The Greatest Conspiracy Theories in History

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

bsman00

First off, it's not meant to debunk them. Second, they have been debunked; the article doesn't even need to do it.

The 9/11 thing still gets me. I'd largely forgetten about until I watched zeitguist again recently.

As much as I don't see enough reason behind it for the government (or someone else) to do it - I just can't get over some of the most basic facts infront of my eyes. Like the manner in how the buildings came down.

And the pentagon thing - why did they steal the footage and never release it to show what happened. Really doesn't look like a plane hit it. (But then if no plane hit it, we must either be still missing a plane???)

[QUOTE="bsman00"]

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

Theokhoth

First off, it's not meant to debunk them. Second, they have been debunked; the article doesn't even need to do it.

9/11 and some parts of JFK.

And the possibilty Osama is in Area 51, and not Roswell. 

[QUOTE="bsman00"]

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

Theokhoth

First off, it's not meant to debunk them. Second, they have been debunked; the article doesn't even need to do it.

So you would not mine taking pure flouride? because after all its good for you.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bsman00"]

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

bsman00

First off, it's not meant to debunk them. Second, they have been debunked; the article doesn't even need to do it.

So you would not mine taking pure flouride? because after all its good for you.

You're not supposed to swallow flouride.:| And it never says that it's good for you; it just prevents tooth decay, which has also been shown in studies.

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

bsman00

Mice are not humans. For one, mice are much smaller than humans and the fluorine would be much more concentrated in them. Secondly, toothpaste has a large amount of fluorine, anything is a poison in a large enough dose.

They didn't mention the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

They fail, and I think I have given Theo enough entertainment for about a year.

They use "facts" and "experiments" to disprove the "theory" of a round earth.

You're not supposed to swallow flouride.:| And it never says that it's good for you; it just prevents tooth decay, which has also been shown in studies.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="bsman00"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

First off, it's not meant to debunk them. Second, they have been debunked; the article doesn't even need to do it.

Theokhoth

So you would not mine taking pure flouride? because after all its good for you.

You're not supposed to swallow flouride.:| And it never says that it's good for you; it just prevents tooth decay, which has also been shown in studies.

Ok your not supposed to swallow fluoride... ok... And we know there is fluoride in our tap water, yes i understand its good for teeth but bad for my body....

So drinking fluoride can damage your body over time.... i was not making the mice experiment up in my previous post..

Ok your not supposed to swallow fluoride... ok... And we know there is fluoride in our tap water, yes i understand its good for teeth but bad for my body....

So drinking fluoride can damage your body over time.... i was not making the mice experiment up in my previous post..

bsman00

The conspiracy isn't fluoride in tap water. . . .the conspiracy is that it is intentionally placed there in order to "dumb down" the masses.

The greatest conspiracy theory of them all: The US government puts fluoride in your drinking water!

Oh wait, they actually do.

[QUOTE="bsman00"]

Well they say fluoride is good for you? They did a test in mice and put the same amount of fluoride thats in our water equivalent to what we drink, and it showed in the 5th to 6th generation mice could not reproduce, and why would there be a poison control number in the back of your toothpaste if you swallow to much?

And i like how they just show the conspiracy but dont debunk them... they are just assuming people who believe them are crazy

metroidfood

Mice are not humans. For one, mice are much smaller than humans and the fluorine would be much more concentrated in them. Secondly, toothpaste has a large amount of fluorine, anything is a poison in a large enough dose.

i new i could not word that right.... the experiment was... the amount of fluoride in our water, they lowered it down for the mice to match there body weight

Here's a good video about conspiracy theories.

[QUOTE="bsman00"]

Ok your not supposed to swallow fluoride... ok... And we know there is fluoride in our tap water, yes i understand its good for teeth but bad for my body....

So drinking fluoride can damage your body over time.... i was not making the mice experiment up in my previous post..

Theokhoth

The conspiracy isn't fluoride in tap water. . . .the conspiracy is that it is intentionally placed there in order to "dumb down" the masses.

Yes this is correct, and also the mecury persevative they use in vaccines our vaccines dumbs us down also. If you have not noticed the national iq is lower than it use to be.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bsman00"]

Ok your not supposed to swallow fluoride... ok... And we know there is fluoride in our tap water, yes i understand its good for teeth but bad for my body....

So drinking fluoride can damage your body over time.... i was not making the mice experiment up in my previous post..

bsman00

The conspiracy isn't fluoride in tap water. . . .the conspiracy is that it is intentionally placed there in order to "dumb down" the masses.

