• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

What's The Most Outrageous Conspiracy Theory You Have Heard?

And another one:

The killing of six people, including three 9-year-olds, at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, has been filled with speculation about the shooter's motive.
Audrey Hale, 28, was killed at the scene by police officers, 14 minutes after the first emergency call, with bodycam footage revealing the moment when officers opened fire.
However, only hours after the footage was released, conspiracy theories blossomed suggesting the shooter was wearing different footwear at different stages of the attack.

Multiple tweets posted between March 28 and 29, 2023, claimed that the Nashville shooter's footwear changed during the course of the incident.

One tweet by @WayneTechSPFX, posted on March 28, which has been viewed 852,000 times, said: "This was pointed out to me. The shoes the assailant were wearing were swapped out.
"So upon further inspection of the footage the church cameras had. And the footage that was released to by Metro PD.
"Upon inspection of both videos. I can confirm the shoes were swapped out."

Another tweet by @WhiteOnRiceAnon, posted the same day, viewed 2.1 million times, stated: "Pumas going in. Vans going out. All bullshit. Used a pre recorded training video. Explains why they released the body cam footage so quickly. They had it all set up and ready to go."

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-nashville-shooters-body-wearing-different-shoes-1791148
So... what are they saying? That this is a kind of psyop? Or that the shooter liked changing shoes between killings?
 
So... what are they saying? That this is a kind of psyop? Or that the shooter liked changing shoes between killings?
For conspiracists there does not need to be a meaning or explanation. Just believable inconsistencies ...
 
So... what are they saying? That this is a kind of psyop? Or that the shooter liked changing shoes between killings?
They're saying that the security footage was filmed, by the same company that created the moon landing presumably, and continuity and wardrobe fouled up and didn't give the actor playing the shooter the same shoes for each scene. So that people will be influenced in favor of the "government taking away your guns." Like the post someone put up a while ago about how photos of Putin were really just his head photoshopped onto another body photographed in a setting so that obviously Putin wasn't actually there and was therefore probably in fact dead. I've looked at a very few of these fake "fakes" and in none of them was the information the poster claimed even slightly evident.
 
Populist conspiracies redux.

Some of you probably noticed that I started a thread this morning about "populist conspiracies" but, unfortunately, it was derailed into politics and was consequently removed by the mods.

I contacted them though and have been given permission to submit my post again, as it's a question which fascinates me and on which I would be interested in forumists' views.

The adjective populist and the noun populism seem to be everywhere these days. You submit a search on this forum and these words crop up in a multitude of threads. If you Google for "populist conspiracies", you'll get literally millions of hits.

So, given that the definition of populist is "appealing to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups" this raises the question: what precisely constitutes a populist conspiracy and why is that considered as particularly egregious?
By definition, surely a fringe conspiracy, if believed by only a few cannot be populist?
If, however, such a conspiracy gains traction and is believed by a majority, then at what point does it become mainstream thinking, rather than a conspiracy?

Please no references to political leaders, either alive or dead, in any responses!
 
Populism is a style rather than an actual credo. I'm not sure it necessarily equates to 'popular'.

I think the important element of any 'populist' conspiracy is that it seeks to reinforce the perceived divide between two social groups through the very structure of the alleged conspiracy. Seems to me that to qualify as a populist conspiracy a theory has to be built around the idea of an elite bloc or class - not just a few NASA engineers, or some disaffected Cuban counter-revolutionaries, or a few power thirsty political operatives, or a rogue element within an intelligence or military community - but, essentially, everyone with any influence outside the subject audience. (Or, at least, an awful lot of them.)
 
Everyone is going to hate me but because I paid 20 dollars for a month of ChatGPT4, I asked it this question. And it agrees with the previous posts:

Populist and Non-Populist Conspiracies.​

Model: GPT-4

Give a few examples of what might be called a "populist conspiracy theory ". Then please contrast it with examples of conspiracy theory that is not populist.

