Conspiracy theory subscription

Do you subsribe to one or more conspiracy theories?


  • Total voters
    95
Just watching the film, you would conclude the bullet came from the front and to the right (coincidentally leading straight to the grassy knoll). I'm really interested in hearing someone explain to me why that is. I'm not into the conspiracy theory at all, but I was shocked when I watched the film that I am suppose to believe the final shot was delivered from the back.

Let's not forget, he's in a car. Perhaps the driver tapped the gas.
 
But still: a conspiracy to murder someone is conceivable. So I don't completely disregard any JFK theory, though some solid evidence would be nice.

But a group of reptilian bankers blowing up the world trade centre in order to implant RFID chips in everybody so they gain full control over the world... that's too much for me.
 
But still: a conspiracy to murder someone is conceivable. So I don't completely disregard any JFK theory, though some solid evidence would be nice.

But a group of reptilian bankers blowing up the world trade centre in order to implant RFID chips in everybody so they gain full control over the world... that's too much for me.
Which is exactly what they want you to think.
 
Can someone please explain to me why JFK's head moved back and to the left when when he suffered the final shot? Forget the magic bullet theory, I mean, if no one told me Oswald shot at Kennedy from behind and all I saw was Zapruder's film showing Kennedy's head snapping back and to the left, I or anyone else would logically conclude the bullet was shot from the front.

It's actually the equal and opposite reactions (those damn phyiscs) the bullet hits and then penetrates and blasts through taking out a big chunk at the exit wound. The act of the initial impact makes all the blood and brain slosh in the direction it came from. Very yucky, but it was terrible.

BTW, I'm no expert on this, but this is what I understand from what I've read. Also, he turned before the fatal shot, he didn't sit perfectly still after being shot and the other action happening. There has been lots of misinfomation and misunderstanding about this. Some people say Oswald wasn't a good shooter but his marksmanship record from the Marines says otherwise. There's lots of strange things surrounding this.
 
I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I am willing to admit that the influence of power elites is greater than it seems. My mother doesn't make the distinction; I do.
 
JFK was shot the second time by the driver of the car, as seen in the film where the driver turns around with a gun in his left hand, shoots then turns back around and drives off.

Roswell was a cover up, UFO's exist and have been visiting the earth since the dawn of man. They probably have helped great leaders throughout history.

Religion is based on worshiping said aliens.
 
Carmen... is that why OBL wanted McCain as Prez?
I think the whole WMD Iraq thing, the gov knew it was BS, hell they probably fabricated it, they knew 9/11 (learned in August) was going to happen but they exploited it for war against Iraq, Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq since '92.
 
They want me to think? Oh boy! They never let me do that at university! This is one cool conspiracy, where can I sign up?
Different university to me, they like me thinking all the time there. School, now that was different...

To answer your question, apparently the University of Western Sydney is under reptilian control.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory - Wow, that is a crap wiki page (its where OP got his quote form)

A Conspiracy (or believed Conspiracy) does not = Conspiracy theory. A Conspiracy theory refers to things like 9/11 was a inside job, the moon landing was faked, the NWO, or the fed was made by bankers to control America.
:confused: What is the difference? If a conspiracy exists but is not known then you have a conspiracy theory.

The Fed wasn't created by bankers to control America?
 
The Fed wasn't created by bankers to control America?

This is a joke, right? The big bankers (J.P. Morgan in particular) opposed the Fed as it stands; prior to the establishment of the Fed, there were a few large banks which acted as private "central banks" of the U.S. The Federal Reserve deprived them of their previous ability to set American monetary policy, placing it under indirect government control, and membership in such a system was sufficiently onerous for the banks that they had to be required to join.
 
Carbon dioxide causing global warming is not supported by mainstream scientist. the only people that believe that Carbon dioxide cause global warming are narcissistic people living in the west, that feel good about themselves becuase developing countries have bought into the idea of global warming,which is preventing them from building a coal fired power station which is the key to industrialization.

I just hope one day developing countries just ignore these Greenpeace Wackos.
 
Carbon dioxide causing global warming is not supported by mainstream scientist. the only people that believe that Carbon dioxide cause global warming are narcissistic people living in the west, that feel good about themselves becuase developing countries have bought into the idea of global warming,which is preventing them from building a coal fired power station which is the key to industrialization.

I just hope one day developing countries just ignore these Greenpeace Wackos.

Warrants, please, especially for the bolded section. Otherwise, this quote consists of nothing but lies, misconceptions, and verbal abuse.

P.S. Learn proper grammar and punctuation.
 
Lockesdonkey: This global warming crisis is much like the 'Global Cooling' crisis of the '70s, where many people were convinced with scientific evidence that carbon dioxide was cooling the atmosphere and would plunge the world into the next Ice Age.

Of course, that didn't happen.

As for my view on this, I believe we should still eliminate carbon emissions solely for aesthetic and health purposes.
 
No, the evidence in the 1970s was far from as conclusive as it is today, and I'd say the mainstream scientific opinion was that they were unsure what effect was possible. They had theories that both global warming and global cooling were possible, and weren't sure which one. One thing that was proposed back then and pretty much accepted today, which you may be confusing, is nuclear winter. But as far as carbon dioxide, they knew they needed more research and evidence and back then I highly doubt most scientists would call it a confirmed theory. The good thing about science is that after decades of collecting new evidence, monitoring the climate and the like we do have the ability to recognize and combat global warming today.
 
Top Bottom