Birthers, Truthers (what are the other ones)?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Somebody help be out. What are there names for other conspiracy theories/theorists? Like what are the people who think the moon landing never happened called? List any others as well.

[tislaw]

Agenda 21'ers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Illuminati conspirarists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

Bohemian Grovers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

Just a few to start with

[StoneScratcher]

There are those who cannot know anything unless it is fed to them from others. Those praised with having knowledge, are actually parrots. They parrot what others thought, theorized, found, and discovered. They limit their thinking to just that--what others thought, theorized, found and discovered.

They are incapable of true free thinking. They fear, greatly, anything they may imagine. They must uphold a solid fortress of established knowledge to all who dwell among them. Walling up their imaginations, they refuse to go outside the box and stay fervently within the parameters of "accepted knowledge".

They cannot believe anything that hasn't been proven, or has been theorized to accepted steps (within theory) of supporting truth. Truth, to them, must have been thought of before--if it was written before, it must be a fact.

Who are these people?

Sheeple.

Those who refuse to be a sheeple (me included), are pointed at, mocked, isolated, poked fun of, thought to be unusual, strange, oddballs, etc.

Does it bother me? Nope.

Also, an interesting thing about the use of the word conspiracy as used on people like me who stand alone and refuse to conspire with others on any "truth"--the majority of those in a conspiracy don't even realize they're a part of it (that's the idea of a conspiracy).

[LouC]

Hoax Believers.

Flat Earthers.

Black Helicopter Alarmists.

I am not certain what term is out there for Hoagland believers, but I would like to nominate Little Shoe Wearing Monkey Crowd, or SM crowd for short.

SM being short for Shoe Monkey.

[Pauper66]

Lunartics.

[Pauper66]

Or Moonatics.

[King Cantona]

There are those who cannot know anything unless it is fed to them from others.

Yeah, you tell 'em SS. All the teachers I knew at school are all a bunch of bastards because they told me stuff I didn't know....

And they called it 'teaching'? The bloody nerve of those guys.......:cool:.......

[King Cantona]

In my prior post, clearly I wasn't speaking about "knowledge" in that light.

Yeah but I just couldn't resist it......;).......

[BillBrown]

Hoax Believers.

Flat Earthers.

Black Helicopter Alarmists.

I am not certain what term is out there for Hoagland believers, but I would like to nominate Little Shoe Wearing Monkey Crowd, or SM crowd for short.

SM being short for Shoe Monkey.

Art Bellites?

[LouC]

Art Bellites?

?

[hatman]

?

Art Belloons. :)

[Pauper66]

They are incapable of true free thinking. They fear, greatly, anything they may imagine. They must uphold a solid fortress of established knowledge to all who dwell among them. Walling up their imaginations, they refuse to go outside the box and stay fervently within the parameters of "accepted knowledge".

So refusing to believe we went to the moon, because so much evidence says it is impossible...wouldn't that be the closed up imagination; thinking inside the box?

[BillBrown]

So refusing to believe we went to the moon, because so much evidence says it is impossible...wouldn't that be the closed up imagination; thinking inside the box?

Any deviation from orthodoxy is labeled as "loony"

[hatman]

So refusing to believe we went to the moon, because so much evidence says it is impossible...wouldn't that be the closed up imagination; thinking inside the box?


Why would we spend so much money along with the loss of human lives "faking" moon missions if it's so easy to understand it's impossible? Surely the Soviets, and others, would have known that, too.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

By "Birthers" do you mean "Birchers"?

I don't get that one...

[BillBrown]

By "Birthers" do you mean "Birchers"?

I don't get that one...


Birthers refers to Obama's birth certificate conspiracists.

[MrShotShot]

There are those who cannot know anything unless it is fed to them from others. Those praised with having knowledge, are actually parrots. They parrot what others thought, theorized, found, and discovered. They limit their thinking to just that--what others thought, theorized, found and discovered.

They are incapable of true free thinking. They fear, greatly, anything they may imagine. They must uphold a solid fortress of established knowledge to all who dwell among them. Walling up their imaginations, they refuse to go outside the box and stay fervently within the parameters of "accepted knowledge".

They cannot believe anything that hasn't been proven, or has been theorized to accepted steps (within theory) of supporting truth. Truth, to them, must have been thought of before--if it was written before, it must be a fact.

Who are these people?

Sheeple.

