Talk:List of conspiracy theories/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

General[edit]

Good page, i don't know if we have this info elsewhere. WE can link to articles and start creating them.--PalMD-yada yada 16:53, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

For the Icke and LaRouche entries, should we mention the possibility that the "lizards" and "conspiracy" are possibly code words for "Jews"? I don't actually think they are -- I think Icke and LaRouche really are this crazy -- but I think I'm in the minority on that at least in Icke's case. On the other hand, the lizards are a lot funnier. --jtltalk 23:56, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Go ahead and mention it if you like, but I've always got the impression that when Icke talks about extradimensional lizard-people, he means 'extradimensional lizard-people'. (BTW, if you ever get a chance to read a book called "THEM: Adventures with Extremists", it's got a very funny recounting of an attempt to hit Icke in the face with a pie for being anti-semitic that makes the protestors sound crazier than he does. And it's a good read in general.) --Gulik 00:46, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
Is that the Jon Ronson book? I've either read it or heard him reading from it / telling stories that led to it. Or both or all three. yeah, I'll leave it -- I agree with you about Icke really meaning lizards.
For a few years in the early/mid 90s, my mother was on both the John Birch Society and Lyndon Larouche mailing lists (no, you don't have to be crazy to get their mail). My word, those were fun years. --jtltalk 00:58, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

We have no article named conspiracy theory, and yet we have a list? I like the list, it's funny as well, but shouldn't we describe them in the aforementioned article name (it's likely to be, and is linked to elsewhere)? humanbe in 21:42, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


Bush deliberately lied to get the US to invade Iraq.[edit]

I see this is listed under "conspiracy theory". I'm not from the US so I can't say, but is this valid? Should we perhaps have a new category "Incompetence Theory"?--Bob_M (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

The "deliberately" part pushes it into the realm of conspiracy. ("You know your country's in good hands when lethal incompetence is the excuse rather than the accusation.") --Gulik 16:09, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Remember to separate "conspiracy" from "conspiracy theory". Whether or not you think the Bushies "conspired", the topic is up for argument. I think it is reasonable to debate whether there is a conspiracy, but there is not, as far as I know, some well-developed traditional conspiracy theory to go with this. Prob. doesn't belong.--PalMD-yada yada 16:12, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Strawman conspiracy theories[edit]

The word conspiracy theory is tossed around and mischaracterized for some reason (conspiracy?) But, seriously, some of these conspiracy theories are very interesting, though they are inadequately worded in here.

What you need to understand, if you want to study conspiracy theories, is:

  1. Conspiracies do happen.
  2. While investigating possible conspiracies, the investigator must posit a conpsiracy theory.
  3. Some conpsiracies theories are actually intentional disinformation (conspiracy to promote bogus conpsiracy theories). E.g., intelligence agaencies to criminals will sometimes attempt to create traction for ultimately demonstrably false conspiracies.

In any event, here are some recommendations:

Article text Problem
The Moon Landing was a hoax. This is not a scientific conspiracy. Technological perhaps.
All scientists are trying to foist the false theory of Evolution on the public at the behest of Satan. Okay, remove satan, and you have a strawman conspiracy theory.
All scientists and politicians are trying to cover up cold fusion The use of the word "All" makes this a strawman conspiracy theory.
John Hinckley, Jr. had been brainwashed into trying to assassinate Ronald Reagan, at the behest of George Herbert Walker Bush. The case of the Kinckleys and the Bushes does make very interesting coincidence theory.
Bush deliberately lied to get the US to invade Iraq Strawman. Bush isn't that smart.
The Reagan campaign made a deal with the Iranian government not to release the hostages until after Reagan was elected President. Is this theory or fact? Reagan was still the best U.S. president ever.
Shortly before 9/11, "someone" shorted airline stocks and made a fortune. Strawman. Many people did. Many never claimed their fortunes.
The Federal Reserve deliberately causes recessions. Hmn. Never heard of this one.
There is a huge, organized conspiracy of Satan-worshippers practicing mass rape and sacrifice of small children. Strawman. There is a large organized ongoing enterprise to do such things, though.
The Jews secretly run everything. No they don't. Many of the best and brightest Jews do work with those who run everything.
RobS worships Bobby Fisher. This is just plain mean.
TK actually lives in San Jose. Ditto.
There Is A Cabal Conspiracy fact.

