Are there any conspiracy theories that you just think could have an element of truth?

[AhhhHereItGoes]

I love all things conspiracy theory - from a psychological/social point of view it's interesting to see what makes people fearful or pessimistic.

But I often do see some conspiracy theories a bit like Urban legends in that they could be an exaggerated truth.

Are there any conspiracy theories or rumours that you just think 'maybe...' or even ones you're completely sold on.

hopes nobody thinks the Queen is a metamorphic lizard alien

what not why

I think Brexit is more a cock up - a product of low calibre of current crop of top politicians.

I put Huawei in the more or less the same category as Cambridge Analytica.
Let's just say that if I was a European Government official, I wouldn't buy any of their equipment for official use.

Brexit was a cock up by the British government, fueled and later manipulated by not so unknown and not that dark interests.
A certain government is heavily invested in destabilising Europe, for example. It's no secret.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum

Why do people think about Huawei?

The FBI publicly hacked Apple products:
www.theverge.com/2017/10/1/16393074/apple-iphone-fbi-hacking-tool-san-bernardino-case-secret-court-order
www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/02/26/government-can-access-any-apple-iphone-cellebrite/#22a916f7667a

There are rumours that our security services have asked for back doors in UK encryption services and you could see why they’d want them.

So Chinese Government demanding access isn't improbably - and given its a totalitarian state how well the company could resist is debateable.

So while there’s a risk how manageable it is – I’ve no idea. . If I was concerned about security I'd be thinking hard about it and looking at what alternatives there were.

Being so public think it’s more about the current US China trade war.

bigKiteFlying Why do people think about Huawei?

I think Theresa Mays deal is as dodgy as hell.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/23/theresa-may-defies-security-warnings-ministers-us-allow-huawei/

What happened with Building 7, then? No planes hit it at all. The BBC reported that it had also fallen and then, 20 minutes later, it did fall

So do you believe the BBC were given a heads up that the building had been rigged with explosives or something? Why?

Your guess is as good as mine.

The minister was sacked for allegedly leaking the Huawei deal.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/9113656/theresa-may-huawei-ban-google/

Theresa May awarded a ferry contract to a company that had no ferries. That was a bit of a wtf moment for me.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/01/chris-grayling-cancels-ferry-contracts-at-extra-50m-cost-to-taxpayers-brexit

Actually she had tried to commit suicide a few years earlier and had a known mental health issues. And I've spoken to an Indian nurse colleague who seemed to understand the gravity of the perceived shame and reasoning behind it.

I don't know about how her cultural background would have caused her to react, so I've no reason to doubt your colleague's explanation, in that case.

The story seemed to change and different details later emerged. If we go down the not-100%-trusting-the-authorities line, we have no way of knowing whether the correct information did later come to light or if there could have been later reactive excuses concocted/evidence 'discovered' to provide backup for the official line - in this or any case.

When whistle-blowers or the families of people who die in unusual or potentially suspicious circumstances suddenly shut up or retract their earlier protestations, does this mean that they know that they've been rumbled for their 'lies', may be very ashamed at having genuinely believed what they now are convinced was not true (e.g. JS's nephew), and don't bother pursuing their grievance; or might they have been given clear 'warnings' as to what will happen if they don't keep their silence? We've no way of knowing for sure one way or the other.

Or, as some people believe, the whistle-blowers might have been 'shills' to the conspiracy, deliberately put there to leak the info and then discredit it. e.g.:

1. "The Royals have some bizarre and very concerning beliefs and behaviours."
2. "The Royals are alleged to have been complicit in some horrendous crimes."
3. "The Royals are actually, literally cold-blooded reptiles who only shapeshift to disguise themselves in a plausible human form."

Most people would give credence to number 1 and many wouldn't instantly discount number 2 as totally impossible. Once they hear number 3, you have instantly lost any credibility that you otherwise could have had, meaning that they then assume numbers 1 & 2 must also be completely invented fantasies, because YOU were the one who introduced them.

Regarding Bishop and the pm’s.

This is available on the Internet if you google. Even Jill Dandos wilkipedia bio will give you a clue of who next to google.

Theresa May awarded a ferry contract to a company that had no ferries. That was a bit of a wtf moment for me.

Thought that was more Chris Graylin I don’t think there's ever been a more incompetent minister who hasn't been fired - trains debacle and failing to organise a traffic jam.

She’s too weak politically to fire him – or do anything really thanks to Brexit mess.

I do wonder if his department been badly hit by staff being poached by Brexit office because they do seem spectacularly inept - even if he’s a chocolate tea pot.