A "populist conspiracy theory" typically involves narratives that pit the common people against a powerful, secretive elite or establishment, often accusing them of manipulating events or institutions for their own benefit. Some examples include:
  1. The "New World Order": This theory suggests that a secretive, global elite is planning to establish a totalitarian world government, undermining national sovereignty and manipulating global events to further their interests.
  2. "Deep State" conspiracies: These theories argue that unelected bureaucrats and intelligence agencies covertly control national governments, operating independently of elected officials and pursuing their own interests at the expense of the public.
  3. "Big Pharma" and vaccine conspiracies: These theories claim that pharmaceutical companies, in collusion with governments and health organizations, suppress natural cures or exaggerate the benefits of vaccines to maintain their profits and control over the population.
In contrast, non-populist conspiracy theories do not necessarily involve an elite or establishment, and may focus on specific events, entities, or phenomena that are perceived as hidden or unexplained. Some examples include:
  1. UFO cover-ups: This theory posits that various governments, particularly the United States, have concealed evidence of extraterrestrial life and UFO sightings, to prevent public panic or maintain control over advanced technology.
  2. Moon landing hoax: This theory claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked by the United States government, in order to win the space race against the Soviet Union and boost national pride.
  3. The Bermuda Triangle: This theory suggests that a specific region in the Atlantic Ocean, known as the Bermuda Triangle, is responsible for the mysterious disappearance of numerous ships and aircraft, possibly due to supernatural or unexplained forces.
These non-populist conspiracy theories do not necessarily involve a struggle between the masses and a powerful elite, but instead focus on hidden or unexplained phenomena that may challenge conventional understanding or official narratives.
 
Everyone is going to hate me but because I paid 20 dollars for a month of ChatGPT4, I asked it this question. And it agrees with the previous posts:

Populist and Non-Populist Conspiracies.​

Model: GPT-4

Give a few examples of what might be called a "populist conspiracy theory ". Then please contrast it with examples of conspiracy theory that is not populist.

A "populist conspiracy theory" typically involves narratives that pit the common people against a powerful, secretive elite or establishment, often accusing them of manipulating events or institutions for their own benefit. Some examples include:
  1. The "New World Order": This theory suggests that a secretive, global elite is planning to establish a totalitarian world government, undermining national sovereignty and manipulating global events to further their interests.
  2. "Deep State" conspiracies: These theories argue that unelected bureaucrats and intelligence agencies covertly control national governments, operating independently of elected officials and pursuing their own interests at the expense of the public.
  3. "Big Pharma" and vaccine conspiracies: These theories claim that pharmaceutical companies, in collusion with governments and health organizations, suppress natural cures or exaggerate the benefits of vaccines to maintain their profits and control over the population.
In contrast, non-populist conspiracy theories do not necessarily involve an elite or establishment, and may focus on specific events, entities, or phenomena that are perceived as hidden or unexplained. Some examples include:
  1. UFO cover-ups: This theory posits that various governments, particularly the United States, have concealed evidence of extraterrestrial life and UFO sightings, to prevent public panic or maintain control over advanced technology.
  2. Moon landing hoax: This theory claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked by the United States government, in order to win the space race against the Soviet Union and boost national pride.
  3. The Bermuda Triangle: This theory suggests that a specific region in the Atlantic Ocean, known as the Bermuda Triangle, is responsible for the mysterious disappearance of numerous ships and aircraft, possibly due to supernatural or unexplained forces.
These non-populist conspiracy theories do not necessarily involve a struggle between the masses and a powerful elite, but instead focus on hidden or unexplained phenomena that may challenge conventional understanding or official narratives.
Fair points.
Surely though UFO cover-ups could be described as populist, due to a lot of people believing that the US authorities (i.e. the elite) took possession of a crashed UFO (and possibly its occupants) and have been busy secretly reverse-engineering the alien technology at high security state facilities such as Area 51?

Arguably also, the Moon landing conspiracy, if you subscribe to that (which I definitely do not) was a state cover-up to disguise either a failed mission or the fact that the USA's technology in 1969 was insufficient to accomplish a genuine landing.

Any members of the common populace digging too deeply into either of these could fear a threatening visit from those sinister agents of the elite known as Men in Black.
 
I think that any UFO Cover Ups or Moon Landing Cover up theories are not popularist, because there is not a majority of people who believe in them or who have had their way of life and standard of living disrupted by them.
 
First, this definition is duff:

"Appealing to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups"

It ought to read ATTEMPTING TO APPEAL... it's perfectly possible to be populist without being popular.

I'd like to get a little more forensic.

Populists claim that the biggest problems suffered by the majority of people are caused by the deliberate and occult machinations of a small minority—they differ only in their judgments of which minority group is to blame and what the motivation is.

This is dangerous where it overlaps with racial, nationalist and religious extremism as well as where it treats the actions of individuals as being characteristic of all members of the primary demographics these individuals belong to.

It also overlooks the glaringly obvious fact that the lives of the common man are much, much more often blighted by the political, economic and philosophical conditions that pertain around them, conditions that tend to persist regardless of the race, religion, sex or wealth of the individual pressing the buttons. Plus, of course, those that actually staff the institutions that allegedly work against the common man are staffed, primarily, by the common man, not select and pliant automatons.

