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

Something that may not cause trouble now could be a potential saving grace for people if they ever get a reason to start using it in the future
Maybe not a lot of people wanna drive non computerized cars now, but if anything big enough to finally make the frog notice it 's being boiled pops up, a lot of semi-normies can potentially go "right, that's it, that's the final straw, i'm going innawoods classic car!"

If you ban them while they're comparatively more niche there will be a lot less outcry, people won't yet question why they oughta care
Always keep it in mind when something super random and obscure gets banned for seemingly now reason

>Haha they're banning anti super-mecha-death-cannon-manfucker shields? That's so random, who even needed those? Take them I don't care, no loss for me!
>Hey why is there suddenly a super-mecha-death-cannon-manfucker walking through town?
The only good part about lefties bombing Tesla cars right now(Not a terrorist act according to Elon Musk[Derangement Syndrome] thread btw) is that this sets a precedent for people bombing these piece of shit "smart" cars in the future like the Unabomber would. I definitely won't miss them, give me a good old 90s or 80s shitbox over them anyday.
 
The only good part about lefties bombing Tesla cars right now(Not a terrorist act according to Elon Musk[Derangement Syndrome] thread btw) is that this sets a precedent for people bombing these piece of shit "smart" cars in the future like the Unabomber would. I definitely won't miss them, give me a good old 90s or 80s shitbox over them anyday.
i can't bring myself to feel the same
they're not bombing these things out of a clear ideological incentive, they're doing it in an overemotional violent outburst and copying the actions of others
the Unabomber had a drive, without a drive you're just a buncha chimping apes
they won't make the connection between these Tesla cars and other smart cars, they're just mad that it has Elon's name tied to it

they only recognize visual cues
if you put them in a room with a guy who completely agrees with every single one of hitler's policies and wants to reenact them all over, and a guy with a little square mustache- and told them to shoot the nazi... they'd shoot the guy with the mustache
 
i can't bring myself to feel the same
they're not bombing these things out of a clear ideological incentive, they're doing it in an overemotional violent outburst and copying the actions of others
the Unabomber had a drive, without a drive you're just a buncha chimping apes
It doesn't matter what that niggercattle thinks, what matters is that the shitty cars go "boom" and there isn't a big outrage about it. This is all we need to know, if they try rolling out some draconian laws that ban all non-self driving smart cars, people won't be shedding tears if they also go boom unless they're the companies that make them or people dumb enough to buy them . Nobody needs to say or imply anything, just read between the lines.
Oh yeah, people are going to prison for bombing cars, but how many vs how many bombings there are? They will never catch all of them. This is only a small chimpout from a few retards that hate Elon, if the elites actually start banning cars on a massive scale that will impact everyday people or collectors, it will just get worse.
 
Yes, actually. The Selk’nam, for example, used to live down there in Tierra Del Fuego and had some interesting biological adaptations that allowed them to live in the super-cold. They could have easily made it to Antarctica and lived similarly to the people of the far north (e.g. Lots of seals to eat).
Check out their body painting, think how well that would have worked among the ice. It's pretty cool to think about.
Antarctica wasn't always a frozen desert. According to the Peri Reis map, it was a lush paradise at some point in the not too distant history.

A sudden warming/melting of the ice caps would hit some areas with biblical floods - which all ancient civilisations discuss, and would render the poles ice-less and habitable.
 
Antarctica wasn't always a frozen desert. According to the Peri Reis map, it was a lush paradise at some point in the not too distant history.

A sudden warming/melting of the ice caps would hit some areas with biblical floods - which all ancient civilisations discuss, and would render the poles ice-less and habitable.
But doesn't that mean that Antarctica must have frozen over since the 16th century when the map was made? Wouldn't that amount of ice on a continental shelf not result in a pretty significant lowering of the sea level as well?
But the whole Terra Australis thing is super fascinating. Even ancient Romans had postulated that there should be a massive landmass down there.
And yet the first official landing we know of was in like 1820, which fascinates me to no end. How did it take so long to even see it?

/edit: Apparently there were some earlier potential sightings, and certainly sightings of icebergs further south. So Antarctica, if the Piri Reis map was actually correct and ice free in 1505 or so, must have frozen over within like 200 years. I think the Piri Reis map just represented what somehow everyone postulated to be existing since the ancients, that there was a big southern continent. They just put something on the maps where they thought it should be, and the further south exploration got, the smaller it got.
That being said, Antarctica definitely was ice free and somewhat lush at some point, but I think that was millions od years ago.
 
