Dubstepforum.com

Pistonsbeneath wrote:you are not following

i dont think anyone here thinks quite the way i do its odd

you are all responding to me as if im david icke even though ive repeatedly said i have a balanced view and dont preach at anyone

this says more about the need to put people and things in a box from the detractors and anti conspiracy theorist than about the conspiracy theorist

everyone btw sees things differently and independently until they become brainwashed by society which like it or not does happen...i wouldnt say still that everyone looks around and see the same shit were all having a unique experience like it or not

Hmmm. Sorry about seeming pissy man .

I agree with the brainwashing thing. Being an American in high school I'm exposed to the stupidity almost every day. The scariest thing is, everyone thinks they're right, so therefor, everyone else is wrong. It kills me when people can't see all sides of the story. That's where the real problem is, i think. Some people don't even know that parts of Africa are civilized, or has white people (that one makes me ).
A skewed world view is both one of the most common, and crippling things in my nation right now.
And i don't completely discount that type of stuff, btw. If evidence came out yesterday that looked legit, and i could check a few sources etc etc, i would totally be behind it. I'm just not convinced.....yet. Haha.

kay wrote:I think it might be the way you're saying it. It's coming across as quite antagonistic and defensive. That's probably not your intention though I gather.

Yeah, that's why i started bitching. Haha.

Pistons: I get that the conspiracies are possible, but so are a thousand explanations of every day events - why should we trust this set of "possible" stories and not the "possible" stories that, say, Hollywood sell? Most film plots are absolutely plausible... if you told them to a friend as truth, they might well believe you - it doesn't mean they are true.

That's the main problem most people have - it's not that we find the theories unbelievable, it's just due to the lack of any sort of empirical proof, they are just as likely to be works of fiction.

One of the documents central to a lot of these conspiracies - The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion - was a satirical hoax from the early 20th Century and has been verified as such... it has been adopted as a "real" document by various groups for over 100 years. That kind of failure to check sources is what makes people roll their eyes when NWO theories are brought up.

Also, as for our eyes being closed, you may notice from my responses that I've watched the videos and read the essays that have been posted. Numerous times over the years. However, when a thread like this comes up, I usually point people to a book that made me give up my last clingings to conspiracy theories (notable, the David Kelly stuff which I was very unsure about a couple of years ago):



But only one person has ever taken up the challenge and actually read it - he thanked me afterwards. It's a pretty easy read... took me 2 or 3 days on holiday the other year.

Who's the one with the eyes closed if I'm reading your sources, but you're not reading mine?


Edit: Also, I respond to every thread I find interesting too much... that's pretty par for the course. I'm not riled, I just like a good argument!

magma wrote:Pistons: I get that the conspiracies are possible, but so are a thousand explanations of every day events - why should we trust this set of "possible" stories and not the "possible" stories that, say, Hollywood sell? Most film plots are absolutely plausible... if you told them to a friend as truth, they might well believe you - it doesn't mean they are true.

That's the main problem most people have - it's not that we find the theories unbelievable, it's just due to the lack of any sort of empirical proof, they are just as likely to be works of fiction.

One of the documents central to a lot of these conspiracies - The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion - was a satirical hoax from the early 20th Century and has been verified as such... it has been adopted as a "real" document by various groups for over 100 years. That kind of failure to check sources is what makes people roll their eyes when NWO theories are brought up.

Also, as for our eyes being closed, you may notice from my responses that I've watched the videos and read the essays that have been posted. Numerous times over the years. However, when a thread like this comes up, I usually point people to a book that made me give up my last clingings to conspiracy theories (notable, the David Kelly stuff which I was very unsure about a couple of years ago):



But only one person has ever taken up the challenge and actually read it - he thanked me afterwards. It's a pretty easy read... took me 2 or 3 days on holiday the other year.

Who's the one with the eyes closed if I'm reading your sources, but you're not reading mine?


Edit: Also, I respond to every thread I find interesting too much... that's pretty par for the course. I'm not riled, I just like a good argument!

But you gatta look for it, and then you can't even torrent it. Haha.

But man's got a point. He pretty much summed up what i could say, a lot better.

JBoy wrote:

magma wrote:

Reese Liar wrote:

magma wrote:the "Green Man"

?????

He's an traditional British woodland god (something that should be absolutely unacceptable to monotheistic Christians!), once you've noticed him, you'll see him everywhere... most churches I've looked at have one somewhere.

Lots of early anglian churches had ancient symbols and features incorporated into them, the same how medieval churches have gargoyles. Thats a part of gothic architecture, not some hidden message or meaning. No doubt i'll be told how wrong i am.

