Conspiracy Talk Archive March 05 2012


Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

05 Mar 2012 17:15:10
Hey ed , whats your opinion on , the whole 2012 , 21/12/12?

{Ed033's Note - The precession of the Equinoxes is recognised by "scientists" at the moment as being around 25,900 years. This is the number of years it takes for the sun to go around the 12 zodiac constellations. However as a side note, this number maybe incorrect because this precession appears to be speeding up, which is perplexing the "scientists". A possible reason for the speeding up of the precession could be because this solar system is most likely a binary star system and when the other sun starts to approach this solar system, the forces between the 2 stars causes our solar system to speed up it's journey around the 12 zodiac constellations. So the number of years maybe closer to 24,000 years or this is not the case and precession varies for an unknown reason between 23000 and 27000 years. So the starting place for this precessional year count is where the sun lines up directly with the centre of the Milky Way galaxy i.e the sun conjuncts with the galactic equator.

Apparently on 21 December 2012 the sun will end this precessional cycle and start again, like it has done for possibly millions of years. Some people refer to this as the Mayan long count. So possibly all 21 december 2012 is, is that the sun has completed another cycle through the zodiac constellations and is going to start a new cycle around the 12 zodiac constellations.

At the moment I don't see anything out of the ordinary happening on that specific day.}

Believable0 Unbelievable0

"this solar system is most likely a binary star system" - I would love to read the evidence for this assertion please, Ed033. The notion of a planet maintaining a steady orbit and developing a biosphere over 5by in a binary system is a bit misguided. Some of the largest orbital periods of binary stars are only on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. Proxima and Alpha Centauri). If Earth were to receive the inevitable gravitational 'knock' so frequently it is likely that mass extinctions would occur much more frequently than every few hundred million years.

You put speech-marks around the word "scientists" like they don't exist, or aren't really scientists. Can you explain this?


{Ed033's Note - Rikki, You might have to get up to speed before coming on here. This web site maybe a bit too advanced for your current level of knowledge. A good place to start is scroll to the bottom and watch all the video interviews.}

Agree3 Disagree1

Here's a site for Walter Cruttenden one of the main researchers and exponets of our Sun being part of a Binary system

Agree0 Disagree0

Ed033 - you are one fine troll! After your "this web site maybe a bit too advanced current level of knowledge" bit, I scrolled down and found this:

"They need to hurry up and find this "god particle" the hicks bozon if thats spelt correctly ? The nutters will just say "Ah but who made the hicks bozon, must have been god" I can see it now...."

I really fail to spot your logic here. Your riposte reminds me of something I read:

"But arguing with religious people is like playing chess with a pigeon - they knock over the pieces, defecate on the board and then fly away back to their friends to brag about their victory." - You have made no attempt to enter into rational discussion of your ideas. Rather, you have tried to insult my intelligence by ignoring my very valid questioning of your clearly flawed assertions, presumably to divert the attention from said flaws. The presentation of videos on a conspiracy website is evidence of the same calibre as the bible. (n.b. I couldn't even get past the bit at the start of the video recapping the latest news, it was that dreadful).

I am not here to enter into debates on the current paradigm in crazy conspiracies, but when I see clearly misguided interpretations of science and scientists I try to correct them. I will happily back up any of the assertions I have made with empirical, peer-reviewed data. The kind of stuff you can replicate to check it's not contrived to distract the masses.

Rikki {Ed001's Note - empirical, peer-reviewed data told us for years that margarine was healthier than butter, even though that was a complete lie. To suggest that anything you could produce is in anyway more or less reliable than any thing anyone else could produce is arrogant nonsense. Scientists spend most of their time fitting their data into patterns that suit the major company paying them to do the research. Hardly a trustworthy group, just like the conspiracy theorists that are coming out with theories to make their living. By the way, I fail to see on what basis you are asserting that mass extinctions must take place more frequently. You do realise that you, or anyone else for that matter, know very little about anything, we have such huge gaps in our knowledge that you cannot make any kind of assertion like that. Reality has a way of proving that the impossible is possible.}

Agree1 Disagree1

Ed001 - you forget to mention the mountain of empirical literature that is proven correct time and time again (i.e. quantum theory, evolution by natural selection). They very nature of the Scientific Method - to conduct repeatable experiments that produce as unambiguous a dataset as possible - means it is the most reliable form of research.