Those who refuse to be a sheeple (me included), are pointed at, mocked, isolated, poked fun of, thought to be unusual, strange, oddballs, etc.

Does it bother me? Nope.

Also, an interesting thing about the use of the word conspiracy as used on people like me who stand alone and refuse to conspire with others on any "truth"--the majority of those in a conspiracy don't even realize they're a part of it (that's the idea of a conspiracy).

Interesting how folks who actually look at all sides of an issue, do their research, and come to a conclusion are called sheeple.

But kooks who believe every internet nutjob and seminar speaker hook-line-and-sinker are called "free thinkers".

Interesting.

[Pauper66]

I, for one, do not buy the hoax theories.

I just don't the government would stoop to that level-attempting to fool the world, and it's own citizens-regardless of what was at stake (pride? space race? cold war?) at the time.

[Rorus Raz]

I, for one, do not buy the hoax theories.

I just don't the government would stoop to that level-attempting to fool the world, and it's own citizens-regardless of what was at stake (pride? space race? cold war?) at the time.Considering how many egos you have in the government, or any position of power really, it's hard to imagine such cooperation for any lengthy duration of time.

[BillBrown]

I, for one, do not buy the hoax theories.

I just don't the government would stoop to that level-attempting to fool the world, and it's own citizens-regardless of what was at stake (pride? space race? cold war?) at the time.

Thinking that our government is above all that is a mistake.
The government is very capable of it.
The question should be, "did the government do it"? not "could or would the government do it"?.

You bet it would, if it was in its interest.

[tislaw]

Thinking that our government is above all that is a mistake.
The government is very capable of it.
The question should be, "did the government do it"? not "could or would the government do it"?.

You bet it would, if it was in its interest.

At the same time our government is so ADD......how could they keep constant?

[curtis123]

I've noticed that last year, the people who were warning that Obama was a socialist were called crazy.

The people who were calling them crazy are now trying to convince us that a little more socialism will be good for the country.

[snagswolf]

I don't see the birth certificate issue with Obama being a 'conspiracy theory'. (And no, I don't want to discuss it.)

He either has a legal one or he doesn't. No conspiracy at all.

[ChaosControl]

I, for one, do not buy the hoax theories.

I just don't the government would stoop to that level-attempting to fool the world, and it's own citizens-regardless of what was at stake (pride? space race? cold war?) at the time.

For me it is different. It isn't that the government isn't evil enough to attempt it, it is more than the government is too incompetent to pull it off.

Although I suppose the incompetence could just be a big part of the entire conspiracy to keep the people thinking the government couldn't possibly do it. :lol:

Anyway, no I don't think it is like a lot of these things but I do think there is definitely a lot of crap going on that is kept from the public for sure.

[badkarma]

So refusing to believe we went to the moon, because so much evidence says it is impossible...wouldn't that be the closed up imagination; thinking inside the box?
There is no evidence that proves a moon landing would be impossible. Every last shred of so called evidence provided by those that believe it was a fake has been thoroughly debunked, repeatedly. People that still believe the moon landing was a hoax are basing that belief on debunked evidence and are either unwilling or unable to think critically about that same evidence, believing it to be true despite the enormous amount of proof to the contrary.

That is pretty much the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

[Talk2Bill]

i was just watching a lunies show.

Q: why no stars on the moon?
A: it was day time

Q: why couldn't we hear the thrusters?
A: there was a vacuum between the sound and the mic.

Q: why do some photos seem to have a 2nd light source?
A: because there WAS a 2nd light source! it is called THE MOON! Oh the moon is not a light source? then why it so bight in the Earth's sky? Granted the light from the MOON is reflected Siun light but it IS enough to explain several of the questions.

[Talk2Bill]

the diffrence between a 'free thinker' and a consperisy theorist is how they go aboput questioning things.

like the moon landing. Some say "oh why are there no STARS?" EASY: it was 'day' time. Any person should be able to work that one out. Do we see stars during the day? NO! why? because the light from the stars get washed out by sunlight. Same for the MOON. Just because the sky on the moon is always black should not be confused with it being night time. The fact that many still use the "no stars" argument means they are just throwing everything out there in hopes some will stick.

[MrShotShot]

the diffrence between a 'free thinker' and a consperisy theorist is how they go aboput questioning things.

like the moon landing. Some say "oh why are there no STARS?" EASY: it was 'day' time. Any person should be able to work that one out. Do we see stars during the day? NO! why? because the light from the stars get washed out by sunlight. Same for the MOON. Just because the sky on the moon is always black should not be confused with it being night time. The fact that many still use the "no stars" argument means they are just throwing everything out there in hopes some will stick.