That's enough for now. HeartGold tx 20:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

In response to Cabal: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." David Rockefeller's "Memoirs" Page 405. Look it up. Don't take my word for it. We're so stupid and they even put it in a book they wrote and people haven't even picked up on it. Pathetic.
The fact you say the federal reserve doesn't cause recessions, and the fact you don't know about the cabal tells me you don't have a clue about conspiracies, so the question beckons, why are you editing this article?
PS Two weeks before 9/11, bomb sniffing dogs that regularly sniffed the towers were removed by GWB's brother who was running the place at the time. — Unsigned, by: 72.70.11.16 / talk / contribs on 2 Oct 2010
Hiya HG, nice to see you around. I'm not quite sure what some of your point above is, although I think I get the first part - some conspiracy theories are theories about real conspiracies, while other deviate gently to the asymptote of lunacy? Anyway, some quick comments on your list, if I may?

1. Good point, but to most lay people, scientists and technology are interchangeable. 2. You mean by strawman, that it mocks Satan-haters? (skipping a few, that fact that the theory is absurd is exactly the point) 3. Theory or fact? Wow. I worry that it is a fact, and that makes me a conspiracy theorist. (skipping) 4. Sacrificing children... hey, Welcome to the Dollhouse! Pull up a goat... 5. Jews run everything - of course they don't. That's why it's a conspiracy theory - at the loony end of the graph. 6. There is no cabal.

Just some comments, as I said. humanbe in 21:48, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
It's 'There Is No Cabal', human. Note the capitalisation. The statement 'there is a cabal' (no caps) is true; the Special Discussion Group, for example, is a cabal. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

From the Office of The Cabal[edit]

The Cabal met today and agreed that the following message should be widely disseminated: "There Is No Cabal". That is all. -- CabalMole 13:03 27 June 2007

dubious entries[edit]

I cut these two but brought them here for discussion:

  • Watergate breakins
  • Richard Nixon's Enemies List

Reasons - the "conspiracies" are not explained. There was a break in at the Watergate, which led eventually to coverups and Nixon's resignation. Nixon did have an enemies list. At that level, they were genuine conspiracies, and not fodder for consipiracy theorists. Unless there is something the person who put them in wanted to say about them that is not part of the "official story". Like, say, a promise of a pardon for Nixon prior to nomination as VP by Gerald Ford. humanbe in 14:51, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree with you. If anybody wants to put them back they should include an article which describes whatever conspiracy is alleged to exist. (My word, an alleged conspiracy theory. Takes us even further from reality.)--Bob_M (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
I think I figured out what was meant by the Enemies List one. The "theorists" were RMN and his close aides. The "conspiracy" was that the people on "the list" were a cabal attempting to undermine or overthrow everything that was Good and American in he eyes of the "theorists".
Perhaps something similar is meant by the WG breakin one - the POTUS/CREEP thought there was some grand conspiracy at DNH they would uncover by busting into the files? As far a I remember the story, though, supposedly they were mostly seeking a tactical advantage of knowing what the Dems had planned. humanbe in 13:35, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

What about the one (missing punctuation, I noticed) that states "Jesus did not exist at all"? I mean, there's no historical or extrabiblical evidence of the Jesus of the Bible, though many scholars have postulated that the "Jesus Christ" figure is an amalgamation of multiple Jewish teachers of the time. Just wondering if this entry is a matter of trolling/vandalism, or legit & simply insufficiently explained.72.94.21.217 (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious entries?[edit]

Some seem to be under the impression that conspiracy theory is a synonym for coincidence or quack theory.

A conspiracy theory is a theory about a conspiracy, said conspiracy may actually exist, or it may not. The left and the right are virtually unanimous in demonizing the term conspiracy theory, and they have to tap dance when real conspiracies are uncovered, using alternatives to the word conspiracy, e.g., plot, lest they confuse their subjects. Original research on my part, but if you read the news about conspiracies, you'll note the avoidance of the word conspiracy when describing real conspiracies.

Detectives have to form conspiracy theories as part of their jobs. Some such theorized conspiracies actually occurred.

