MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Conspiracy theory that holds the most we...

Conspiracy theory that holds the most weight for being true for you


The moon landing thread got me to thinking. Which conspiracy theories exist out there which you think hold enough truth within their potential to be real, or at least a watered down version of real. There are some great ones like Project Bluebook, The Philadelphia Experiment and John Titor.

9/11 being an inside job, jabs giving autism, big banks want a one world government - lots to play with really.

What theory do you think holds some truth to it and why?

reply

Right now one of the most talked conspiracies is global warming, thanks to Trump.

I think that the real conspiracy is not whether the global warming exists or not, but the conspiracy of using of the expression "global warming" to hide the fact of "global polluting". It's like, if they can prove that global warming doesn't exist, the question of pollution disappears together with it. Which is, of course, bullshit. Pollution will be the end of all of us, warming or not.

To be more clear, conspiracy is in using the term "global warming" instead of "global polluting".

reply

Apis, I so agree with you!! If we don't stop polluting the planet (and that means population, as well as rubbish) We might see the end of the world as we know it... Not going out with a bang - but smothering under a pile of our own s--- !

reply

I'm glad you agree. :) I wish everyone would just stop talking about warming and address the real problem. Unfortunately, the easy solution doesn't exist.

Crops treated with chemicals produce 4 times more food than without the chemicals. If we stop using chemicals, that means 4 times less food for everyone in the world.

Solar panels seem like a nice way to get clean energy. Unfortunately, production of solar panels pollutes the Earth with chemicals. Production of solar panels on big scale means a lot of chemical pollution.

When EU started cleaning up the act by official measures of lowering pollution, warming didn't decrease. Quite the opposite, it increased because the pollution in the air acts like a shield from sun rays. All this is like a vicious circle.

reply

But don't many die-hard advocates cite our 'carbon footprint ' as the cause ?
Personally, I think there's something to it. Last summer, my part of the country experienced a serious heat wave each month beginning with June. I can't remember the last time I experienced that during that month, if I ever did. And our July was the hottest ever on record !

reply

They do cite carbon footprint as a cause, but then some idiot politician says "what global warming? look at how many snow we had this winter", like one or two snowy winters mean anything on a larger scale.

reply

I agree, overall the planet is getting warmer but the day to day results in individual locations will just be more erratic weather, not always warmer weather. It includes more and worse hurricanes, more superstorms, sometimes there will be snowpocalypse in springtime, other times there will be droughts. It's not just global warming, it's global weirding. Just weird weather all over.

reply

You win the day! I've been saying this since the 90s. We will all die from pollution (most likely cancers) before we ever die from any heating or cooling, so it's a waste of time trying to re-engineer the biosphere. Not to mention now, we have a worldwide wi-fi "radiation network" to accelerate cancer and lower fertility rates.

If "climate change" was the threat that Al Gore repeatedly claims, then it won't matter in a hundred years. It might be 5 degrees warmer on average, but we'll be colonizing Mars by then with full cities. The human race will continue.... Although I wouldn't doubt a nuclear war would wipe out most of us...

Then there are plenty of very rich people that have banded together to create mini-underground cities. That's not a conspiracy theory, but openly admitted, just not well known. Not good publicity for Bill Gates to say, "Well I have enough that I can live underground for 20 years and then be brought back to life with my consciousness in a computer."

Meh, I accept my poor man's fate. :D

reply

😜

reply

An intriguing one for me when I first stumbled upon it was that Jack the Ripper was a member of the then royal family ( addressed in the Johnny Depp film, From Hell ). Like all theories pertaining to his identity, it provided some tantalizing, plausible evidence.

reply


I'm not a big believer in most conspiracy theories but I definitely don't think that Oswald acted alone in the JFK assassination.

reply

high fructose corn syrup
the addictive properties of cigarettes
I believe that companies who sell dangerous products knew they were dangerous a long time before they ever admitted it. Basically you follow the money- when it is in their financial interest to keep on killing people, they will do so.


Most of the other ones you listed, I do not think are conspiracies. I believe in science a lot more than I believe in raving anti-science zealots. (who usually end up being on the paycheck of oil companies or tobacco companies)
I think global climate change is real. the moon landing was real. vaccinations do not cause autism. Who would financially profit from causing an autism epidemic? Nobody.

The mandela effect- I do not think it's real. It's caused by people having fuzzy memories, usually from childhood, that mixed things up. the people that say they remember Mandela's funeral in the 80's were actually remembering Stephen Biko's funeral. Which they didn't even see the year it happened, they saw the movie about Biko (cry freedom).

I recommend the film "Merchants of Doubt ".
It is a documentary about the paid 'expert witnesses' who testify for the tobacco companies, oil companies, etc, and their false testimony creates a lot of these conspiracy theories.

reply

What is an " anti-science zealot " and why would that individual end up on the payroll of the tobacco industry which you seem to have emphasized here ?
This really reminds me of the Russell Crowe movie, The Insider, where he portrays a research chemist for that industry turned whistle blower. This makes more sense to me in that persuading an actual scientist, through a contract to abandon his integrity and the results of his data would be much more effective camouflage.
And therein lies your conspiracy.

reply

Watch the film "Merchants of Doubt ".
it explains the tobacco thing.
The anti science zealots was more about people who deny evolution, climate change, the earth being millions of years old, etc. People who think cave men rode around on dinosaurs until the old testament flood killed them.

reply

Ok, I just did a quick search, located it immediately and it does look promising, my kind of film. I love a provocative documentary.
But this is not unfamiliar territory to me. I'm well aware of pundits, talking heads who can be swayed by the power of the almighty dollar bill. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

reply

That MSM like CNN and MSNBC were in the tank for Clinton, oh wait, no longer a theory, FACT

reply

Kinda like Fox being in the tank for repubs and lying about news...fact

reply

That's not a conspiracy though (nor is the Fox counterpoint). A conspiracy is some group of people hatching plots in secret. Media outlets pushing a narrative don't fall into that category unless they're involved in a coup or something (an example of this would be the Venezuelan media's role in the 2002 coup attempt; THAT was an actual conspiracy).