Populist conspiracy theories that claim to have identified the 'true' locus of influence feel superficially empowering to those who adopt them ('You'll just have to overthrow capitalism and break a centuries-old hegemony' not being an attractive proposition for most) because:

They explain how bad things can come to happen despite the wishes of the masses: subterfuge (although we in the developed world see more of the operation of real power than ever before).

The continual reference to clandestine methods to the exclusion of jejune politics emphasises a moral dimension: these people are not merely ideological rivals, they are evil.

They 'shift the blame' outward. The truth is that a great many 'bad things' could be averted if the majority of people expended signficant time, effort and money in opposing them, but (understandably) they generally do not: they (reasonably) place the security, wealth, health and comfort of themselves and their families above the suffering of others and hope they can keep their own heads above water. This realisation—that most of us do not do very much to improve the societies in which we live, and that bad things continue to happen because we ourselves allow them to—is an unpleasant one. Populist conspiracies sweeten the pill by affirming that the odds are stacked against us and 'demonstrating' how we have little chance of victory against underhand/illegal/immoral opponents who hold all the aces.

Such theories also 'spread the blame' from individuals to groups; while I might not be able to dispatch George Soros, I may be able to strike minor blows against his Jewish pawns when I encounter them.

There's a synagogue/mosque/political party office/NHS clinic just up the road...
 
I think that any UFO Cover Ups or Moon Landing Cover up theories are not popularist, because there is not a majority of people who believe in them or who have had their way of life and standard of living disrupted by them.
But, as described above, populist is not a true synonym of popular.
UFO conspiracies, just like Covid/vaccine ones, presume that the elite (the government and other more nebulous state bodies) know things that the common populace do not and are jealously guarding their secrets.
This also touches on my secondary point; if a conspiracy gains sufficient traction amongst the public that the majority believe it is true, does it cease to be a conspiracy?
Until around the 1950s or 1960s governments did nothing to reign in the tobacco industry, due to the huge revenue it made. In those early days, only a few people rang alarm bells about the health risks, whilst much of the public puffed away obliviously. Now though, pretty well everyone accepts that smoking will significantly shorten your life. When CCTV cameras first appeared, they were comparatively few and we were assured it was for the public's own safety, with only a few dissenting voices. Now, I suspect very few people would say they aren't intrusive, have become subject to mission-creep and that we aren't being spied on.
 
Last edited:
First, this definition is duff:

"Appealing to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups"

It ought to read ATTEMPTING TO APPEAL... it's perfectly possible to be populist without being popular.

I'd like to get a little more forensic.

Populists claim that the biggest problems suffered by the majority of people are caused by the deliberate and occult machinations of a small minority—they differ only in their judgments of which minority group is to blame and what the motivation is.

This is dangerous where it overlaps with racial, nationalist and religious extremism as well as where it treats the actions of individuals as being characteristic of all members of the primary demographics these individuals belong to.

It also overlooks the glaringly obvious fact that the lives of the common man are much, much more often blighted by the political, economic and philosophical conditions that pertain around them, conditions that tend to persist regardless of the race, religion, sex or wealth of the individual pressing the buttons. Plus, of course, those that actually staff the institutions that allegedly work against the common man are staffed, primarily, by the common man, not select and pliant automatons.

Populist conspiracy theories that claim to have identified the 'true' locus of influence feel superficially empowering to those who adopt them ('You'll just have to overthrow capitalism and break a centuries-old hegemony' not being an attractive proposition for most) because:

They explain how bad things can come to happen despite the wishes of the masses: subterfuge (although we in the developed world see more of the operation of real power than ever before).

The continual reference to clandestine methods to the exclusion of jejune politics emphasises a moral dimension: these people are not merely ideological rivals, they are evil.

They 'shift the blame' outward. The truth is that a great many 'bad things' could be averted if the majority of people expended signficant time, effort and money in opposing them, but (understandably) they generally do not: they (reasonably) place the security, wealth, health and comfort of themselves and their families above the suffering of others and hope they can keep their own heads above water. This realisation—that most of us do not do very much to improve the societies in which we live, and that bad things continue to happen because we ourselves allow them to—is an unpleasant one. Populist conspiracies sweeten the pill by affirming that the odds are stacked against us and 'demonstrating' how we have little chance of victory against underhand/illegal/immoral opponents who hold all the aces.