Yes this is correct, and also the mecury persevative they use in vaccines our vaccines dumbs us down also. If you have not noticed the national iq is lower than it use to be.

[QUOTE="bsman00"] Not all animal testing applies directly to humans.. [QUOTE="bsman00"]

The conspiracy isn't fluoride in tap water. . . .the conspiracy is that it is intentionally placed there in order to "dumb down" the masses.

DeeJayInphinity

Yes this is correct, and also the mecury persevative they use in vaccines our vaccines dumbs us down also. If you have not noticed the national iq is lower than it use to be.

Really so what do they use now as the preservative?....

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="bsman00"]

Ok your not supposed to swallow fluoride... ok... And we know there is fluoride in our tap water, yes i understand its good for teeth but bad for my body....

So drinking fluoride can damage your body over time.... i was not making the mice experiment up in my previous post..

bsman00

The conspiracy isn't fluoride in tap water. . . .the conspiracy is that it is intentionally placed there in order to "dumb down" the masses.

Yes this is correct, and also the mecury persevative they use in vaccines our vaccines dumbs us down also. If you have not noticed the national iq is lower than it use to be.

God damn, your Jessica Alba sig is annoying.

Either way, none of the nordic countries has water fluoridation, as there has not been conducted any conclusive studies that show the benefits of adding fluoride to our drinking water. In addition to the possible health risks, somewhere in Asia there was a study of two villages, one had naturally added fluoride in the water, about 50% more than what they add in the US, and one had not.

The village with fluoride showed decreasing iq from generation to generation, while the other village stayed the same. It appeared that infants was affected the most.

I have been reading about the "Shakespeare was somebody else" theorie.

The topic is intresting to say the least. 

I don't understand why you the TC laugh of the people who believe in this. Imo it is just like any other belief system, they believe in something, and devout their life to it, just like you belive in god, and Christianity and devout your life to it.

As with religion, some are blinded by faith, and neglect any information that doesn't suit their perception of reality. Those people, we refer to as, ignorant. TC, are you ignorant?

I wonder which, if any, of these conspiracies are true.

I personally do not think the moon landing happened, but I do not have any evidence to support what I believe. That is just a personal belief of mine.

paul macartney died in a car crash in 1966.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead most likely BS but theirs defo something in it. whether the beatles did it as a hoax... maybe

I wonder which, if any, of these conspiracies are true.

I personally do not think the moon landing happened, but I do not have any evidence to support what I believe. That is just a personal belief of mine.

clayron

[QUOTE="clayron"]

I wonder which, if any, of these conspiracies are true.

I personally do not think the moon landing happened, but I do not have any evidence to support what I believe. That is just a personal belief of mine.

Greatgone12

What about circumstantial evidence? 

[QUOTE="Greatgone12"][QUOTE="clayron"]

I wonder which, if any, of these conspiracies are true.

I personally do not think the moon landing happened, but I do not have any evidence to support what I believe. That is just a personal belief of mine.

LikeHaterade

What about circumstantial evidence? 

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"][QUOTE="Greatgone12"]Here's the thing: if you do NOT have any evidence supporting what you believe (or rather, what you don't), but there is evidence supporting the contrary, then why do you believe it in the first place? Greatgone12

What about circumstantial evidence? 

Circumstantial evidence is what is used for the New World Order conspiracy, along with many others that people are called crazy for believing.  So what's your opinion on the NWO conspiracy, along with others that are based off circumstantial evidence? I'm not saying that it's hard evidence, but still evidence and can lead one to assume something.

Circumstantial evidence is what is used for the New World Order conspiracy, along with many others that people are called crazy for believing.  So what's your opinion on the NWO conspiracy, along with others that are based off circumstantial evidence? I'm not saying that it's hard evidence, but still evidence and can lead one to assume something.

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Circumstantial evidence is what is used for the New World Order conspiracy, along with many others that people are called crazy for believing.  So what's your opinion on the NWO conspiracy, along with others that are based off circumstantial evidence? I'm not saying that it's hard evidence, but still evidence and can lead one to assume something.

Greatgone12

Particular past quotes from certain members of government including the president pertaining to the Federal Reserve Act, the fact that the Federal Reserve is a shady, private organization run by international bankers(unelected officials) that has complete control of the US government's money supply, NAFTA, speeches given about New World Order from prominant members of the government, discussion and statements from other countries speaking of an international, central-banking system along with a single international currency. There are different levels of believing it. Some believe that the bloodline of the Bovarian Illuminati has been continuing and that bloodline today consists of these bankers, while others just refer to it as some type of NeoIlluminati. Or others just look to it as a group of evil guys trying to take over the world. So while there are different levels on the belief system of the NWO conspiracy theory, the circumstantial evidence is there. 