And even after they know the truth, they still throw it out there time and time again in hopes that they can get just one more person on baord with their crazyness.

There are a couple of 9/11 truther types on this board that raise the exact same debunked "questions" every 6 months or so.

[Pauper66]

the 9-11 tin foil brigade is the worst, IMO.

[Dual867PowerMac]

Bohemian Grovers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove
For the record: the Manhattan Project (and no, that's not a musical group,) the Strategic Defense Initiative (smoke and mirrors!) and Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign for the governorship of California were all dreamed up in a building in the Bohemian Grove called "the chalet."

And during a ceremony called the Cremation of Care, the elitists attend a ceremony in which an effigy called "Dull Care," which symbolizes all their cares of the world, is sacrificed to a 40-foot stone owl named Moloch. He's mentioned specifically in the OT book of Leviticus:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b94/BengalsManiac/molech-1.jpg

Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to be consecrated to the idol Moloch, nor defile the name of thy God. I am the Lord -Lev. 18-21

Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel. If any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers, that dwell in Israel, give of his seed to the idol Moloch, dying let him die: the people of the land shall stone him. And I will set my face against him. And I will cut him off from the midst of his people, because he hath given of his seed to Moloch, and hath defiled my sanctuary, and profaned my holy name. And if the people of the land neglecting, and as it were little regarding my commandment, let alone the man that hath given of his seed to Moloch, and will not kill him. I will set my face against that man, and his kindred, and will cut off both him and all that consented with him, to commit fornication with Moloch, out of the midst of their people. -Lev. 20:2-5


The apologists say, "Oh, it's only theater! Completely harmless."

Well, I believe it shows the twisted psychology of these people.

Here's a good video you should watch. Please? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4583149687541115475&ei=ffFjSqrTAZHgqQLlreG7CQ&q=order+of+death&hl=en&client=safari)

[Rorus Raz]

Moloch is something that requires sacrifice. In this case, their cares.

I mean, Nixon did call it faggy. And we all can trust Nixon, right?

[MrShotShot]

I've shot skeet at Bohemian Grove - seemed like every other private club I've ever been to to be honest.

[snagswolf]

like the moon landing. Some say "oh why are there no STARS?" EASY: it was 'day' time. Any person should be able to work that one out. Do we see stars during the day? NO! why? because the light from the stars get washed out by sunlight. Same for the MOON. Just because the sky on the moon is always black should not be confused with it being night time. The fact that many still use the "no stars" argument means they are just throwing everything out there in hopes some will stick.
Actually, that's not the correct explanation for why there were no stars in the Apollo photographs. Even though it was daytime on the Moon, the astronauts could see the stars in the sky.

The reason they didn't show up in the photographs is because of the exposure setting on the cameras, which had to use a lower exposure setting due to the sunlit landscape, and therefore the relatively low light given off by the stars wasn't picked up by the film.

[PredFan]

Did you know that Americans are given information at a fourth grade mentality? That marketing is geared toward that level of understanding? Did you ever wonder why lame sitcoms (the lame ones) have laugh-tracks placed in them so dumb Americans know when to laugh?

Do you know that most people cannot get the top prize in the Game Show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?"...

In my prior post, clearly I wasn't speaking about "knowledge" in that light.

I can win that show, I cannot stand to watch the average american sit-com, I don't watch much TV at all, it's stupidity hurts my head.

AND, and here is where I win, I'm also smart enough not to fall for that idiotic conspiracy bull.

I'm smarter than you! :))

[PredFan]

Interesting how folks who actually look at all sides of an issue, do their research, and come to a conclusion are called sheeple.

But kooks who believe every internet nutjob and seminar speaker hook-line-and-sinker are called "free thinkers".

Interesting.

The problem with most people who keep an open mind, is that anyone can shovel all kinds of crap into it.

[PredFan]

I don't see the birth certificate issue with Obama being a 'conspiracy theory'. (And no, I don't want to discuss it.)

He either has a legal one or he doesn't. No conspiracy at all.

Same here. We landed on the moon, the government had nothing to do with 9-11, but Obama just MIGHT not have a US birth certificate. I don't get involved in that discussion, I'll wait and see, but I'm not yet ready to include that one as a loony conspiracy.