Is it true that sometimes powerful organisations try to get away with cover-ups of outrageous acts? Sure, but rarely get away with it for long. Big secrets are almost impossible to keep.

I believe the opposite, actually. There's a quote from Walter C. Langer that rings very true for me:

“People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.”

It's effectively exactly what gaslighting is - remain obstinate and relentless about something outrageous for long enough and your victim ends up thinking that you couldn't have told such a big lie and believed you'd ever get away with it - so it must be true and they must be wrong.

As for people who say that thousands or millions of people would have had to be complicit for a conspiracy to work, why wouldn't they also have been gaslighted/deceived with only a few people at the top in the know? Take the Moon landing one, if loads of people are tasked with being stationed in Houston and tracking what they see on the screens, which they're told is the Moon, why would it make any difference to them if it was actually a desert or a studio in Nevada? Why would they even have cause to question it?

Fractional reserve banking is another of these. 97% of money doesn't actually exist in any tangible form and is effectively 'created' out of thin air at the point that somebody wants to borrow it and then it instantly becomes a recognised 'debt' - which then has to be repaid - which is what all developed countries' economies are based on. It reportedly all began in 1913 (IIRC) with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, whereby the government had to start borrowing interest-bearing money privately in order to circulate it within the country as currency to make the economy work. Reportedly, there was at least one very influential person who was against the FR and would have had a lot of power in stopping its establishment, but unfortunately, he died on the Titanic....

Going very lightheartedly, and alluding to one of the much-in-demand posters on this thread, the big lie/gaslighting thing was the whole basis for the well-known episode of Father Ted.

It seemed such an absurd and brazen thing for Ted to have done - to take a run up and kick Bishop Brennan up the arse - that BB just couldn't believe that he would actually have dared to do it.

I have not RTFT but the idea that you can't get flights from continent to continent in the southern hemisphere is just poppycock. I have personally flown direct from Australia to South Africa and I know plenty of people who have done that and/or flown from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires...what on earth are you talking about?

There's one about oil and other fossil fuels not actually being finite resources that have developed over millions of years, but rather perpetually-self-producing resources that renew themselves every 30 years or so under the oceans.

We have been told countless times over the last century that the oil was going to run out, but it never has, despite ever-increasing industrialisation. In fact, now, we're not even warned of its depletion, but just told that we need to stop using it because of climate change.

Also, whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was to be the certain death of us all?

No idea what that's all about.

Also, whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was to be the certain death of us all?

No idea what that's all about

It's still there. I don't think "I don't know anything about this" is a good basis for suggesting something is a conspiracy.

whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was to be the certain death of us all?

Aerosols were basically banned and the ozone layer has been getting better. But the chemicals last a long time and it will take decades to go back to what it was 100 years ago.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/videos/the-ozone-hole

About the moon landings.....I watched a clip of Buzz Aldrin being asked about it by a little girl. At one point in the interview he clearly says “because we never went there”. I’ve tried to convince myself he didn’t actually mean that but you just can’t get away from it. But then I think, if man didn’t land on the moon they’d surely be a few whistle blowers by now. The amount of people that must have been involved in the hoax would have been huge.

Also, whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was to be the certain death of us all?

No idea what that's all about

It's still there. I don't think "I don't know anything about this" is a good basis for suggesting something is a conspiracy.

The 'no idea' comment was largely relating back to the oil issue - I didn't make that very clear.

However, surely the not knowing the facts but something nevertheless really not ringing true is the basis of most proposed conspiracies? If being a 'conspiracy theorist' mean being a critical thinker who likes to examine things based on what you know and have been told rather than taking everything you're ever told at face value, then acknowledging that you don't have all of the answers but still have doubts is just being honest and another sign of an open mind?

All I know about the ozone layer is that we were told we were on a precipice and all of human life was in severe danger of being burned up. However, we stopped using CFCs in fridges and deodorants and it's all apparently fine again now.

That Buzz Aldrin thing is total misinterpretation
www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/

I also think if it had been faked, the Russians would have known and would have made sure everyone knew it was a lie?

We have been told countless times over the last century that the oil was going to run out, but it never has, despite ever-increasing industrialisation. In fact, now, we're not even warned of its depletion, but just told that we need to stop using it because of climate change.

Ever heard of fracking? www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401
It's a technique designed to extract oil and gas from difficult areas. It's become economically viable because easily accessible deposits are running out.

Dr David Kelly was killed by MI5.

Osama Bin Ladin was on the CIA payroll in the 80’s, so not all terrorists were always terrorists.

Most conspiracy theories have a element of plausibility about them.