Last edited:
But doesn't that mean that Antarctica must have frozen over since the 16th century when the map was made? Wouldn't that amount of ice on a continental shelf not result in a pretty significant lowering of the sea level as well?
But the whole Terra Australis thing is super fascinating. Even ancient Romans had postulated that there should be a massive landmass down there.
And yet the first official landing we know of was in like 1820, which fascinates me to no end. How did it take so long to even see it?

/edit: Apparently there were some earlier potential sightings, and certainly sightings of icebergs further south. So Antarctica, if the Piri Reis map was actually correct and ice free in 1505 or so, must have frozen over within like 200 years. I think the Piri Reis map just represented what somehow everyone postulated to be existing since the ancients, that there was a big southern continent. They just put something on the maps where they thought it should be, and the further south exploration got, the smaller it got.
Apparently, Peri Reis copied his map from a much, much older map and the stories of ancient civilisations living on Antartica pre-date any conventional wisdom of the movement of humans, to the point where Africa may not have been the birth place of humanity, merely a recharging station after travelling from Antartica - to avoid the changing conditions, and/or Australia.
Personally I believe we start in Australia, thrived and then spread to Africa and Asia, resulting in two distinct races; niggers and chinks.
 
Stop trying to lie to whitey!

Yeah. Sure. Don't lie to these gullible morons.

1743197308382.png

Why take quick money and real estate from easy marks.

I listen to this elder Navajo who talks about his culture, experiences, stories, ect and at one point he mentions that a great calamity hit the Anasazi as sent by the Holy People as punishment for their evil predation on other tribes.

Yeah. They were bad so something happened, Now they live with the stars. They sleep with the fishes.
 
Last edited:
  • Dumb
Reactions: The Mighty Banth
Apparently, Peri Reis copied his map from a much, much older map and the stories of ancient civilisations living on Antartica pre-date any conventional wisdom of the movement of humans, to the point where Africa may not have been the birth place of humanity, merely a recharging station after travelling from Antartica - to avoid the changing conditions, and/or Australia.
Personally I believe we start in Australia, thrived and then spread to Africa and Asia, resulting in two distinct races; niggers and chinks.
Conventional wisdom dates the freezing over of Antarctica to like 45 million years ago, but it's definitely fascinating. Where did you get that from?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cactus and NoReturn
Conventional wisdom dates the freezing over of Antarctica to like 45 million years ago, but it's definitely fascinating. Where did you get that from?
It's been a theory knocking about for a long time. For a more concise explanation, check out The Why Files on youtube. They do an Antarctica special and references it in other episodes.
That and Mystery History, are the only two youtube channels I watch. Both are fantastic.

Mystery History, with lots of evidence, questions the conventional wisdom of dates in our history. There are structures shown on that channel that I never knew existed and now that I know, I know for sure our history isn't what we believe.
There's a temple in asia built by chiselling down into a mountain and it surpasses the pyramids for complexity. It's unreal.
 
The issue with finding the missing link, is that when you do, you now have 2 new missing links to look for.
What’s funny about this is that whenever some supposed prehistoric proto-human fossil like Lucy is found, it always ends being some random baboon or gibbon parts and modern human bones mixed together. Sometimes, they even take non-human bones and put it in there and say they found an extinct species of human.

Evolution will never be observed in the wild because it doesn’t exist. Breeding dogs is not evolution, and neither is the survival of the fittest principle (which may or may not even exist, considering how easily genetic diseases are passed down through several generations, and also after seeing dysgenic retards like chrischan being able to breed).
Adaptations to certain environmental pieces of crap isn’t evolution either, an animal doesn’t turn into a whole different species simply because its beak grew smaller so it can eat seeds better or it grew 2 penises after being exposed to radiation.
My conspiracy theory is that whenever this thread is diverted onto topics that aren't conspiracies, it's done by cia niggers. It can't possibly be the case that some people are dumb/interested in topics that I'm not/sharing genuine conspiracies that I'm too dumb to understand.
 
My conspiracy theory is that whenever this thread is diverted onto topics that aren't conspiracies, it's done by cia niggers. It can't possibly be the case that some people are dumb/interested in topics that I'm not/sharing genuine conspiracies that I'm too dumb to understand.
I think the parking lots at Trader Joes were made too small, intentionally, to make Trader Joes look more popular than it is.

WE ARE THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS, PEOPLE!!!

I couldn't help myself.
 
This website can be hard to navigate if you don't recognize when people are joking, like I was.

Evolution will never be observed in the wild because it doesn’t exist. Breeding dogs is not evolution

What's the point of differentiating anthropogenic evolution and non-anthropogenic evolution if you're going to handwave both of them away?

