To ask what conspiracy theories you actually believe are true?

[AlternativePerspective]

Following on from the thread where OP was looking for conspiracy theories for her kids to look at, I was wondering whether anyone actually believes any of the outlandish conspiracies.

We’ve all read about how people believe that Elvis didn’t die/Paul McCartney did die/the royals are all lizards/the earth is flat. But I’ve never encountered anyone who actually believes any of them, only people who talk about people who (apparently) believe in them.

So, what conspiracies do you actually believe and why?

Yes we do know. It happened in the full glare of the world's press.

What the press know and what/how they choose to report/spin it are not necessarily the same thing - although that's only my opinion and you may disagree and believe that they are completely trustworthy and never partisan.

Nearly 20 years ago, I was featured in The Sun on the same page as a murderer and a convicted paedophile for a very, very silly non-story that they had got hold of and, after interviewing me (won't bore you with the details, but an organisation did me a big favour and they wanted me to help them in return to get some good PR), they completely made up direct quotes from me that I had never and would never have said. If they will do that with the silly little filler articles about nobodies like me, I have no doubt that they would hesitate to spin the big world-shaking stories to suit their own ends - and I seriously disbelieve that the Sun is alone in the world in that; the most influential media outlets across the globe are ultimately owned by a very small number of people, most of them not widely considered to be of high virtue.

@KathleenTurnerOverdrive

I guess we'll never know.

Yes we do know. It happened in the full glare of the world's press.

But Diana didn't necessarily die in the actual crash.

Yes she did. See above.

And then you get to the question, why and on whose orders?

It didn't really happen in the full glare of the world's press because it was 1997 and there wasn't so much 24 hr news. Family in North America heard she'd been injured (but was alive) whereas in the UK we heard she'd actually died in the crash. This is fact. I've managed to find a copy of CNN news from the early hours of the crash - it backs up that she was reported as injured (compared to Dodi) during the early reports in N America.

So Diana didn't necessarily die in the crash and not many people know this. How or why and whose orders I've no idea!

What the press know and what/how they choose to report/spin it are not necessarily the same thing - although that's only my opinion and you may disagree and believe that they are completely trustworthy and never partisan.

Of course I don't think the press are non-partisan, but all the world's press and news networks all tell the exact same lie at the exact same time? And in nearly 25 years no one breaks ranks?

Pull the other one it has got bells on it.

No one seems to be able to answer the question, if Diana was murdered (which she wasn't), for what reason and on whose orders and what did they how the outcome would be?

So Diana didn't necessarily die in the crash and not many people know this.

It was widely reported at the time that she died in the hospital, both now and at the time.

WeBuilt haha yes ,you do take a long way to get to the point, so briefly as I said, someone did it to stop him spilling the beans on others. I thought you were disputing it !

I think assasination simply means 'killed to order', hired and paid to do the job, whereas murder is a wide spectrum from impulsive to planned but for murderere's own reasons.

Is it? I'd be interested in finding examples of this. Because mostly, if not exclusively, it is someone with a wordpress account and a screw loose.

I don't think we're going to find common ground on this, so we might as well agree to disagree. I realise that you will probably interpret that as me conceding that you are right and that I am wrong. The problem is that, very frequently, when hitherto respected experts do speak about against the official line, their doing so is viewed as proof apparent that they are no longer (or maybe never were) an expert and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The basic act of offering a different opinion from the official/mainstream/common one is in itself enough to earn you the accusation of 'having a screw loose'.

For the record, I don't see the relevance in the medium that people use to communicate their messages and thoughts - it's pretty much as easy these days to self-publish a book as to use an online channel. I'm not particularly au fait with Wordpress myself, but isn't that just a way of creating a website? Are websites not, in themselves, merely a neutral means of communication? Just like there's oceans of rubbish spouted on Twitter, for example, but the government, police and royal family also use Twitter; so I don't see how the medium necessarily dictates the veracity or reliability of the message.

You doubtless think that I'm a brainless frother desperately looking for conspiracy in every single corner whilst it sounds to me like you see deviating from the official story on things as a pointless and misguided weakness. I don't claim to have all the answers on everything and, without wishing to cause offence, neither do I believe that you do.

....but I do really like your username

@LaurieFairyCake

*>

grin*

At least we know who they are now 😜

If there is a vast network then there is likely to be a cover-up, yes, that is logical

Then you have to produce credible evidence of the vast network, which you haven't done.

But it's probably best not to shame people who have experienced it.

I've done no such thing and you are being deliberately dishonest to suggest I'm shaming victims of child abuse. You and fellow conspiracy-theory touters co-opt the real abuse if victims into a meta narrative to further your own warped agenda.

You either know who started the pizzagate conspiracy and their backgrounds or you are so undiscerning about where you get your evidence from it is scary.

WeBuilt haha yes ,you do take a long way to get to the point, so briefly as I said, someone did it to stop him spilling the beans on others. I thought you were disputing it!

