Faked moon landings in 1967 JFK - no way one man working alone Gulf war syndrome 9/11 was a few Arabs and the CIA/FBI knew nothing
didnt we have that discussion before? you failed to understand what i was saying the question was 'Is there any that you believe aren't just theories?' to which i listed a few 'conspiracy theories' and answered the question by basically saying that the truth is somewhere in between the spread of hiv/aids as a naturally occuring disease v a lab created one exists global warming, whilst occurring, has its conspiracy theories on the causes and the political attention. some scientists arguing its all us some saying its a natural process that occurs, some saying its not happening as i said the TRUTH is PROBABLY in between somewhere
The AIDS stuff is quite interesting although, if I can be a pedant, Toby - AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. One hole I might pick in the "AIDS as a de-population tool" theory is that, if you want to reduce population, why target gay guys that won't procreate? Why not target straight, fertile people? Never knew anything about Denver International Airport until now so I just looked it up I've seen some shady decor in airports but that is something else
My answer was to you saying HIV/AIDS was a conspiracy theory. They still don't know where it came from or how it was made, so how can you say 'the truth is somewhere in between'? Global Warming is happening, there's ****loads of evidence for it, will be happy to argue The bit in bold is a massive cop-out
Global Warming is a lot of pish. The Sun's and Earth's climate work in Cycles, there have been Ice Ages before, there will be Ice Ages again. JFK got smoked by a magic bullet that changed direction several times. Humans have NOT landed on the Moon. The Giza Pyramid was built by an Advanced Human Civilization. Advanced Human Civilizations have been on this planet before.
Yeah, mostly the 'scientists' working for giant American energy companies. Climate change conspiracy is like the cigarettes campaign that happened in America from the 1950s to the 1970s. So called scientists being paid by large tobacco companies produced plenty of evidence that cigerettes didn't damage people's health. The same thing happened with lead in petrol. Now we have scientists who are either directly or indirectly funded by American industry telling us that climate change is a naturally occuring event (which is not what the argument is about) or it simply isn't happening. One suspects that our children and grandchildren will look upon these claims in the same way that we look at the claims of scientists in the 1950s about smoking being good for your health.
It's more complicated than that, it's not that it's changing, it's the speed of the change and the distance we are from the sun. It's happening
Aye, but it's a big con to make us pay more in taxes Just thought I'd put it out there before someone else does.
i agree with you actually, but the examples you cite are the reason i say its something in between scientists sway the way the money is
How do the examples I cite lead to you conclude that it's somewhere in between? Are you suggesting that it's not clear cigarettes are bad for your health or that putting lead in petrol doesn't cause all manner of physiological problems? As for your last point: there's a damn sight more money in the oil industry than there is an some dusty old university department where you rely on government grants to fund research.
i can see why it took you 6 years to get your degree read the question posed understand the question posed read the response understand the response or are you saying there are no CT around aids/hiv?
The question was: Conspiracy Theories, are there any you believe aren't just theories? How does HIV/AIDS fit into that?
well there was people who were saying cigarettes are bad for you when scientists were saying its good for you, the money men wanted this message reinforcing and thats what got pushed. the against were 'conspiracy theorists' look at mobile phones, the money is getting used to prove no damage occurs, will you be suprised if in 50 years its proven that it does? as for the money issue, look at how much money the tobacco industry spends on anti-smoking messages and into research that its bad for you. it doesnt make sense but they are spending millions