Note, too, that usually conspiracy theories are dismissed with even more ridiculous coincidence theories. HeartGold tx 00:47, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, perhaps this article should be titled "list of unsupported or unprovable conspiracies". Either way, I never liked the plural "lists" in the title although there are lists, I suppose, in the sections. By the way, I started a "conspiracy theory" article which could use some fleshing out with exactly the sort of analysis you are providing here. I think the descriptive article is more useful than the "lists", but that is, after all, just my opinion. humanbe in 00:59, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Jews warned to stay away from WTC on 9/11: Intentionally released conspiracy fodder?[edit]

Conspiracy theories are a hobby of mine, and things are much more complex than most realize. For example, the conspiracy theory (stated in straw man form) that Jews were warned to stay away from the WTC on 9/11 started in an Israeli newspaper, was picked up by a Pakistani newspaper, and was later exaggerated and exploited by the Arab press, and dismissed as anti-Semitic propaganda by pundits in the United States (who failed to mention that the theory had a basis in early reports disseminated by an Israeli newspaper). Drudge reported the Israeli newspaper article between 9-12-2001 and 9-14-2001. I have a copy of the Israeli article, and subsequent other Arab(English) articles. My "conpsiracy theory" on this particular incident is that the Israeli article was a class of disinformation called "conspiracy theory fodder", and that the Mossad probably had something to do with it. It is just a theory. Other theories are equally unlikely. Conpsiracy theory fodder most often occurs organically, however. For example, sketchy details reported early on after significant event are later treated as gospel by conspiracy theorist (e.g., bombs being removed from the OKC federal building). HeartGold tx 00:47, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Re, your main point here. Yes, I agree that obviously a good PR operation takes into account how CT's spread, and starts them when they think they can get away with it and that it might help their cause - and it can be hard to unravel the threads once everyone quotes everyone else on the blogosphere! humanbe in 00:53, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Nick Berg Execution Conspiracy theory[edit]

Other conspiracy theories simply don't have good answers, such as the American Nick Berg who was decapitated in Iraq--turns out one of the 9/11 highjackers (Zacarias Moussaoui) had been using Nick Berg's email in Norman Oklahoma (near OKC) before 9/11. This was reported in articles about Zacarias Moussaoui. Nick Berg was questioned in the U.S. before the Iraqi invasion regarding Zacarias Moussaoui's use of his email address in Norman OK, but never charged. Later, Nick Berg pops up in Iraq. He was briefly detained, but released (so far, all facts). After release, Nick berg was kidnapped(fact), and decapitated(fact) by masked men who seemed to be Arab terrorists(fact). If you watch the video of his decapitation, no blood squirts out(fact)--it just drains out, indicating that his heart was not beating by the time knife was placed to neck. The chair in the video looks exactly like the chairs used in Abu Grave torture sessions (my opinion). Theory: Nick Berg was involved in 9/11. However, he was released in the U.S. even though Mousoui was using his email address due to insufficient evidence. Later he was detained in Iraq, determined to be some sort of evil doer, released in Iraq, captured by U.S. agents dressed as Arab terrorists soon thereafter, executed as some sort of spy or illegal combatant in theater by U.S. agents, e.g., by poison, and decapitated after death by men dressed as Arab terrorists for propaganda purposes (those evil Arab terrorist bastards!!!)

Just a theory. Plausible. I think so. Provable? No, not unless some U.S. agent tells all. Lots of circumstantial evidence mixed with knowledge of how spies are treated on the battlefield. Just a theory. Quack theory? Maybe. Nick Berg coincidence theories seem more ridiculous to me, though. HeartGold tx 00:41, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

That's a good one. Can you do a concise version of it on the "lists" and a long version under essay (doing my worst Ed Poor imitation!)? Seems a shame to have all that interesting writing languishing here on the talk page... humanbe in 00:56, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
It's not really that good. But it is a theory. Another is that Nick Berg was a wanna-be free agent spy (something I guessed when his resume was first published), who was really picked up by arab terrorists in Iraq, who killed him pre-maturely. The Arab terrorists tried to make the most of the death (akin to the palestinian terrorists highjacking planes to garner attention and sympathy--not sure what these people are thinking) by decapitating Nick Berg. HeartGold tx 09:56, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

removal?[edit]

HG, just curious, but why did you edit these two things:

"Dick "Dick" Cheney ordered Scooter Libby to expose Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer."

You removed "expose", which, whether you like the word or not, makes it a sentence. otherwise it reads:

"Dick "Dick" Cheney ordered Scooter Libby to Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer."

Ordered him to her?

Also, you removed these two:

  • Roosevelt knew about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance. and let it happen.
  • Bush et al knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. and let them happen.

Which are pretty much classic conspiracy theories.