Pagan symbolism can also be found in and around European churches because when Christianity was forced upon Pagan countries they often just converted the old religious sites into Christian ones similar to how Christian symbolism as a whole is largely based on Pagan/Judaic/Egyptian symbols.

magma wrote: One of the documents central to a lot of these conspiracies - The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion - was a satirical hoax from the early 20th Century and has been verified as such... it has been adopted as a "real" document by various groups for over 100 years. That kind of failure to check sources is what makes people roll their eyes when NWO theories are brought up.

this is the same for Holy Blood Holy Grail which I think someone mentioned earlier, too many facts unchecked or just made up

dat aint evidence
theory crumbles
like dried turd

im sorry the holy blood and the holy grail is made up?

so who told you that?

i have NEVER heard anything about it being made up..i've heard people say it was pseudo research but thats just from established historians that would have looked like dicks had they admitted any truth in their finds



it seems convenient for you to assume they were right

ive read the whole thing and its tied into a tv documentary series in the seventies...its basically research recorded

have you read it lloyd?

why do you think it was banned in so many countries?

The holy grail is one of those things that will remain undisputed forever.

EDIT: But anyone with any historical knowledge will know its all a tad far fetched and this isnt down to a few crusty historians unwilling to admit that theyre wrong, its fact. All the da vinci code nonsense has been discredited the world over.

wormcode wrote: Pagan symbolism can also be found in and around European churches because when Christianity was forced upon Pagan countries they often just converted the old religious sites into Christian ones similar to how Christian symbolism as a whole is largely based on Pagan/Judaic/Egyptian symbols.

That's called syncretism.

Hircine wrote:

wormcode wrote: Pagan symbolism can also be found in and around European churches because when Christianity was forced upon Pagan countries they often just converted the old religious sites into Christian ones similar to how Christian symbolism as a whole is largely based on Pagan/Judaic/Egyptian symbols.

That's called syncretism.

That's an accurate descriptor yes, but that goes for all contemporary religions really. It all stems from past influence.

On the subject of the holy grail that was brought up, no one is really sure what it could be. The most common belief is it's the cup that held the blood of Christ, but it gets even more interesting. There are descriptions of its power that link it to radiation, which is where people conjured up the idea of it being an alien artifact. Then there's those who believe it is only information, not physical.

I'm interested in Oak Island in Canada because it's thought to be one of the places that might contain the 'grail' or more likely something like the crown jewels. Either way the Oak Island 'money pit' is another source of big conspiracies since no one can manage to get down there without traps sabotaging them.

I don't know, to me it seems incredibly simple minded to group all conspiracy theories together and decide that neither of them could possibly be true, or on the other hand that since those in power tend to lie to protect their interests, all of them must be true.

That said, in my estimation history has definitely shown that power tends to corrupt, and that those in power have again and again been willing to go to almost inconceivable lengths in order to cut down their supposed opposition and maintain or expand their power base.

Look at 9-11 for example: as PNAC shows there's definitely elements within the US/Israeli/Western establishment with the means, motive and opportunity to pull it off as a false flag. To discard that possibility automatically before even ever having read their report or checked their background seems at the very least naive to me.

read Cosmic Trigger

Pistonsbeneath wrote:im sorry the holy blood and the holy grail is made up?

so who told you that?

have you read it lloyd?

I'm not lloyd, but I've read it twice - once in 6th form and once just after I'd read Voodoo Histories. Both times I enjoyed reading it, actually...

A lot of it was made up though... well, not necessarily made up, but they were brilliant and introducing a "possibility" or "hypothesis" early in a paragraph and then using it as if it were fact by the end. It allowed them to sculpt tiny coincidences and doubts into massive over-arching plot lines. Incredibly entertaining stuff, tbh... the genre is a lot like science fiction in that they're ruthless about keeping themselves plausible whilst telling the most salacious story possible. It's an amazing craft really... if they knowingly sold it as "historo-fiction" or something, they'd get a lot more respect, love and probably even cash. Though they have made a LOT of cash. Including from me.

It's a very good book, I've learnt a lot from it. But, there are indeed a lot of hypotheses which are cunningly presented as fact.

Bollocks.

kay wrote:It's a very good book, I've learnt a lot from it. But, there are indeed a lot of hypotheses which are cunningly presented as fact.

right the way through they even say when things arent 100% its an honest research documentary

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

kay wrote:It's a very good book, I've learnt a lot from it. But, there are indeed a lot of hypotheses which are cunningly presented as fact.

right the way through they even say when things arent 100% its an honest research documentary

Which means we're allowed to question some of the things they say, yes?

i think saying made up is stretching it a bit to say the least

whose we?

are you not speaking for yourself?

What are you even arguing about? The whole 'holy grail' bullshit is just some modern fascination like the loch ness monster.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i think saying made up is stretching it a bit to say the least

Ok, I hypothesise that a lot of it's made up. My posts are a "factual documentary" on that book... I read it, and I'm giving you my opinion.

I guess I'll get ignored again (seems to have been happening since I started breaking down the vids...) , but seeing as I've read/watched your sources (this one multiple times), would you consider reading the one I posted just once? You have nothing to fear/lose if you don't think it can change your mind. If it can change your mind, you might be glad of it.

I'll even lend you a copy if you don't want to give money to the publisher/writer beforehand. .. but surely an "open mind" reads both sides before picking one?

@jboy thats a bit of an assumption and totally not relevant