Yes - brevity is not my forte at the best of times, but you do have to be very careful what you say on threads like this!

FWIW, I personally surmise that Epstein, like Savile, was possibly more an enabler and 'fixer' than just a perpetrator. There are two main ways of protecting yourself in this respect: either act blamelessly or otherwise make sure that higher-profile people than yourself act thoroughly disgracefully - and that they know that you know what they're up to and can prove it.

I have a couple; they are a bit left field.

That the British government in the late 1940s decreased the lower parameters of what was considered to be a normal weight at different heights in order to cover up the impact of rationing upon the British populace, and these altered parameters are still part of our BMI measures today.

That the Wilson coup (that fizzled out) was prompted by evidence that the KGB had obtained inappropriate pictures of Wilson through a honeypot trap, and that Wilson had therefore become at risk of blackmail by the Soviets.

@Wartigen

Sophie Wessex’s are IVF.

Yes. I think so too, or at least with a turkey baster. It's highly likely. They did say that The Queen and Princess Margaret were conceived via a turkey baster because she would not sleep with Bertie.

Diana was murdered IMO.

I don't see how the medium necessarily dictates the veracity or reliability of the message.

To publish in an academic journal your work needs to be peer reviewed and properly sourced and referenced and meet certain standards.

Broadcasters are subject to a framework of standards and ethics and regulation by ofcom.

Newspapers in the UK are subject to the press complaints commission and are very likely to be sued if the libel someone. As such there is inbuilt caution in running with stories.

Obviously none of these are perfect and things that are misleading, inaccurate or just plain wrong do get published.

But the standards of evidence and proof are far higher than the wild west of blogs on the far flung corner of the internet.

Because we're all part of a vast network of satanic paedophiles and/or agents invested in a deep state cover-up?
Ironically, the only two people I have the misfortune of knowing who are vocal about pizzagate or QAnon are paedophiles.

It makes me wonder if they use it as means of networking in plain sight (though I'm sure most believes are run of the mill conspiracy theorists).

The thing with the pizza gate was that it was only ever used as a political weapon. Most social media commentators talking about pizza gate had no actual interest in anything else than to use it to slander anyone from the opposition. There are legitimate organisations trying to stop trafficking and child abuse, help support the victims and bring perpetrators to justice. Most child abuse happens closer to home but it doesn't make for such a good story than satanic rituals involving well known, powerful people. All from the opposing side of course...

@formerbabe

I don't believe Princess Diana's death was an accident.

Why not, given that she'd have survive if she had been wearing a seatbelt?

@FrankButchersDickieBow

Epstein was murdered Diana wasn't an accident Beyonce's pregnancy with Blue ivy was fake

Yes

@KathleenTurnerOverdrive thank you for taking the time to explain the difference between good research and bad.

It is bewildering to me that conspiracy theorists feel the 'truth-tellers' are ostracized from the research community because of vast networks of cover-ups.

No - the ostracism from the research community is exactly how the system is designed to work. Just as a bad builder would be de-registered from Master Builder's Associations, etc.

@Kljnmw3459 exactly.

@TravellingTilbury I wonder what you are doing about child sexual abuse in your own neighbourhood? Possibly it is occurring within your own family and friendship networks?

I also wonder - are you comfortable aligning yourself with conspiracy theories manufactured by groups who have a vested interest in keeping Trump - a white supremacist, sexual harasser and alleged rapist - in the White House?

@LulaMay17

Global warming is a fraud. The climate changes in cycles and if you actually look at the data you will see that we are heading into a grand solar minimum and that temperatures are going to drop significantly. Not a conspiracy but fact, however if you try to voice this you will very quickly get shut down.

It's far from certain that a grand solar minimum is going to happen, and even if it does, it will make very little difference to the climate. The warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than even cooling lasting for decades from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum. Global temperatures are affected by many more factors than variations in the Sun’s output, with greenhouse gases being the greatest of those.

by the time they sent him up the dogs had become pretty regular commuters

Why not, given that she'd have survive if she had been wearing a seatbelt?

Wearing a seatbelt would have greatly diminished her likelihood of death, but sadly, people who are wearing seatbelts do still sometimes die in car crashes.

Additionally, any or none of the following could have been the case: the seatbelt could have been faulty; somebody could have said "Here, let me do up your belt for you" and only pretended to; somebody could have discreetly unclipped it a second before the crash; somebody could have tampered with the belt so that it would break on impact.

Otherwise, any conspirators that there might have been could have factored in the knowledge that she never wore a belt (as I believe the Queen never does). As well as the possibility that somebody could have lied about the seatbelt and made sure that she died by other means.

If it were indeed a tragic accident (slightly hard to believe considering that somebody knowingly sent a driver who had been drinking) with no malice aforethought, then her not bothering/deciding to wear a seatbelt was overwhelmingly a major factor in her death. If, however, somebody had deliberately arranged for her to be killed - a purely wicked act - they could have done absolutely any number of wicked things to cause it, the seatbelt being only one of several possible variables.