You also did this without comment here. I am commenting rather than reverting, to see if there is a reason I don't get (like potsexuality, doh). humanbe in 01:08, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

You also marked the edit "minor". Minor means typos, punctuation, etc., not deleting previous text. All i seek are cogent reasons. humanbe in 01:09, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
Sorry, I did not pay attention. I thought it was a minor revert. Feel free to revert me. HeartGold tx 01:10, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
(You also reinserted two I removed and discussed above, without comment here.) I reverted, was it an accident? Watergate and the Enemies list certainly have some conspiraciestheories around them. I also don't want to accidentally weild reversion when I simply "don't get it" due to ideological blinders. humanbe in 01:12, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
Perhaps we should move the whole list to this page, and only reinsert them when there is a conspiracy theory article to describe the alleged conspiracy? This would have the benefit of obliging people to fully explain why they feel the conspiracy theory is worthy of entry. The list of pseudosciences might benefit from a similar treatment.--Bob_M (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2007 (CDT)
I could get behind that. There could even be a note in the article mentioning that. humanbe in 18:41, 14 June 2007 (CDT)
In the meantime I am trying to write some articles based on the listings. Not easy, though. We could also probably list some of RobS' essays as linked articles from here. humanbe in 22:41, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

M&Ms != smarties[edit]

Stevo removed the "smarties" explanation of what M&M's are with the above comment. No, Smarties are not "exactly" M&M's - ie, different company, etc. But, they are the same thing, hence the useful translation for the ROW. humanbe in 14:32, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I beg to differ Sir! I'm not sure about the ROW, but being from the UK, since we have both here, and they are different (smarties are flatter, no peanut ones and come in a cardboard tube), it seemed wrong to say 'smarties' when the article is about M&Ms. From this 'choose your country' page at http://www.m-ms.com/ (might not work for you), it seems that M&Ms are available in much of Europe, Australia, Japan and much of South America, though not Canada. So maybe the original edit: (Smarties in Canada) was correct. --Stevo (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
I stand informed and corrected, Sir! Yes, we should revert it to Kels' version. humanbe in 15:14, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
You can make a "humming" sound blowing thru and empty Smarties box...try that with MMs.--PalMD-yada yada 15:10, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
Also, Smarties make you smarter. M&M's make you, um, yummier. humanbe in 15:14, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
The real question is, do the green Smarties contain an aphrodisiac? --jtltalk 15:39, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Wow, I created quite the tempest, didn't I? For reference, Smarties are more common and popular in Canada, and they've been available for quite a long time (I still remember the song). M&Ms are here in their various varieties, but they're not nearly so popular. However, the old "green M&M" theory did get transferred over to Smarties, for many of the same reasons (the old joke about tossing them in the lawn, etc.). Hope that helps. Oh, and Smarties are better than M&M's anyway. --Kels 15:41, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Didn't M&Ms used to be Treats - Melt in your mouth, not in your hand? God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:57, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Until 1990, apparently --Stevo (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
What hell is wrong with you people!?! Smarties (http://www.smarties.com/) are nothing like M&Ms (http://www.m-ms.com/) save their size, approximate shape and sugar content. M&Ms are chocolately, have a hard shell and come in colors, with only one flavor in a package. Smarties are sour, have one principal part (i.e not chocolate and candy shell) and have multiple flavors per roll. You might as well claim biscuits and cookies are the same thing . . . oh wait . . . bad example . . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 11:26, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
OK, I retract what I said above. I read the article and get it now. Move along. Nothing to see here . . . Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 11:41, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Did they ever put the blue ones back into Smartie tubes. They were the best ones, like amphetamines for children...XD smokemirrors 11:44, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
Smarties != M&Ms Exasperate me!Sheesh!I said what? 15:38, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Pentagon 9/11 crash[edit]

Regarding some Pentagon/911 conspiracy theories, this video is interesting (to explain why not much of the plane was left). HeartGold tx 23:13, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Conspiracy theory, or simply the best explanation?[edit]

Is this a conspiracy theory? Seems reasonable to me. (I came to the same conclusion long before I knew of any such articles). HeartGold tx 09:20, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

Work of fiction[edit]

This is a paraphrase of some movie, can't remember which: "Water fluoridation is part of an insidious Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids." Should be striken if this is to become a serious article. Note, too, that this is a case of a rational concern. You don't hear people complaing about chorlinated water (at least I don't, unless they go overboard with the chorline). The issues include: 1. Effectiveness (fluoride works best topically.) 2. Should a free socieity medicate all through the municiple water supply (I can think of only two instances where the masses are medicated under the radar: fluoride in the water supply, and iodine in the salt supply.) 3. The total amount ingested (e.g., much food is manufactured and processed these days. E.g., breakfast cereal, made by companies that use flouridated municiple water, probably contains flouride, unless it evaporates like the water it is dissolved in. What is the total average dosage a child receives, as well as the distribution of dosages, especially when food sources of flouride are considered.)