Sitting back and picking holes in what has been achieved by society (which is basically what conspiracy theorists do) has not led to Darwinian medicine, traditional medicine, or even to the development of modern technology. These advances, on which we so heavily rely, are based on sound scientific evidence, discovered and developed using the Scientific Method. Hence my "arrogance" (I feel Ed033 set the tone) when discussing the reliability of evidence. Although there are undoubtedly shady corporations that influence the direction and impetus of some scientific research, the majority of science works and produces results. Hence my bafflement at the general distrust of it on here. When ill, any sane man turns to a medically-trained doctor, and I'm pretty sure you don't think internet fairies transport our information across the world wide web.

I think what I'm trying to say is: throughout history it is science and its method that has produced advances and results which indicate its reliability. Discrediting science has not.

finally, I apologise for my arrogant tone. If you place "as far is understood..." in front of everything I have asserted, my actual tone will come across. I'm no "keyboard warrior".


Rikki {Ed001's Note - quantum theory has been proved time and time again? Are you for real? It is referred to as a theory because it is far from proven, just like evolution. There are as more holes than evidence to support both, now that could well be simply because we don't know enough. But, either way, there is no real proven facts in science, it evolves all the time as we fill in those gaps and find our old beliefs turn out to be complete nonsense. That is why your arrogant statements about proven facts are just laughable. We know virtually nothing about the world around us, even less about the oceans and even less again about the universe. To suggest that something can't be true because it doesn't fit with what we know, well it's simply ridiculous. It might well be a load of tosh, but you only have your opinion it is based on a knowledge base that is extremely limited by the fact that humanity has almost no knowledge. So to come on shouting about how it can't possibly be true because you don't know about it, it seems a little silly and arrogant to suggest we know enough to discount things. The problem with most theories are that scientists have a tendency to try and fit facts around their favourite theory, rather than try and find the theory that best fits what they know.}

Agree1 Disagree0

Ed001 - the only facts I have stated is that we are having this conversation using devices that are based on the principles of quantum mechanics. If it was wrong your computer would not work, neither would your mobile phone. If evolution was wrong we wouldn't have been able to develop antibiotics. While it is true that nothing in science is 'fact', there are things that are accepted beyond reasonable doubt.

The fact that we have orbiting satellites, mobile phones and medicine, all of which are underpinned by science, is the only evidence needed to show it works. This is my only issue. What's laughable is that you are using a device based on our understanding of physics to debase our understanding of physics. If science is so fatally flawed I'd beware next time you fly/drive/jump/use a microwave - God knows what might happen!

Rikki {Ed001's Note - not true, just because some parts of it are correct, that does not mean the overall theory is correct. It might well be right, but until we know everything, we can't prove that it is a fact. We can only say to the best of our knowledge that is how it works. You're clutching at straws there with the fly/drive/jump etc rubbish, just because we can do something doesn't mean we have to understand how or why. That is a pathetic argument and holds no water.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Jeez , will you two get a room ;-)

Science is the ability to predict the next most probable

Modern science is shackled by corporations and is therefore not achieving its full potential . Yes we have technological toys but we also have the ability to end global poverty . Capitalism will sell you the former and pay lip service to the latter


Agree0 Disagree0

Has the change in the calender during the 1600/1700's where we lost/gained a few days been taken into account?

{Ed033's Note - This is the question and to other researchers like Carl Johan Calleman, the Dec 21 2012 date is actually October 28, 2011.

It's also interesting that it is recognised that neither 1 BC nor 1 AD is the birth year of Jesus Christ so possibly as the Julian calendar was started in around 46 BC after Julius Caesar visited Egypt, the Julian calendar may not have anything to do with Jesus after all. This makes sense as the most powerful groups who think they're running the show aren't into Jesus otherwise they'd be a bit more benevolent to say the least. The Julian calendar was becoming out of sync with the Equinox's so under Pope Gregory XIII the calendar was altered with 10 days being removed and became known as the Gregorian calendar.

