal!^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

I've never really cared much for celebrity conspiracy theories. Could Kurt Cobain, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Amy Winehouse have really been murdered? Well, it wouldn't surprise me, but I haven't really researched any of them so I don't know. Could Disney teen sensations be under some form of mind control? Again, it wouldn't surprise me. We're all under mind control to some degree. That's what propaganda, marketing and indoctrination is. The theory that Lady Gaga is a secretly a man though is just silly.

6) The Moon-landing hoax theory



Back when I was a teenager I actually used to believe this. Eventually I realised a lot of people would have to be involved and fully aware of the hoax. Compartmentalization would be stretched beyond its limits. In 2008, MythBusters pretty much answered my remaining questions.

5) The man in the "fatty" Bin Laden video isn't Bin Laden


Al-Zawahiri and Al-Harbi talking to a fat guy in a suit... apparently.

Again, this was something I used to believe until this 9/11 Myths article set me straight. See, we agree with the debunkers on some things!

4) The Intelligent Design = Creationism conspiracy theory



This is a conspiracy theory advocated by those who attack us: the skeptics. Basically, in early drafts of the intelligent design book, Of Pandas and People, the authors used the word "creationism" instead of "intelligent design". Then in a subsequent draft, all instances of the word "creationism" were replaced with "intelligent design" and all instances of the word "creationist" were replaced with "design proponent", and in one case, since I guess the Ctrl-H function didn't exist in the 80s, "cdesign proponentsists". This is cited as proof by many that intelligent design is simply a conspiracy to sneak creationism into the classrooms. And "cdesign proponentsists" has been widely ridiculed as the 'missing link' between creationism and intelligent design.

I'll admit, it's kind of funny. The problem is, "creationism" and "intelligent design" are just labels. The "skeptics" have it backwards. This doesn't prove that intelligent design = creationism. All it proves is that what we now call intelligent design was at some point during its development referred to as creationism. That doesn't change the fact that they are two distinctly different ideas. Also, there are references to the term "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer" going back to the 1700s. The term was even used by Charles Darwin in 1861.

The Skeptics Society: Hard forensic evidence isn't good enough evidence for the 9/11 conspiracy theory, but a few old, mined quotations and a typo is all the proof you need for the ID = creationism conspiracy theory! Don't believe the anti-establishment conspiracy theories, believe the pro-establishment conspiracy theories!

3) "That's No Moon!"



I'm fairly open-minded about a lot of what David Icke says, even the reptilian stuff. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm not completely close-minded to it either. I've heard of crazier beliefs (*Cough* Scientology *Cough*). But his most recent claim that "the moon is not real" is just too much. It's not so much the theory itself but the new age belief that it's part of. Icke essentially believes that thousands of years ago the world was like Pandora from Avatar. There was an abundance of life and we were all spiritually connected and everything was in harmony etc. And then the evil moon - which was actually built by aliens - came a long and screwed it all up. The problem is, if we didn't have a moon, we wouldn't be here!

Because of complex gravitational interactions with the outer planets, the tilt of the Earth would, if it didn't have a large moon, vary chaotically. We know this because we can observe it happening to Mars. The Earth's tilt is at a relatively constant 23 degrees. If we didn't have a moon it would vary between 10 and 40 degrees over periods of millions of years. Millions of years may sound like a a long time, but in evolutionary terms it's really not. Such variation in tilt would cause an erratic climate which would prevent complex life from evolving in the first place. So the moon sort of functions as a cosmic tail rotor. It's not bad. It doesn't screw up a perfect balance. It's a neccesary part of one!

2) "It's the Joooooos!"



Suck my jaggon, anti-semites!

1) TV fakery and fake phone calls



What the September Clues people are arguing essentially is that the entire population of New York City was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy. It's no surprise that I would put the TV fakery theory at number one. The reason I'm putting the fake phone call theory at number one as well is because I honestly believe it to be equally offensive.

Pat Curley Claims to Find Strawmen, but Only Exposes His Failed Logic and Poor Research

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted the following video by Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth today:



Pat states:

Steven Jones tackles two objections to his "research" that I have never heard before:

1. That somebody contaminated the samples with nanothermite. Huh? No, Steven, we don't think there's really nanosupercallifragilisticexpiallythermite in the samples at all.