The fact is, doctors, dentists (granted, a tiny minority) and parents have rational concerns about this topic, and can and do cite actual studies in this debate. And, as I pointed out with a link after PalMD brought up flouride in another thread, those who promote it do not usually cite studies, they cite annecdotal evidence and/or opinions of groups such as the ADA. HeartGold tx 00:21, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

The quote is from Dr Strangelove, and im working on the article to debunk this, even though it was debunked about 50 years ago.--PalMD-yada yada 00:26, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
And groups such as the ADA are the ones we should be looking to.--PalMD-yada yada 00:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Let me know if or when you want me to (attempt to) debunk your article. But really, your talents might be better spent on the vaccine articles...just weight loss of teath against loss of life. HeartGold tx 00:30, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Don't forget the John Birch Society--ISTR water-flouridation was a bugaboo of theirs for some time. --Gulik 01:28, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
You forgot vitamin D in milk, Heart. Although, I'm not sure the organic milk I buy (tasty!) has it. Better get some sun... humanbe in 03:32, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I did forget the milk, and choose to leave off cereal and other foods enriched with vitamins. Not sure if there is a rational basis for this division, but the point remains, and we are quibbling about unimportant details.
Forced medication of the masses, even if proven effective, has no place in a free society. Let those who don't want cavities in their stomaches buy floridated water. HeartGold tx 10:32, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
"Forced"? Anyone is free to not drink tap water. Or move to where you rely on your own well. humanbe in 13:45, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
While liberals try to "force" others not to smoke, e.g., first by putting warning labels on cigarettes, no requirement exists for faucets supplied by municipal water sources to read: "Warning: Water from this facet has been flouridated. Studies indicate that too much flouride affects brain development in rats." How about a little truth in advertising? Also, some areas of the country attempt to prevent individuals from digging wells or collecting rain water. HeartGold tx 13:49, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
HG - you need to stop your rediculous schlafly-like war on liberals. Do you know the that Portland Oregan, easily one of the most liberal cities in the country, is also the largest US city that does not have flouride in their water? Not everything you disagree with can be written off as liberals trying to invade your life. On a side note - this is a legitamate (in that there are a substantial number of people who believe it) conspiracy theory. olliegrind 07:56, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
I assume you mean that the flouride is a conspiracy theory, and you give evidence that even some liberals believe in it. I argue that this is a legitimate controversy, and portraying the controversy as a strawman conspiracy theory ("precious bodily fluids") is not rational. HeartGold tx 08:44, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
I assume you are intentionally ignoring my main point that not all things bad begin and end with liberals. I have shown that the largest US city that does not add flouride is not a conservative bastion but a liberal haven (you even admit this yourself below). Now please take back all the bad things you have ever said about liberals. olliegrind 08:51, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
"I assume you are intentionally ignoring my main point that not all things bad begin and end with liberals." Sorry, I missed that. You might want to make your main point a little bolder. Meanwhile, most *bad* things begin with liberals, because they do not sufficiently respect the "law of unintended consquences." The intellectual leadership of liberals are generally evil. Their toadies are useful idiots. HeartGold tx 18:26, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Once again, HG, you have bested me. I, as a liberal, am obviously a useful idiot and any of my 'leaders' are generally evil. You make a pretty god-damn convincing argument from which I have no choice but to shake your hand and walk away. olliegrind 18:33, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
"Drinking too much of any fresh water can lead to hyponatremia and death. So don't be dumb. Also, not drinking water can lead to dehydration and death. So don't be dumb."--PalMD-yada yada 22:46, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
That's why I smoke exactly the right number of cigarettes to ward off respiratory infections. Anyway, everyone knows that its filters that cause cancer... humanbe in 23:29, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Dialog anyone? HeartGold tx 23:36, 1 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes. My organic milk is A & D fortified. Where the fuck aren't we allowed to gather rain water, darling? I think you're making up your shit "facts" as you go along. humanbe in 03:23, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Elected public servants in the Washington State Legislature have introduced a bill that will require an individual to obtain a permit to collect rainwater on their own property for their own use. In Washington State, no less. Liberals are so stupid.
Your citation is not accurate to your case: "The bill remedies a regulatory problem stemming from a 1917 law that requires the state to issue use permits for all waters, including rain water. In recent times some counties have been denying building permits for residences that included cisterns due to lack of clarity about the 1917 law. This bill would remove the mandatory permitting process and allow the Department of Ecology to establish general rules for the use of rain barrels and cisterns for beneficial use. For many years, people have collected rainwater for use on their property. This practice, while generally harmless, may be illegal. This bill is designed to clear up the confusion regarding the legal use of rain barrels and cisterns to collect water for beneficial use on one’s own property. Landowners would not need to seek permits on an individual basis." humanbe in 13:40, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Also, see this:
When harvested rainwater is intended for irrigation only and the system is completely separate from the municipal water system and any plumbing in your structure, the system is not regulated by this guide. Although no plumbing permit is required, these systems still need to be approved by the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) for stormwater management.
From Portland, Oregon, another lib. dominated state. HeartGold tx 07:29, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Regulating plumbing for health and safety? humanbe in 13:40, 2 July 2007 (CDT)
Did I forget to mention vitamins? Oh well, not sure how to classify that, as a medication. HeartGold tx 07:49, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