And frankly anyone who honestly thinks the media, any media, is or can be objective and unbiased is very naive. The media reflects the interests of those who own it. That's not a conspiracy; it's just a fact that if someone owns a media outlet, they're going to use it to push a narrative that reflects their own biases and interests, generally those of some faction or other of the prevailing social system and its power structure (unless it's one of those small nonprofit outlets run by viewer donations or something; but even then it's going to have a narrative, it's going to be run by people with ideas they want to push, though it may or may not be opposed to the prevailing power structure). This is the case whether the media is privately owned or owned by a government.

reply

The DNC was hatching plots in secret though... Donna Brazile admitted giving Hillary debate questions in advance helping her defeat Bernie... also they came up with the pied piper strategy to aid extreme Republicans like Cruz, Carson, Trump in favor of moderate ones like Kasich or Bush. The MSM is corrupt... Amazon owning the Washington Post etc, but there was shady shit going behind the scenes as well.

reply

Amazon?? You mean the same Amazon that also owns IMDb? The same Amazon that shut down free speech (message boards)?

reply

They didn't shut down free speech. Lol, come on, you're sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

1. 1st Amendment only applies to Government. Even your employer can restrict your "free" speech if they chose.
2. IMDb had their own reasons to shutting down the boards. I doubt we'll ever find out the real reasons, but I very much doubt it was to restrict speech. You still have plenty of other "speech" options on that site. Reviews. Polls. Lists. etc.

reply

Beyond JFK, don't think most are real.

reply

Here's one for you,jf you are a. believer you won't like it :do you ever wondered what is really the truth about christianity ?

reply

No, not really. And I'm Christian. Not hardcore, though. Most religions have some unsavory roots

reply

You're not interested about your own religion,that's rare

reply

Not its extensive history, no. And I doubt that's all that rare.

reply

Yeah, JFK is probably the only one I would really buy into. And not the whole CIA and Grassy Knole shooter thing. To me, I think it was the Italian Mafia that did it, and probably did it for the Russian Mafia because JFK did have a tiff or something that the Russian Mafia weren't happy about.

reply

The Kennedy assassination theory is the most well thought-out one, but frankly I don't buy that either (I do love the movie JFK, but only as a fictional work of art; I don't believe the theory). I mean, technically it would be a conspiracy if Oswald didn't work alone, though that doesn't mean he was working for someone in the government, intelligence service, military or even the mafia or what have you. But at the end of the day I don't think there's sufficient evidence to support it.

The thing about conspiracy theories is that they tend to reduce the historical process to the actions of some shady cabal that secretly runs everything and bamboozles everyone (and only some intrepid tinfoil-hatters, usually libertarian types, have somehow figured it all out and manage to expose the plots on Youtube without being assassinated). There are actual conspiracies, technically any two or more people who agree to do something (usually something illegal) in secret is engaging in a conspiracy, but that isn't what conspiracy theories usually refer to. Most of the time, conspiracy theories are just evidence-free fantasies people use to explain things they don't understand, attributing ordinary but unpleasant or difficult-to-understand things to the plots of some shady cabal that secretly runs the world.

A lot of the time, people just confuse rich assholes being rich assholes with conspiracies. For instance the comments elsewhere on this thread about CNN, MSNBC and Fox being biased in favor of US presidential candidates. That's not a conspiracy, that's just companies owned by rich people reflecting rich people's interests. Conversely, lots of people use the term "conspiracy theory" to ridicule the very notion that governments, rich people and private companies (including media companies) are anything but 100% benevolent and honest and don't do things underhandedly that are in their own interests and not in the interests of the people as a whole. It's only natural that rich people are going to support things that are in their own class interests, and oppose things that are against their class interests. For instance they'll support certain political candidates, oppose others, and use their influence to demonize things that aren't good for them (such as communism, for example). That's not a conspiracy. That's just people with wealth and power doing things to perpetuate and expand their wealth and power, often quite openly, legally and brazenly.

Of course, there are actual conspiracies in the world. Any coup d'etat is a conspiracy. Any assassination or assassination plot is a conspiracy. A bank robbery is a conspiracy if it's done by more than one person. But most of the things conspiracy theories talk about are more mundane, just the ordinary behavior of rich people and politicians serving their own interests, or random events that unsettle people's sense of order and justice and they need to find some explanation for. Conspiracy theories are created by people who want to believe that the world and the social, economic and political system that prevails in it is inherently good, and who can't understand that rich people don't have the same interests as poor people, or that inexplicably bad events that they can't understand (such as 9/11) can happen without there being some big plan behind it, so they invent theories to explain why bad things happen under supposedly good social and political systems, declaring that some shadowy cabal (often from a scapegoated social group, like Jews or Muslims, or communists, or Russians, or Chinese, or what have you) has somehow subverted the legitimate working of government. This spares them the need to ask harder questions that challenge their own belief systems and question the benevolence of the people in charge and the political and economic system they represent. If everything bad in the world is the fault of some secret group, then nothing is fundamentally wrong and we don't need to ask deeper questions. This is a comforting thought for many.

reply