2. Perhaps the falling buildings just generated the nanothermite. Err, see my response above.

Pat is tricky with this first one, because although he has never outright claimed the samples were contaminated, he has implied it. As noted by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale in his post "Crazy Conspiracy Theories":

I've just listened to the debate between Dylan and Pat and I got rather annoyed when Pat and the host were crticizing the purity of the dust samples and the chain of custody etc. and Pat was talking about how the samples weren't kept in sealed bags or whatever. The thing is, Steven Jones wouldn't even need to be doing this if the officials had done so. You can criticize his work all you want but its still better than anything the government has done. Organisations like USGS and RJ Lee etc probably do have professionally collected sealed samples, so why can't we have open access to study them? Will we find red chips in them? We know USGS were covering up the existance of Molybdenum rich spherules so who knows what else they are covering up. Besides, the whole issue is irrelevent anyway. Because it's not as if these highly engineered thermitic red chips are easy to make or get a hold of. By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!

And the material is super-duper! ;)

The reason Jones brings up the fact that the buildings did not create the nano-thermite chips is because 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening has in fact used ridiculous explanations akin to this in the past when he claimed that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires!

Pat states, "And it's interesting to hear that the Waterboy is trying to make nanothermite himself."

Yes, it is interesting to know that Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, whom you call waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory, is a skilled enough chemist to create nano-thermite! You act as if he worked installing water coolers in office buildings!

Here is a 26 picture slide show Ryan produced, half of the images are nano-thermite residues and half are materials extracted from WTC dust samples. Can you tell us which ones are which, Pat?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/32512879@N05/sets/72157611572140729/show/

One of Pat's regular commenters "Billman" states:

Pfft, wow. Such hypocracy from this guy.

So now he's saying the samples couldn't have been tainted with super-thermite... but when they are given to another independent researcher who DID NOT get any evidence of unreacted thermite, it was "ZOMG! The gubmint tampered with mah sampelz!!"

This bunkum is refuted here.

Crazy Conspiracy Theories

So my latest video has been circulating around the web faster than any of my others. It's been on the front pages of WhatReallyHappened.com, 911blogger.com, and WeAreChange.org. It has more than 4,000 views and 140 ratings and at its peak it was #18 in the top rated (this week) in the entertainment category in the UK. #19 was a commercial featuring Cheryl Cole and #20 was a BBC Doctor Who promo... ironic considering the music video makes references to both Cheryl Cole and Doctor Who. The video has also been uploaded to LiveLeak.com and has recieved some ignorant comments. No debunkers have joined the party on YouTube yet ... although some disinformation trolls have... "It was the jesuits!"

[/self indulgence]

That's probably the last 9/11 video I'm gonna make. Since I'm aiming to work in the field of video production, it would be nice if I can show potential employers something other than just "conspiracy theory" videos I have made (Not that I won't show them at least one of those!). So I've been hanging out with my best friend discussing ideas for my next masterpiece as well as speculating whether or not Simon Cowell is an evil New World Order operative or just a useful idiot and whether or not Miley Cyrus is a victim of trauma-based mind control (Ahhh the interesting conversations of conspiracy theorists! - It was like we were in a truther version of some Kevin Smith movie ... Hmm ... Now there's an idea!)

I've given up debating CIT. Craig Ranke has now admitted that they renamed the name of this blog to "911duh-bunkers". And when I school them on the scientific method they just tell me to address their "evidence". It looks like the only way to debunk them is to interview the witnesses ourselves.

I've just listened to the debate between Dylan and Pat and I got rather annoyed when Pat and the host were crticizing the purity of the dust samples and the chain of custody etc. and Pat was talking about how the samples weren't kept in sealed bags or whatever. The thing is, Steven Jones wouldn't even need to be doing this if the officials had done so. You can criticize his work all you want but its still better than anything the government has done. Organisations like USGS and RJ Lee etc probably do have professionally collected sealed samples, so why can't we have open access to study them? Will we find red chips in them? We know USGS were covering up the existence of Molybdenum rich spherules so who knows what else they are covering up. Besides, the whole issue is irrelevent anyway. Because it's not as if these highly engineered thermitic red chips are easy to make or get a hold of. By questioning the chain of custody you are effectively accusing the scientists and the citizens of conspiring to fake evidence by manufacturing high-tech energetic nanocomposites that only a handful of labs in the world can even make and adding them to samples! That sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory to me! And yet you find the idea of the government tampering with evidence ridiculous! Someone get Pat a tin foil hat!