<--- I can't find reference to it anymore, I have to search through my copious notes, but a few years ago a lady was cited for having rain barrels. Nutty. HeartGold tx 18:18, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow. Your unattributed rainwater story has convinced me that we're only one election away from collapsing into a Stalinist dystopia. Eek. I'd better vote a straight Republican ticket next time, so we can collapse into a fascist dystopia, instead. --Gulik 13:17, 3 July 2007 (CDT) (Being a sarcastic bastard)

Reverting The Question's crazy conspiracy theories[edit]

It's fine with me that they were taken out. I was just being goofy. I do, however, love what Bob wrote as a reason. He wanted to limit the list to conspiracy theories that do, in fact, exist. They might exist in the minds of a select group of idiots, but I don't think that they do, in fact, exist.  :) --Edgerunner76 12:16, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I disagree. The conspiracy theories most certainly exist - how could we talk about them otherwise? What does not exist are the conspiracies about which they theorize. .-) --Bobbing up 12:51, 8 November 2007 (EST)
I see your point. The "theories" exist. The "conspiracy" is what probably doesn't. --Edgerunner76 07:53, 9 November 2007 (EST)

Does This Count?[edit]

Not sure if this is worth putting on the list, but it gets points for the bizarre. As far as I know this theory is just being pushed by one internet troll, who recently vanity-published a book about it (his name is Andrew Fullen, look it up). It comes down to this:

In 1978 Universal Studios came out with Battlestar Galactica, and George Lucas sued for copyright infringement, citing similarities to Star Wars. Universal won the suit, but wanted to do projects with Lucas, so to appease him they put a "shadow mechanism" in their daily operations (never really explained) which caused Galactica to be canceled after one season (the official explanation was that, although it was popular, ratings were dropping, and it was the most expensive show that had ever been made up to that point). Since then this "shadow mechanism," has prevented a continuation of the original series, and to "destroy the memory" of the original Galactica series, in an ongoing effort to make George Lucas happy. Andrew Fullen (or his alias "Languatron) blames this "shadow mechanism for the following:

1) The percieved low-quality of original series Galacitca DVDs. 2) The failure of Tom DeSantos continuation series (actually, it fell through because he couldn't commute after the 9/11 tragedy). 3) The remake of Galactica. 4) The failure of the remake to be canceled immediately. 5) The supposed lies Sci-fi Channel has told about the ratings of the remade series (this has been dropped in recent years, due to the reported ratings dropping, which wouldn't happen if they were faked, but regardless this was always a ridiculous notion anyway, since Nielson makes ratings easy to confirm). 6) People from Universal Studios not being respectful enough when they reference the original series.

He used to have his own board, with the register feature disabled so that only he could post, but he's since blocked any non-members (meaning anyone but him) from viewing it, to avoid "Universal executives" spying on him...the post count keeps going up, though, so I have no idea who he's posting too.— Unsigned, by: 66.110.210.184 / talk / contribs 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

probably too obscure for this list - it's just one crank (who is now talking to himself apparently) - I love how he makes this tortuous theory to get round the obvious - the original was crap and the new version is good. Totnesmartin 06:43, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

EDIT: My name is Russell Sanders and I am one of the six targets of Andrew's conspiracy. You can read all about it at www.RussellSanders.com (specific article at http://www.russellsanders.com/wordpress/?p=43 ). The article explains it all pretty neatly.— Unsigned, by: 193.219.243.90 / talk / contribs 18:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The rabbit ball[edit]

Dunno if this is a bonafide conspiracy theory or merely a superstition -- professional baseball players are notoriously superstitious.