EDIT: Also the real ID Act for a national identification card with an RFID tracking chip planted inside the card. 

[QUOTE="clayron"]

I wonder which, if any, of these conspiracies are true.

I personally do not think the moon landing happened, but I do not have any evidence to support what I believe. That is just a personal belief of mine.

Greatgone12

Well, from what I understand there is no absolute evidence to support the supposed fact "We landed on the moon." Now, I do not completely discredit it but I chose not to believe it because I have heard good arguments for why we may not have landed on the moon and at the same time I have heard great arguments for why me most certainly have. Based on the arguments I have heard, and the little evidence I have seen on both sides (I do not care enough about this to dive into the world of "Did we land on the moon"?), I choose not to believe in the moon landing.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Could I be right? Absolutely. But until I take myself to the moon and see a set of footprints and an American Flag with my own eyes, as I am quite skeptical of most of the things in this world, I will believe that we have not landed on the moon.

Side note: Evidence that supports the contrary of a belief is not always a good basis on which to place one's beliefs. I will try to use a crude, archaic example to convey my point. Think of the old belief that the world use to be flat. If my history is correct, this was a widely held belief of many intellectuals at the time. Now, if you think about this belief it make a bit of sense why someone would think this, back then. If you look out at the ocean far enough it just drops out. We know the earth is round and that is why this happens. But I digress, there was a ton of evidence to support the earth being flat (writing, science, consensus, ancient wikipedia (joke) though nothing outstandingly empirical). Now, when Pythagoras, and several others, came along showing undisputable evidence to the contrary it still took people some time to finally accept the belief. He had to compete with evidence that supported the contrary to his belief. Had he just accepted the evidence that supported the contrary to his belief where would we be today? What we have in our case, you and I, is that unlike Pythagoras, who had really good evidence, there is no undisputable evidence that we have landed on the moon. If you are willing to provide me evidence that no reasonable person can dispute then I would be willing to say I was wrong.

Does this example convey my point adequately?

Well, from what I understand there is no absolute evidence to support the supposed fact "We landed on the moon." Now, I do not completely discredit it but I chose not to believe it because I have heard good arguments for why we may not have landed on the moon and at the same time I have heard great arguments for why me most certainly have. Based on the arguments I have heard, and the little evidence I have seen on both sides (I do not care enough about this to dive into the world of "Did we land on the moon"?), I choose not to believe in the moon landing.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Could I be right? Absolutely. But until I take myself to the moon and see a set of footprints and an American Flag with my own eyes, as I am quite skeptical of most of the things in this world, I will believe that we have not landed on the moon.

Side note: Evidence that supports the contrary of a belief is not always a good basis on which to place one's beliefs. I will try to use a crude, archaic example to convey my point. Think of the old belief that the world use to be flat. If my history is correct, this was a widely held belief of many intellectuals at the time. Now, if you think about this belief it make a bit of sense why someone would think this, back then. If you look out at the ocean far enough it just drops out. We know the earth is round and that is why this happens. But I digress, there was a ton of evidence to support the earth being flat (writing, science, consensus, ancient wikipedia (joke) though nothing outstandingly empirical). Now, when Pythagoras, and several others, came along showing undisputable evidence to the contrary it still took people some time to finally accept the belief. He had to compete with evidence that supported the contrary to his belief. Had he just accepted the evidence that supported the contrary to his belief where would we be today? What we have in our case, you and I, is that unlike Pythagoras, who had really good evidence, there is no undisputable evidence that we have landed on the moon. If you are willing to provide me evidence that no reasonable person can dispute then I would be willing to say I was wrong.

Does this example convey my point adequately?

clayron

paul macartney died in a car crash in 1966.

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_is_dead most likely BS but theirs defo something in it. whether the beatles did it as a hoax... maybe

doobie1975

lol..... just like how bill hicks is alex jones conspiracy..... but i would think half of the people on GS dont even know alex jones

Particular past quotes from certain members of government including the president pertaining to the Federal Reserve Act, the fact that the Federal Reserve is a shady, private organization run by international bankers(unelected officials) that has complete control of the US government's money supply, NAFTA, speeches given about New World Order from prominant members of the government, discussion and statements from other countries speaking of an international, central-banking system along with a single international currency. There are different levels of believing it. Some believe that the bloodline of the Bovarian Illuminati has been continuing and that bloodline today consists of these bankers, while others just refer to it as some type of NeoIlluminati. Or others just look to it as a group of evil guys trying to take over the world. So while there are different levels on the belief system of the NWO conspiracy theory, the circumstantial evidence is there. 