You'd think that if this calendar was going to mark a special occasion then the occasion would coincide with the calendar being at a millennium date such as the midnight January 1st 2000. This date is obviously not the 2000 anniversary of Jesus and not the December 21 2012 date

What happened at midnight January 1st 2000 was a one and only ever event where the main Star of Sirius was directly over the Great Pyramid in Egypt.

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Mar 2012 13:27:44
Hey, new to posting on here but I thought I'd give it a go :) What I'm writing about isn't really a conspiracy, just clearing things up!
1st thing is, the legal age of consent in the Vatican city is 12 for a reason! when they became independent, they chose to live by some rules previously set in Italy. Obviously, the laws in Italy became more up to date with time passed, and they raised the age first to 14, and then to 16 which it is now. It did not change in the Vatican city because it is not relevant, when you consider the population is made up of people who mainly vow to be celibate! a similar thing happened here in the UK, with it only becoming illegal to own a slave in 2010! it just wasn't relevant anymore and was simply over looked!
2nd, people talking about Noah! it actually states in the bible that 2 of each filthy beast go on board his ark and 7!!!!!! of each clean beast go on board. The animals deemed to be clean are listed in Leviticus and I believe are similar to Jewish kosher laws! so the task handed to Noah was actually larger than you think! however, I don't think this is reason enough to start talking about ETs taking animal DNA, i think both are as unlikely as each other and that the story should just be forgotten ( I would like to point out at this point, that I am catholic!)
3rd, it's not really important, but why would Michelangelo think to leave out the belly button? to my knowledge, which I admit is limited, cloning wasn't a concept back then, so I don't fully understand why they'd think to leave out the belly button, especially if it was based on man as they had seen it. just a thought! to paraphrase peter hitchens, any religion is better than no religion, so people on here shouldn't try and destroy the faith that some people do hold on to. I myself sit on the fence, as a lot of the bible is obviously bunk and has been disproved by science! But for every how science has given us, it leaves open the question of why? which is why i think god still has a role to play in life yet!

a note to leave on. If human beings evolved from life that used to dwell in the sea, does that mean people who are good at swimming are less evolved?

tinhead x

Believable2 Unbelievable4

" which is why i think god still has a role to play in life yet! "

There is no god . There is no proof of existence of any god . The only claimed proof is found in multi-millenia old fairy stories , written by semi-literate tribesman .

Beliefs are just ideas that have gone bald .


Agree6 Disagree3

"But for every how science has given us, it leaves open the question of why? which is why i think god still has a role to play in life yet!"

A brilliant example of the old "God of the gaps" rhetoric! The thing is, these gaps get smaller every century. Hopefully it won't be too long until religion is no longer able to oppress women, homosexuals etc.

But hey, "any religion is better than no religion"...all those bloody Atheist terrorists!


Agree4 Disagree4

Same time though you cannot disprove that God/s don't exist.

Also if you actaully knew what you were on about you'd realise that most of the religious texts in the world were not written by semi-literate tribesmen.

As someone else pointed out a lot of creation myths in many religious texts go abck to Sumer and they definitely were not "semi-literate tribesmen"

If people want to believe in God/s then up to them, science hasn't disproved or proved anything yet, the jury is still out. Even the scientists admit that as they are all still arguing with each other.

Agree1 Disagree0

Science's aim is not to disprove God, it is to better understand the World and Universe around us. Just because something can not be disproved does not mean it might exist (Russell's Teapot is the classic example).

Further, something that is impossible to disprove must, by definition, have no observable influence on the Universe at any point in its past or future.


Agree1 Disagree0

tinhead, how can u say it's not relevant about the age of consent when catholic priest's, which now must be numbering in the thousand's, have been caught raping and abusing children all over the world. I'm not anti catholic, ( i have lived in Ireland and spain and found the people in both country's brilliant ) and there is no way the same thing is not happening in other religions, but for it to be 12 in the first place is shocking. Masons are luciferian, so why is the most powerful lodge in the world situated in the Vatican( P2 ). Have a look on youtube at the present pope shaking Tony Blair hand, and tell me this is not a mason's hand shake. My opinion is that the catholic church is more than they are letting on.

