What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

TL;DR: The Feds are using their access to CP to further their agenda and are even willing to tolerate actual pedophilia and harm to children in the process.

If you really want to take a trip down the rabbit hole, look into Lt Colonel Michael Aquino.

It should go without saying, but ignore anything recent that mentions Q or other bullshit glowops. Most of the scholarship on him and his programs are from decades ago, so stick with legit sources.

 
The illustrations showcasing people playing around with said atmospheric electrical phenomena kinda make me jealous, tbh. I presume you've seen what I'm referencing? I really need to be more meticulous about saving images as I find them.
Yes, as well as the strange obsession with lightning protection devices. The apparent commonness of widespread natural electricity almost within living memory, is a fascinating rabbit hole all on its own. Minor PL but my great-grandfather had a farm in the 1920s/1930s, and they had a barn atop a hill that for some reason was a magnet for ball lighting. They would see it there all the time, and even almost were touched by it at least once. Then after seeing it happen for years, it suddenly stopped happening, and they never saw ball lightning there again.

The farm is long sold and the barn fell down in the 1980s from a heavy snow storm, so I can't go back to look for evidence, all I have is word of mouth from people who are now dead. It just really sticks out to me that they used to see ball lightning all the time and while they were obviously careful, it was basically normal. But now its so rare that I've never seen it and nor has anyone I know.
There are also some very weird "coincidences" like almost every census building suffering a fire in the late 1800s that destroyed the records, and how many Civil War photographs are clearly staged.
I'd say it's pretty obvious that there was willful efforts made to bury some part of our past by any means necessary. I would very much like to figure out by whom and why. Have you uncovered anything to those ends in your digging, or have expanded thoughts on the matter?
Yes, I have pictures showing examples of faked photos that I saved from somewhere a long time ago. If I find them I will post them.
Fair enough. Then dropping that title for it: What do you make of the idea of a very, very old civilization that either elected to or was somehow forced into spreading itself out across the world? I apparently don't have a good name for it that isn't inherently inflammatory to some, so call it whatever you'd like.
I wrote a schizo post about this possibilty several months ago. I was overtired and a bit drunk at the time of writing, so some of my phrasing is hyperbolic, but I still stand behind the basic point. TLDR is that "tartaria" is an attempt to obsfucate events predicted in the Book of Revelation.

 
Last edited:
how many Civil War photographs are clearly staged.

Not trying to go "Well, ackshually..." but I can actually explain that one fairly easily.

Photography was seen as a flashy novelty back in the 1860's much like social media today.

As cringe-inducing and painful as this is for me to say, posing for those old photographs was sort of like a 19th Century equivalent of making TikTok videos or posing for social media selfies today. Most of the lower enlisted soldiers serving in the Civil War were in their late teens and early twenties.

The average age of a soldier on both sides combined was 25 with the figures on each individual side being a few years lower.

While twenty-somethings back then didn't have the prolonged adolescence that today's Late Millennials and Zoomers do, these were still young men and often prone to vanity.

Another factor is that photography in the 19th Century was slow and time-consuming, so any major photographs were often staged and real-time battlefield photos were an extreme impracticality at best and damn near impossible at worst.

That's a major reason why nearly all of the iconic photos were either taken in camps and bases or shortly after the battle had concluded.

Finally, there were a lot of photos taken that never survived into the modern era.

Many Civil War photos were seen as painful memories and the glass plate negatives were often melted down and used for things like window panes and greenhouses, causing hundreds if not thousands of photographs to be lost forever.
 
Photography was seen as a flashy novelty back in the 1860's much like social media today.

As cringe-inducing and painful as this is for me to say, posing for those old photographs was sort of like a 19th Century equivalent of making TikTok videos or posing for social media selfies today.
I disagree with this quite strongly because that is not accurate. Photography was already relatively common for a good twenty years by the time of the Civil War, so it was not a novelty- people were familiar with it by then. And the attitudes towards photos, especially portraits, was very formal. One was supposed to look their best and appear composed. Primarily for reasons that you yourself stated
Another factor is that photography in the 19th Century was slow and time-consuming, so any major photographs were often staged and real-time battlefield photos were an extreme impracticality at best and damn near impossible at worst.
That's a major reason why nearly all of the iconic photos were either taken in camps and bases or shortly after the battle had concluded.
This point contradicts your previous one. First you say that Civil War era photography was treated as casually as modern social media, then you say it was impractical and rarely used outside of formal pre-planned settings

Also worth noting that photo exposure times were down to a few seconds by the 1860s, which would still require some staging, but far less staging then what is seen in the photos themselves. Hence why some believe they were completely staged.
Finally, there were a lot of photos taken that never survived into the modern era.

Many Civil War photos were seen as painful memories and the glass plate negatives were often melted down and used for things like window panes and greenhouses, causing hundreds if not thousands of photographs to be lost forever.
A fair and accurate point, there is a bit of a "survivorship bias". But that doesn't have much bearing on the validity of the photos that do exist.