EDIT: Also the real ID Act for a national identification card with an RFID tracking chip planted inside the card. 

LikeHaterade

1.) In order for this to be true, you would have to assume that EVERYBODY in EVERY government IN THE ENTIRE WORLD would have to agree with a NWO. 

2.) Please, be a bit vaguer.

[QUOTE="LikeHaterade"]

Particular past quotes from certain members of government including the president pertaining to the Federal Reserve Act, the fact that the Federal Reserve is a shady, private organization run by international bankers(unelected officials) that has complete control of the US government's money supply, NAFTA, speeches given about New World Order from prominant members of the government, discussion and statements from other countries speaking of an international, central-banking system along with a single international currency. There are different levels of believing it. Some believe that the bloodline of the Bovarian Illuminati has been continuing and that bloodline today consists of these bankers, while others just refer to it as some type of NeoIlluminati. Or others just look to it as a group of evil guys trying to take over the world. So while there are different levels on the belief system of the NWO conspiracy theory, the circumstantial evidence is there. 

EDIT: Also the real ID Act for a national identification card with an RFID tracking chip planted inside the card. 

Greatgone12

1.) In order for this to be true, you would have to assume that EVERYBODY in EVERY government IN THE ENTIRE WORLD would have to agree with a NWO. 

2.) Please, be a bit vaguer.

No you wouldn't. If the New World Order actually did exsist, it could benefit corporate-interest, and many politicians have been bought and paid for. And it isn't like it would happen all at once. Many countries are already for a centralized international banking system. If the superpowers agree, it could be established. Everyone else would have to jump on the bandwagon.

Hmmmm.....interesting read. I was largely unaware of the number of hoaxes there are. I was impressed this gentleman went through all of them. I tip my hat to him.

I was skeptical of the article; even though, his arguments made good sense. It was not until I read this,

Who should you trust?

If you have a toothache you go to a dentist; if you have legal problems you consult a lawyer....

and this,

My Qualifications.

My name is Robert A. Braeunig and I earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Cincinnati in 1981. My formal university education includes such subjects as Astronomy, Physics, Statics, Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, Soil Mechanics, Geology, Chemistry, Structural Analysis, and Electrical Networks. I have received training in the basics of Photography with emphasis on exposure control. I have been an avid amateur astronomer since 1989, having served as both president and vice-president of the Birmingham (Alabama) Astronomical Society. In additional to my formal training, I am self-taught in the basic principles of Orbital Mechanics and Rocket Propulsion.

Ok, so I will admit he has quite a compelling argument, the best I have ever heard, and he covers everything that is the moon landing. As of now, I have no reason to question the moon landing, I honestly can not find a reason that he did not cover.

 You win.

I love conspiracies :P

That thing you say about the USA government wanting to make the american population dumber is just stupid. Think about it. The future president of the USA, the future FIB officer, the future CIA boss is now somewhere in your country drinking tap water. The future scientists and engineers of your country are amongyou, why would they make everyone dumber? That's plain stupid if you ask me. Unless you're insinuating that the people in charge don't think they'll need a decent succession.

The "AIDS" one is just too awful for me to believe. But since we are conspirying what if the "AIDS" virus was aimed to exterminate the homossexuals? The HIV virus was first associated with the homossexual population and Haiti, because gay americans would go to this country looking for sex with male prostitutes. Again, I'm just conspirying.

The "Moon landing" one is a good one too. I would easily believe that one. Why haven't we returned to the moon in so many years? And those photos...hmm....

Personally, the 9/11 one is a very strong one. Mainly because the guys behind conspiracy movies give us more evidence to support the conspiracy than the one given by the USA government all this time. And i do think that there are people in this world capable of such ugly things. Don't get me wrong, i think it had nothing to do with Bush, he was a puppet. A country like the USA can't stand a president change every 8 years, there must be someone acting from behing the curtain (just my 2 cents on this matter).

But for me, the biggest conspiracy is and will be the Christianity. It's not that there isn't a god (it might or not, i'll wait for evidence), just not this god who wants money and burns those who are against him (history). And with so much of this religion being a complete copy of past religions, i don't now. And please, keep in mind that the bible was written by man before giving me that argument.

Its better to have an open mind than being an anti-conspiracy nut.Yongying