[Dual867PowerMac]

I've shot skeet at Bohemian Grove - seemed like every other private club I've ever been to to be honest.
What's skeet taste like?

[Homo Sapien]

And even after they know the truth, they still throw it out there time and time again in hopes that they can get just one more person on baord with their crazyness.

There are a couple of 9/11 truther types on this board that raise the exact same debunked "questions" every 6 months or so.

There are a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding 9/11. I would not say the government was in charge of it. But, some people somewhere knew some things, and pulled some strings. And they weren't all "terrorists." Who, how, to what extent, I don't know. But there are a lot of unanwered questions that seemed to be intentionally ignored. There was a cover-up, but of what, it seems impossible to know.

[BillBrown]

There are a lot of suspicious circumstances surrounding 9/11. I would not say the government was in charge of it. But, some people somewhere knew some things, and pulled some strings. And they weren't all "terrorists." Who, how, to what extent, I don't know. But there are a lot of unanwered questions that seemed to be intentionally ignored. There was a cover-up, but of what, it seems impossible to know.

If that's true, it'll be 100 years before we know, if then.
Anyone who challenges orthodoxy is labeled a fool.

Would a credible investigator who had truly turned up something, step forward? I doubt it. I wouldn't.

[snagswolf]

But there are a lot of unanwered questions that seemed to be intentionally ignored.
Such as?

And no links please. In your own words.

[BillBrown]

Such as?

And no links please. In your own words.

I'll toss in one thing, that I have wondered about.

When Bush arrived at that elementary school, the following things were known:

1. The first tower had been hit with a hijacked plane.

2. Three other planes had been hijacked.


Why was Bush allowed to continue with this scheduled and well publicized appearance?
The school was defenseless against an air attack, even one by a light plane.
Wouldn't it have dawned on his security that he might be a target?- UNLESS they somehow had pre knowledge that he wasn't.

[snagswolf]

I'll toss in one thing, that I have wondered about.

When Bush arrived at that elementary school, the following things were known:

1. The first tower had been hit with a hijacked plane.

2. Three other planes had been hijacked.


Why was Bush allowed to continue with this scheduled and well publicized appearance?
The school was defenseless against an air attack, even one by a light plane.
Wouldn't it have dawned on his security that he might be a target?- UNLESS they somehow had pre knowledge that he wasn't.
Can you back up your claims that the President and his staff knew that the first plane that hit the tower was hijacked, and that they knew there were other hijacked planes?

Bush's own comments on the matter seem to prove your claims are false:

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said there's one terrible pilot, and I said it must have been a horrible accident, but I was whisked off there and didn't have much time to think about it." -- G.W. Bush

[BillBrown]

Can you back up your claims that the President and his staff knew that the first plane that hit the tower was hijacked, and that they knew there were other hijacked planes?

Bush's own comments on the matter seem to prove your claims are false:

"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower, the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said there's one terrible pilot, and I said it must have been a horrible accident, but I was whisked off there and didn't have much time to think about it." -- G.W. Bush

No. Bush's claim was false.

What Bush describes as seeing could only have been the first plane.
The second plane hit while he was already in the classroom.

There was no broadcast of the first plane hitting the tower. He made the story up. The video of the 1st plane didn't surface until Sep. 12.

[snagswolf]

No. Bush's claim was false.

What Bush describes as seeing could only have been the first plane.
The second plane hit while he was already in the classroom.

There was no broadcast of the first plane hitting the tower. He made the story up. The video of the 1st plane didn't surface until Sep. 12.
You do know the past tense of 'hit' is 'hit', right?

So let me get this straight. You think it's more likely that Bush was in on a secret plan to cover up knowing about the hijackings, than it is that he slightly misspoke, using "I saw an airplane hit the tower" instead of "I saw an airplane had hit the tower".

All that knowing how Bush misspeaks all the time?

:)) :)) :))

And you're in this thread laughing at other conspiracy theorists?

Still waiting for proof of your claims.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Same here. We landed on the moon, the government had nothing to do with 9-11, but Obama just MIGHT not have a US birth certificate. I don't get involved in that discussion, I'll wait and see, but I'm not yet ready to include that one as a loony conspiracy.
It's not the concept of questioning his citizenship that makes it loony...it's the COUNTLESS iterations of how many ways he's not a citizen, from where he was born, to how he lost his citizenship as a child, to the true identity of his father, etc, etc...that makes it loony.