Big league pitchers find home runs anathema and believe that baseball manufacturers purposely produce what they call "rabbit" balls every three years -- balls with extra bounce in them that are easier to hit out of the park. This would account for the rash of home runs hit every three years.

-- RemBeau 21:30, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I've heard that, too. i think it's because perhaps more than most sports, the nature of the game lends itself to "streaks" and "slumps", since so much is played, and it's so hard to do what you "want" to do (ie, get a good hit, a strikeout, etc.). I think I actually was reading about on wikipedia once. Yeah... I bet the article was on something like "streak (sports)", or maybe... "clutch player"...? Hadn't heard of the rabbit ball, though. Sounds like a likely superstition/CT though. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:47, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

LaRouche[edit]

So, is it that the Bushes and Royal family are part of LaRouche's attempts to change A from 440 to 432, or is it that LaRouche is fighting the secret organization involving the royal family and teh Bushes, a secret organization that changed A from 432 to 440? It's not quite clear. ThunderkatzHo! 17:15, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

All I know is that the Schiller Institute wants to change to the 432 Hz tuning. I have no idea where the Bushes or the Windsors come into the picture. Or why it's even listed as a conspiracy theory in the first place. It's not like they're trying to hide it or anythng. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 17:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
My question on this is, why is redefining A somehow a sinister move? Is it a conspiracy by musical instrument manufacturers to make musicians re-buy their instruments? I really don't understand. Totnesmartin 16:53, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
Since most instruments can be tuned, I think it's only the "tuner" manufacturers who would get a windfall. Another question is why it's an issue at all... is it an historical thing or something? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:11, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
I always tune low anyway. My standard tuning is down a whole tone, and then into "Drop-D" - which actually is a concert "C" at that point. As Mr. Dave says, you gotta have your C. A few more cents won't kill me.PFoster 17:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Scientology rules hollywood[edit]

To be fair to the British people it's hard to take a casual glance at Hollywood and not think the scientologists are in charge! Hollywood seems to thrive on wacky religions and scientology is a) the wackiest and b) the most visible. Of course it's not true though, we all know that Hollywood is really being run by the illuminati and the freemasons :) — Unsigned, by: User:86.18.30.114 / talk / contribs

Scientology was designed as the ultimate tool for preying on depressed and unhappy people. It tells them that their depressive feelings are not their fault and if they give the "church" lots of money and follow these simple steps, they'll be depression free and love themselves. A lot of celebrities have severe depression because they're taught all their lives that the key to happiness is lots of money and fame. However, life doesn't work that way so they can't understand why they're still so unhappy, thus making them easy targets. Scientology loves having stars because it mean more "positive" coverage (IE, this rich, famous person thinks we're legit, you should too) SirChuckBDMorris for new Jinx! 14:47, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

The Latest, from Glen Beck[edit]

Kos today has a link to the Glen Beck show (I guess) where he says that Obama is building concentration camps to heard up all the right wingers. Huh????? In his own words "We tried hard, all weekend to de bunk the idea that Obama is building these camps, but you know what, we couldn't. WE simply could find nothing that showed us these camps were not real"--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov» 13:14, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Definitions and vested interests[edit]

The problem is that there are conspiracy theories, conspiracies, cases of misdirection (WWII pilot successes through the use of radar being attributed to eating carrots), cases of 'not all the facts being known', 'finding previously unsuspected links between events not previously connected', fiction and so on - and the boundaries between them are somewhat permeable.

If any of these conspiracies were to be proved, an awful lot of supporters would find themselves at a loss. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Denver airport complex - secret FEMA base or reptilian overlords ?[edit]

You forgot all the secret underground atlantean, alien, Fema , us military bases and in particular Denver , Colorado . Proof is HERE Caution: the runways form a swastika , so maybe secret HITLER base. Hamster (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tanos theory?[edit]

Wouldn't this just be philosophical idealism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, Nebby. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 04:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't think this one's there[edit]

Burzynski's scared the FDA'll nick his "invention Scream!! (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Olympics theory[edit]

I'd like to add the 2012 Olympic games theory to this list, because it's a pretty good (read: bad) one. Would a source from the Guardian website be okay or should I try find a source from the theorists themselves? (I'm referring to the theory that during the games, while all eyes are on the stadium at London, an alien invasion will start - only it will be a hoax, and while everyone is distracted by the fake aliens, boosh, New World Order outta nowhere. Good, right? Is that a good inclusion for this list?) Lucy in the sky with diamonds! 23:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Add it. No question, really. Though finding a primary source so it can be checked for parody/satire would be good. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 23:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I added it. There were a lot of whack sites, so I just linked the Guardian article, which itself has links to the sites propagating the idea. There's a video about it, somewhere. :) Lucy in the sky with diamonds! 00:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The mongoose[edit]