Also not sure why you think chrischan, a genetic dead-end would be proof against evolution/survival of the fittest. Does he have children that I am unaware of?

Not that it makes much sense to look at the individual level like that for a process that is generally easiest to observe in large populations and time frames. Though with some things like drosophila or dogs or seed crossing and selection in plants it's quite easy to observe even in fairly small populations. I feel pretty dumb for even engaging with you, because I know there's no real discussion to be had, it's unlikely that you truly have a working concept of what the theory of evolution is, so we'll be talking past each other most likely in the first place.
 
Apparently, Peri Reis copied his map from a much, much older map and the stories of ancient civilisations living on Antartica pre-date any conventional wisdom of the movement of humans, to the point where Africa may not have been the birth place of humanity, merely a recharging station after travelling from Antartica - to avoid the changing conditions, and/or Australia.
Personally I believe we start in Australia, thrived and then spread to Africa and Asia, resulting in two distinct races; niggers and chinks.
He replied: "At the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, there is a certain district which is called the district of Sais, and the great city of the district is also called Sais, and is the city from which Amasis the king was sprung. And the citizens have a deity who is their foundress: she is called in the Egyptian tongue Neith, which is asserted by them to be the same whom the Hellenes called Athene. Now, the citizens of this city are great lovers of the Athenians, and say that they are in some way related to them. Thither came Solon, who was received by them with great honor; and be asked the priests, who were most skillful in such matters, about antiquity, and made the discovery that neither he nor any other Hellene knew anything worth mentioning about the times of old.

On one occasion, when he was drawing them on to speak of antiquity, he began to tell about the most ancient things in our part of the world--about Phoroneus, who is called 'the first,' and about Niobe; and, after the Deluge, to tell of the lives of Deucalion and Pyrrha; and he traced the genealogy of their descendants, and attempted to reckon bow many years old were the events of which he was speaking, and to give the dates. Thereupon, one of the priests, who was of very great age; said, 'O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes are but children, and there is never an old man who is an Hellene.' Solon, bearing this, said, 'What do you mean?' 'I mean to say,' he replied, 'that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age.
And I will tell you the reason of this: there have been, and there will be again, many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes. There is a story which even you have preserved, that once upon a time Phaëthon, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now, this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving around the earth and in the heavens, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth recurring at long intervals of time: when this happens, those who live upon the mountains and in dry and lofty places are more liable to destruction than those who dwell by rivers or on the sea-shore; and from this calamity the Nile, who is our never-failing savior, saves and delivers us. When, on the other hand, the gods purge the earth with a deluge of water, among you herdsmen and shepherds on the mountains are the survivors, whereas those of you who live in cities are carried by the rivers into the sea; but in this country neither at that time nor at any other does the water come from above on the fields, having always a tendency to come up from below, for which reason the things preserved here are said to be the oldest.

The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer sun does not prevent, the human race is always increasing at times, and at other times diminishing in numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed--if any action which is noble or great, or in any other way remarkable has taken place, all that has been written down of old, and is preserved in our temples; whereas you and other nations are just being provided with letters and the other things which States require; and then, at the usual period, the stream from heaven descends like a pestilence, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and thus you have to begin all over again as children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours which you have recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children; for, in the first place, you remember one deluge only, whereas there were many of them; and, in the next place, you do not know that there dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, of whom you and your whole city are but a seed or remnant. And this was unknown to you, because for many generations the survivors of that destruction died and made no sign. For there was a time, Solon, before that great deluge of all, when the city which now is Athens was first in war, and was preeminent for the excellence of her laws, and is said to have performed the noblest deeds, and to have had the fairest constitution of any of which tradition tells, under the face of heaven.' Solon marveled at this, and earnestly requested the priest to inform him exactly and in order about these former citizens.
'You are welcome to hear about them, Solon,' said the priest, 'both for your own sake and for that of the city; and, above all, for the sake of the goddess who is the common patron and protector and educator of both our cities. She founded your city a thousand years before ours, receiving from the Earth and Hephæstus the seed of your race, and then she founded ours, the constitution of which is set down in our sacred registers as 8000 years old. As touching the citizens of 9000 years ago, I will briefly inform you of their laws and of the noblest of their actions; and the exact particulars of the whole we will hereafter go through at our leisure in the sacred registers themselves.
- Plato
 