[BillBrown]

You do know the past tense of 'hit' is 'hit', right?

So let me get this straight. You think it's more likely that Bush was in on a secret plan to cover up knowing about the hijackings, than it is that he slightly misspoke, using "I saw an airplane hit the tower" instead of "I saw an airplane had hit the tower".

All that knowing how Bush misspeaks all the time?

:)) :)) :))

And you're in this thread laughing at other conspiracy theorists?

Still waiting for proof of your claims.

To start with, I didn't say I believed Bush had prior knowledge.
You're making that up.

I said the circumstances at the elementary school are something I've wondered about.
Here's how I started the post you are attacking:
I'll toss in one thing, that I have wondered about.


Second, I have not laughed at ALL the conspiracy theorists in this thread.
That's another fabrication.
I'm think I'm seeing a pattern.


You don't know whether Bush "misspoke" or not.
You're the one that brought out Bush's quote as some sort of proof of something.
If you thought he had "misspoke" you didn't mention it at the time. If you knew he had said something he didn't mean- what was the value of it?

I don't believe 9-11 was a government conspiracy, because I have not seen sufficient evidence of it. I don't believe the buildings were blown up, I believe they were brought down by the hijacked planes.

I responded to your post which asked for unanswered questions, without links.
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=58072711&postcount=41

If you don't like the answers, you shouldn't be soliciting them.

[snagswolf]

To start with, I didn't say I believed Bush had prior knowledge.
You're making that up.
Huh? Where did I claim you said that Bush had prior knowledge? Here is what I said:

You think it's more likely that Bush was in on a secret plan to cover up knowing about the hijackings...
We were discussing having knowledge at the time of the school appearance, and that's what I was referring to.

Learn to read.

I said the circumstances at the elementary school are something I've wondered about.
Here's how I started the post you are attacking:
And then you proceeded to make some claims that you've yet to back up with sources.


Second, I have not laughed at the conspiracy theorists in this thread.
That's another fabrication.
I'm think I'm seeing a pattern.
Yep, you're right, I confused you with Talk2Bill. I apologize.

You seem to be in this thread defending the nutjobs.

You don't know whether Bush "misspoke" or not.
You're the one that brought out Bush's quote as some sort of proof of something.
If you thought he had "misspoke" you didn't mention it at the time. If you knew he had said something he didn't mean- what was the value of it?
I've been over this quote many times with you conspiracy nutjobs. I know exactly what it says, and exactly how you nutjobs misread it.

Anyone with any intelligence knows what Bush was saying, knowing the colloquial way in which he speaks. It's only you nutjobs who attempt to parse him word for word in order to prove that he was in on something.

I don't believe 9-11 was a government conspiracy, because I have not seen sufficient evidence of it. I don't believe the buildings were blown up, I believe they were brought down by the hijacked planes.
But you do think that it's more likely that Bush is covering up knowing about the hijackings, than it is that he actually meant he saw the coverage of the plane that had hit the towers?

I responded to your post which asked for unanswered questions, without links.
If you don't like the answers, you shouldn't be soliciting them.
Huh? I have no problem with the answers. The one who seems to have a problem with the answers is you.

And yes, I asked for unanswered questions. The questions you asked have been answered over and over and over again, just like I answered them here. And you refuse delivery of the answer, preferring to live with your little fantasy that Bush is covering up the 'fact' that he knew about the hijackings while in the classroom.

Speaking of that, I'm STILL waiting for your proof of these two claims:

When Bush arrived at that elementary school, the following things were known:

1. The first tower had been hit with a hijacked plane.

2. Three other planes had been hijacked.
Why are you avoiding giving it?

[Dr BloodMoney]

Link to a youtube video, it shows Buzz Aldrins reaction to a moon landing hoaxer that tries to do an ambush type video confrontation with him.

This is one of my all time favorite Youtubes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ez-NpFVwQw

The LA police and DA refused to file anything against Aldrin, the man later apologized and amitted that he touched him and violated his personal space...

[MrShotShot]

What's skeet taste like?

Like chicken, but a tad earthy.

[Homo Sapien]

If that's true, it'll be 100 years before we know, if then.
Anyone who challenges orthodoxy is labeled a fool.

Would a credible investigator who had truly turned up something, step forward? I doubt it. I wouldn't.

Not if they wanted to live.