I saved a post a long time ago that addresses the issue of Civil War photos in some depth. I won't waste your time further until I can find it and post it here.
 
I disagree with this quite strongly because that is not accurate. Photography was already around for a good twenty years by the time of the Civil War, so it was not a novelty- people were familiar with it by then. And the attitudes towards photos, especially portraits, was very formal. One was supposed to look their best and appear composed. Primarily for reasons that you yourself stated


This point contradicts your previous one. First you say that Civil War era photography was treated as casually as modern social media, then you say it was impractical and rarely used outside of formal pre-planned settings

A fair and accurate point, there is a bit of a "survivorship bias". But that doesn't have much bearing on the validity of the photos that do exist.

I saved a post a long time ago that addresses the issue of Civil War photos in great depth. I won't waste your time further until I can find it and post it here.

1. When I say "novelty", I was speaking in a relative sense.

Photos had been around for twenty years by that point but were still a relatively expensive and time consuming process at the time. So it wasn't a casual thing.

Your average farm boy had probably heard of photography in 1861 and probably saw photos in the local newspapers but there's a good chance he didn't actually see a photographer with their camera until he was in the service unless he went out and paid to get his photo taken prior to joining the military.

The social media analogy fell flat, I'll admit. What I was trying to go for is that everyone tried to present a specific image for the camera and wanted to look a certain way like how influencers on social media today try to aim for a specific look with things like camera angles and filters.

Granted, the staging on social media is a lot more about vanity and less about formality.

Everything was staged because it was seen as a big deal to have your picture taken, it was seen as a formal and serious event and you wanted it to look good and present yourself as best as you could.

I'll admit that I should've been more clear in how I worded it or just used a better analogy.

2. Also, fair point. I just wanted to bring it up as an example of how so much of the actual historical record is simply lost to the passage of time.
 
Last edited:
1. When I say "novelty", I was speaking in a relative sense.

Photos had been around for twenty years by that point but were still an expensive and time consuming process at the time. Your average farm boy had probably heard of photography in 1861 and probably saw photos in the local newspapers but there's a good chance he didn't actually see a photographer with their camera until he was in the service.
That's fair. It would definitely vary by region though, someone from rural Appalachia would be less up to date on new technological developments than someone living on a farm or town in the flatlands, who in turn would be less up to date than an East Coast city dweller.
The social media analogy fell flat, I'll admit. What I was trying to go for is that everyone tried to present a specific image for the camera and wanted to look a certain way like how influencers on social media today try to aim for a specific look with things like camera angles and filters. I was trying to invoke social media as a modern example of vanity.

Everything was staged because it was seen as a big deal to have your picture taken and you wanted it to look good.

I'll admit that I should've been more clear in how I worded it or just used a better analogy.
Ok I see where you are coming from with that.
2. Also, fair point. I just wanted to bring it up as an example of how so much of the actual historical record is simply lost to the passage of time.

Also a good point. I did not know the attrition rate was that high, but that does raise some interesting questions. If the photos that do survive were chosen to survive, was it simply for quality reasons as you pointed out, or specifically for the sake of preserving a historical/political narrative? Hard to say, I lean towards the latter but it might be some of both.
 
Does the pentagram hold some symbolic meaning in the Masonic order?
masonic.jpg
 
I remember reading a blog post by a mathematician years ago. Who was looking into the history of the Romans and their military engineering expertise. He said he calculated that something must be wrong, because the historians take on things would suggest for the amount of equipment they were carrying, each man must have the build of Arnold Schwarznegger. With the stamina of a triathlete. He suggests there are massive holes here that ancient historians are bushing over.

This is bullshit. Roman military equipment and just what each man carried in a field march is well-established, at least for the period from the Marian reforms to the mid-Empire period. Reconstructions are ready available, each man carried his mail, helmet, and shield on a Y-shaped stick, along with at least one pilum (carried in hand to use as a walking staff) and three-four palisade stakes bundled with an entrenching tool. His sword and short dagger were belted around his waist, along with a small bag carrying a small amount of food and a water/wineskin. If they were marching through hostile territory, the mail and helmet would be worn and the shield would be carried in his left arm, along with at least one pilum. The total weight would have been less than 100 pounds, and well-distributed. Modern soldiers regularly make long marches carrying just as much weight or more. Well-conditioned men wearing recreations of Roman military issue equipment have been able to make the exact same kind of marches for the same length in the same amount of time as the Romans did.

Heavy equipment was mostly carried on wagons in the baggage train, along with personal possessions, and the eight-man tents. Most of the food was in the wagons as well, though rations for multiple days could be issued for the troops themselves to carry.

I can't say that I ever read a 'blog post' by any 'mathematician', but I spent several years studying this subject and know enough to categorically call this fake and retarded.
 