Again i'm not having ago at catholic people, the 2 most decent thing's anyone has ever done for me was by catholic people and i will never forget that. Given that the new world order has just about taken over the world and are about to destroy religion as we know it and most are masons, there must be more to the catholic church than we know, or i Know at present. Anyone got any answers !

Agree2 Disagree0

God doesnt exist, and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest so. There is more evidence out there that suggests we may not be alone in the universe, and even most of that evidence is questionable, but a very small percental of it is remarkable.
The universe is a beautiful, mysterious place, which we'll understand a lot more as time passes us by. But so far, we know only of ourselves in our tiny little corner of our galaxy. Maybe one day, we will come across another planet with intelligent life on it, and maybe not. But with the vastness of the universe, its more than likely that there is some galaxy out there that we dont even know about, that may be harbouring intelligent life forms, maybe just lime us, who knows.



Agree1 Disagree0

I dont think the nwo are out to destroy any religion infact i think they need people who believe in whatever god to pray to for more conflicts around the world, think about it if the jews and catholics/church of england/allah whoever would know god was a fraud , then everyone would turn there attenion to the real issue, like who is running our world, like the nwo and if there is no conflict about religion we could all unite against the real enemy, hence nwo.

Agree2 Disagree0

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove god's existence through any of that, just saying the figure that we call god which we use to make ourselves feel better about not understanding, still has a role to play. Until science proves there is no God, I'm willing to believe in the possibility!

Also, with the catholic priest thing, I admit that one raping anyone, is too many, but there isn't that many it's just a story inflated because of the fact that's a catholic priest! did you know that per capita, Vatican city has the highest rate of crime in the world? does that mean that the pope is a cat burgler? people can use statistics to argue any point so it's not worth paying attention to them. 74% of all people know that ;)

tinhead x

Agree0 Disagree0

" Same time though you cannot disprove that God/s don't exist"

Its up to you to prove god exists , you're making claims he / she / It may have more to contribute . Where is this god you speak of ?


Agree1 Disagree0

But the point of God is that it's probably more than likely never going to be known whether he does or does not exist! I'm not arguing for him here, just stating that I'm willing to keep an open mind as to my knowledge, there's no proof that he doesn't exist. I honestly don't believe in the bible, most of it is lifted from other texts and it's hard to believe in most of it, and I agree with science as it obviously has the proof behind it to back it up, but there still must have been something at the very beginning? I'll admit I like the idea of a God, because it really does help to comprehend the idea of the universe's creation, rather than not knowing why or how it became? like I said, I sit on the fence on this, because there is no evidence backing up either side, and if God does exist, I'd rather be on good terms when i die haha

tinhead x

Agree0 Disagree0

They need to hurry up and find this "god particle" the hicks bozon if thats spelt correctly ? The nutters will just say "Ah but who made the hicks bozon, must have bben god" I can see it now....


Agree0 Disagree0

It is just a point of discussion that will never end though. What started everything off? I think the world is better off believing that a God did it and bringing faith and a moral code to live by with it. Again, I'm sitting on the fence of this, so if any answer is ever revealed, I'll happily accept that answer (with proof or reasoning) but until then, I'm happy to carry on believing in a higher power. There is no point being so close minded that people can't at least accept the possibility of a God and trying to argue with people about it so they lose their own faith!

Agree0 Disagree0

If people want to beleive in god I have no problem with that its just a different opinion to mine. What I actually hate though is relegion, how can you be devoted to something you cannot prove and thank this god for all his wonder without acknowledging the fact that he must have created everything bas aswell ! I dont get how a 60 year old woman who has been to church/mosque/temple all her life and allways followed the 10 commandments or whatever, gets say bowel cancer and has a 2 year painfull struggle then dies, but before she dies still beleives in god and says things like their going to a better place. Be my guest, beleive in him it or them, but PLEASE STOP TELLING THE WORLD GOD LOVES YOU ! If he's real he hates you, get over it.


Agree3 Disagree0