... mentioned on the list is actually recorded here [1]. — Unsigned, by: 82.44.143.26 / talk / contribs 14:28, 18 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Another grouping[edit]

would be 'List of assassination/conspiracy theories' (following on from a discussion on the Saloon page)

  • JFK - reasons for: The Soviets/Cubans wanted to get rid of him because of the Bay of Pigs; the Vietnamese because of the assassination, the Mafia because of crime legislation, the military-industrial complex because of the Vietnam situation... (add to taste); agin - too many conspiracies, the chance of somebody walking in on Oswald's set-up and the likely blow-back on being responsible for the assassination (rather than merely blackmailing him)
  • Princess Di - reasons for : involving love-life; reasons against - too many variables, and all her supporters.
  • Jorg Haider - 'drunk in charge of a car' is a very blunt weapon.
  • and so on.

Add a few 'bizarre actual conspiracies' as preferred. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DDT[edit]

Where should the DDT conspiracy go? The one where wingnuts claim Rachel Carson killed millions of Africans by pushing for an international ban on ddt, even though there were always exceptions for fighting malaria.ClothCoat (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Shortly before 9/11, many individuals or institutions with prior knowledge shorted airline stocks and made a fortune.[edit]

> Shortly before 9/11, many individuals or institutions with prior knowledge shorted airline stocks and made a fortune.

I've heard this one quite a bit, just the other day a mate trotted it out.

But share trading records are public, right? And of course every day varying numbers of shares are bought and sold, it could indeed be that on 10th September 2001 a lot of trades were done that involved the share prices of some airlines etc. dropping.

I've Googled this "fact" before to try and track down some real evidence, but all there seems to be is references to Zeitgeist (IIRC there's a graph flashed up in their visual Gish-gallop) or forum comments where posters are really really sure. I know I'm not great at maths, but I think I am right in saying that statistical methods could be used against share dealing records to show if pre-9/11 trades were genuinely abnormal, so possibly a sign of fore-knowledge.

But to make money of off 9/11 in a way that would be much less risky would be to guess at the consequences and invest in that, instead of highlighting yourself by betting on the main event.

94.197.122.76 (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The easiest way to refute this would be to look at historical share price / volume data on Bloomberg. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 13:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Homer never existed[edit]

Sorry, but how can it be considered at conspiracy theory? In that case, saying that Jesus, Confucius or Pāṇini never really existed is a conspiracy. "A conspiracy theory is an attempt to explain a perceived real-world occurrence through the actions of a secretive, usually evil and very selfish group." So why Homer? Is that so evil to invent Homer, or Jesus (thanks to Paul the Apostle??)?--Sultan Rahi (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not Rational[edit]

In perusing the list of subjects in this article, it instantly becomes clear that RationalWiki is not rational. It omits conspiracy theories that are unfounded, yet lists things that aren't theory at all and can be amply demonstrated and proven. This site seems to be a joke or satire, something like The Onion. It is little more than a collection of the biases and opinions of its contributors. — 68.189.67.192 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually state what claims you say have been proven? Or perhaps you rightfully assume that we will laugh at you because they are hilariously wrong? Oh, and could someone tell me how to do the Drink! link? Arawn Emrys (talk)

If you insert {{RATIONALWiki}} you get what you are looking for. I'll give you the honor to insert it below the BoN comment. NameThatNobodyTakes () 04:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?[edit]

Our own J. Edgar Hoover page just kinda uncritically states what's listed as a conspiracy theory here. What's with the contradiction? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Sheeple Conspiracy[edit]

The sheeple have a global conspiracy - 'Ignore the Leaders/Listen politely to the visiting prophets and reply courteously to any visiting pundits and then #do exactly what you want regardless.#'

Otherwise:

  • The Ceausescu conspiracy - his death was a direct result of the Pan-European Picnic.
  • Has anyone yet suggested that Franz Ferdinand's driver, who parked directly in front of G Princip, was part of a conspiracy.
  • The JFK 'grassy knoll person' was actually a moment when two branes touched - and two different LHOs were standing respectively on the knoll and in the repository window (so there is also a Repository Window conspiracy somewhere). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)