Does the pentagram hold some symbolic meaning in the Masonic order?
View attachment 3320725
Yeah, it’s the symbol of the women’s side of Masons, the Order of the Eastern Star. A bunch of old ladies in my tiny rural town have the metal badge on their car, even, next to the “2B1, Ask1” sticker
CE6A5B45-7F9B-4055-8646-44ACD7944577.png
 
With the flat earth thing, I noticed the same thing- it's extremely marginal at best and was being propped up as this huge threat to Science and Truth. Why were they doing it, well, that's the part we can debate but it was obviously astroturfed. I don't think it's because the earth is actually flat and they don't want us to find out, it's far more complicated than that. Trying to get people with other sets of view sucked into it so they could look dumb by being labeled "flat earthers" was the largest piece.
If you want to subscribe to this I think a far more plausible reason would be

Their propaganda wasn't working on global warming to the degree they wanted

They thought up some different propaganda techniques

They picked easy targets to test these out on

Flat earth and vaccines cause autism or whatever

Anyway I believe in whatever conspiracy theories that my belief in makes people on the internet think I'm smart and interesting
 
I've mentioned this before in another thread, but here's my thoughts on the Freemasons, at least in North America.

I think the Freemasons in America were definitely a powerhouse for nearly all of the 18th and 19th Centuries and likely into the 20th Century as well, but at some point in the 20th Century, they lost a lot of their power and now really are mostly a bunch of old geezers, Boomers, and X'ers who belong to a glorified social club and whose conspiracies basically amount to discounts at mom and pop stores or a free lunch at the diner or something.

Any way you slice it, something happened during the 20th Century that caused them to go from a highly influential elite group within American society to a glorified frat house for older middle-class men.

Keep in mind that I'm only talking about the American branch of the Freemasons.

I honestly don't know enough about Freemasonry in Europe to even try commenting on it one way or the other.
 
White replacement theory is real and is being carried out in several first world nations.

It's a wide-ranging theory though. It goes from just acknowledging demographic changes in white countries. To some evil orchestrated plot to take down whitey.

Maybe it's a conspiracy theory that noticing demographic shifts is now labelled believing it's all a planned genocide.


I personally don't think there are elves or something planning why it is happening. It's just a bunch of economic policies and ideologies at play in the west that are supporting immigration that eventually shifts demographics.


I suspect some come from the world becoming smaller due to all the innovations of the 20th century. There's some level of white guilt about how much better off it is in the west than most of the world. This is then masked with cultural relativism, so people don't acknowledge it is their motivation. Yet it drives their thinking. We should allow more people to live here, it'll be good for them, not that there's anything wrong with anywhere else, it'll just be better for us and for them. They'll become more like us, bring only superficial cultural differences, like cuisine or different clothes for weddings.

People don't know history, understand civilisations and how the good ideas that created prosperity in the west were a long time coming and had to be fought for.

As they don't understand this, with cultural relativism. If you were to suggest the west should work with poor, non-functioning countries to reform their societies and cultures to become more like the west. You'd be told you're a horrible racist and a colonialist.

If you were to say migration to the west only provides incentives for people to want to leave their homeland. Not to improve and reform their homeland. You're denying someone living a better life. Plus all cultures are just as valid.

Even though they are coming from a position of wanting to help more people. Make more of the world desirable places to live. Actually, be a genuine utopia plan, not based on one magically popping up if you tear down enough statues.

Also on replacement theory, I had an awkward conversation the other day about it. They brought up Tucker backtracking, but videos doing the rounds of him talking about it. I mentioned the videos from MSNBC of people talking about it. The other person was all, "what no" and didn't believe me. All "that couldn't happen." I'm like, "well yeah but it is happening though." Just ended the conversation to not get into an argument.

Only after thinking back on it, I think this guy thought replacement theory was not just demographic changes and whatever motivations, evil conspiracies that can be tacked onto that; but literally, the shooter believed a black person was going to come and take over his life and replace him. lol His comments were like, "but who does he think is going to come replace him?" lol
 
Last edited:
It just really sticks out to me that they used to see ball lightning all the time and while they were obviously careful, it was basically normal. But now its so rare that I've never seen it and nor has anyone I know.
If I had to guess, I'd say it could have something to do with the invention and increasing use of radio and microwave communication since that time
 
This is off-topic, but Stephen Baxter wrote a great sci-fi book called Flood about what would happen if Earth's internal oceans let loose. It's a very interesting depiction of a slow-moving apocalypse. He wrote a sequel set on a spaceship launched from Earth as a desperate forlorn hope, right before the end, called Ark. That one was good, too, with lots of stuff about social interactions in a small group. I highly recommend both of them, Stephen Baxter is really good.
 
I cant cite it because it was my country website that "cited" NASA without linking properly to it, but apparently Voyager still sends data, but what it sends doesn't make any sense. Yet, apparently its working correctly, just data seems weird.

If anyone is interested i ll try to dig more. Is Voyager reaching end of simulation? Any thoughts?
 
Back