This website can be hard to navigate if you don't recognize when people are joking, like I was.
Your statement about the 2 new missing links was objectively correct, since we would have to prove which species bridge the newly discovered creature between the ape and the man.
What's the point of differentiating anthropogenic evolution and non-anthropogenic evolution if you're going to handwave both of them away?
Because it’s the same concept, hello? How are we to prove that humankind came from monkeys when we can’t even prove it anywhere else in the biosphere? The rules don’t change between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic evolution.
Also not sure why you think chrischan, a genetic dead-end would be proof against evolution/survival of the fittest. Does he have children that I am unaware of?
He got a girlfriend in Finland, so I made a joke about how if someone like him can be able to reproduce, than the concept is not as omnipotent as is claimed.
Not that it makes much sense to look at the individual level like that for a process that is generally easiest to observe in large populations and time frames.
How else are we to observe it other than that? Evolution supposedly starts in a few specimens and then those specimens become the dominant group. If we can’t find proof that a species can transition to another, then the argument of evolution flops.
I feel pretty dumb for even engaging with you, because I know there's no real discussion to be had, it's unlikely that you truly have a working concept of what the theory of evolution is, so we'll be talking past each other most likely in the first place.
Scared that I’m right? The redpill is hard to swallow, the individual feels discomfort after being exposed to the truth.
 
He got a girlfriend in Finland, so I made a joke about how if someone like him can be able to reproduce, than the concept is not as omnipotent as is claimed.
I didn't know that he has a girlfriend. Thanks for keeping me up on the chris chan lore without me needing to watch 8 hour video breakdowns.
Scared that I’m right? The redpill is hard to swallow, the individual feels discomfort after being exposed to the truth.
Since you are intent to engage despite that comment of mine, I'll wade with you into the weeds for a bit. Why not?

Because it’s the same concept, hello? How are we to prove that humankind came from monkeys when we can’t even prove it anywhere else in the biosphere? The rules don’t change between anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic evolution.


Technically humans didn't come from monkeys according to the theory of evolution, but monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor. Bonobo's, chimps, even monkeys are as evolved as humans are.

What is your reasoning for the neotenous diversity in dogs, especially when compared with wolves? You seem to be using the word "species" and using that categorization as a kind of barometer, where the shift from one species to another would be taken as a proof of evolution from you? Am I understanding that correctly, or would you like to specify better what kind of evidence could convince you of the existence of evolution?
 
Last edited:
Technically humans didn't come from monkeys according to the theory of evolution, but monkeys and humans came from a common ancestor.
Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.
neotenous diversity
I’ve got no clue what this means brother.
You seem to be using the word "species" and using that categorization as a kind of barometer, where the shift from one species to another would be taken as a proof of evolution from you? Am I understanding that correctly, or would you like to specify better what kind of evidence could convince you of the existence of evolution?
Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution. If we could find proof of a species “evolving” and becoming a brand new species in the wild, then I would consider that proof of evolution.
 
Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.
Why do you say "monkeys" plural? That's referring to different species? If they have a common monkey ancestor doesn't that in itself prove different species coming from a single ancestor?

I’ve got no clue what this means brother.
Read up on neoteny. One of the quickest forms of evolution is neoteny. It's basicly where a very small number of mutations cause a delay in adulthood, or even never developing as far into adulthood as the previous versions did. For example, dogs are very neotenous. Their traits are more like wolf pups than adult wolfs. Typical behavioral mammalian traits of youth are curiosity, playfulness, lower territoriality, dependance.

Humans are also neotenous compared to apes (and europeans/asians more so than sub saharan africans). In apes, less hair, lighter hair, flatter face, shorter arms are typical youthful traits.

Dogs have an unusual diversity of traits as well compared to a lot of other species. You can have very different dogs, while they're still dogs.

Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution
One of the difficulties is that the definition of "species" itself is not an easy concept to convey or even agree on. For example, above you seem to have used different monkeys having a common ancestor, but that ancestor is still "a monkey" as an argument, but "monkey" isn't a species. Strictly speaking bonobo's and chimps aren't monkeys, they're apes (a most of the time true rule of thumb is that monkeys have tails, and apes don't).

So you seemed to have broadened the concept just to go with the intuitive point of the fact that monkeys were still monkeys. But one type of monkey diverting sufficiently from another that they speciate, in other words, become 2 different species, would be sufficient proof of evolution, right? Because that's one species becoming 2, or in other words, one becoming a new one.
 
Yes but the common ancestor of all these monkeys would probably just be another monkey so that’s why I said it.

I’ve got no clue what this means brother.

Yes, the idea of one species evolving into a new one is my understanding of evolution. If we could find proof of a species “evolving” and becoming a brand new species in the wild, then I would consider that proof of evolution.
Evolution takes place over very long times, kinda hard to directly observe it. But aren't there like snakes that still have tiny tiny legs? Exactly what you'd expect for a species evolving slowly.
 
Back