Such theories also 'spread the blame' from individuals to groups; while I might not be able to dispatch George Soros, I may be able to strike minor blows against his Jewish pawns when I encounter them.

There's a synagogue/mosque/political party office/NHS clinic just up the road...

Fair analysis.
So to paraphrase into just a few words, populism pitches the common populace against the ruling elite, in the belief that the latter implements certain policies for nefarious means.

A demonstration of people power sounds like a good thing - but it can turn nasty, as per your examples. Power to the people may also be a benign thing, as per the examples I gave in the now deleted thread, which I dare not now repeat.

So can we agree that populist in its (intended) appeal to the common people is, in itself, neither good nor bad, but can end up as a blessing or a curse?
 
I had a brush with conspiracy theories last night at work. My supervisor was on the headset asking if we knew about these 'test messages' that would be sent to our phones, and how she was going to disable her phone because 'once you answer it, THEY are in your phone and they can control your banking and all your other apps'.

I did briefly raise the question - why the hell would they bother, as, presumably 'they' could find much easier ways of getting into the banking system than relying on EVERYONE having a smart phone which they used for doing their banking, but it was a busy evening so I didn't get an answer.
 
The arrest of Jack Teixera leads to interesting conspiratorial speculations on Twitter:

As Attorney General Merrick Garland provides an update over the arrest of 21-year old US Intel leaker Jack Douglas Teixeira, questions explode online. 1- How were authorities able to track him down within a week and not SCOTUS leaker? 2. What about the J6 bomber? Epstein list?

They track down only those they want to. Rather simple.

They’ll arrest Jack Teixeira for revealing the Truth but you know they’ll never arrest Lloyd Austin or any of our Military leaders for lying Under Oath about the War in Ukraine.

They found this guy fast but still haven’t found the Supreme Court leaker. Just making an observation

Something stinks about this arrest of the DOD document leaker. Gut feeling there WAY more to this.

It’s a False Flag so they can push their Restrict Act.

So let me get this straight, the FBI was able to track Teixeira, get his home information, get a drone to track him, then form a raid to arrest him - But, held Hunter Biden's laptop for years, and STILL hasn't made an arrest?

Interesting to see conspiracy theory being made in real time :)
 
Last edited:
1682598656915.png

1682598675160.png


From here:
 
All the usual suspects:
Flat Earth
Hoaxed moon landing
Australia isn't real
Birds are drones
Vapor Trails
Lizard people
Illuminati
Princess Diana murdered
Elvis didn't die
Avril Lavine/ Paul McCartney died and was replaced
etc
 
There's some...person over on Twitter right now sounding off about how thunderstorms after one day of heat are impossible, and they must be caused by the 'chemtrails' he can see in the sky.

One person's response 'tell me you failed Geography without telling me you failed Geography' was excellent.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I tried reading this book - I gave up after two chapters. I had hoped for a juicy conspiracy theory, but it is a bit too bland. Still it has a 4.41 rating!
Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide, Miranda Devine
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show...arch=true&from_srp=true&qid=4OqhGXTvO8&rank=1

I agree with these Goodreads comments:

Hmmm... lots of salacious stuff in here, all or most of which is probably true, but... I had a difficult time with this because the book is mostly excerpts from Hunter Biden's emails and text messages, with just the barest narrative to tie it all together.

Citations are weak. Assertions are without documentation. Adjectives are liberally thrown in that are obviously poetic license. Speculation is rampant. There is a suspension of belief necessary to adopt the premise that Hunter is a total ignorant novice who is able to get involved with mega deals where people dump money on him simply because he name drops.

Some of the more credible stuff involves his narcissistic interpersonal ramblings showing a true disconnect with reality derived from his pampered connection to privilege. The book is a fast read. It isn't worth the effort.
 
There's a proper wingnut on another forum I use, who under the broader heading of the 'moon landing hoax', argues that satellites are equally fictitious and physically impossible under the current laws of physics.

He attempts to sound sciencey, but fails miserably and trots out a number of now worn out and debunked tropes but seems to relish the fight more than the point.
 
How are we communicating?
I wouldn't even bother arguing with these people Kondoru, it's a waste of time. It's almost impossible to change the minds of the paranoid. I understand, you understand, they don't want to understand. They instead live for fringe beliefs and probably think The X Files were based on true stories.
 
There's a proper wingnut on another forum I use, who under the broader heading of the 'moon landing hoax', argues that satellites are equally fictitious and physically impossible under the current laws of physics.

He attempts to sound sciencey, but fails miserably and trots out a number of now worn out and debunked tropes but seems to relish the fight more than the point.
... 'seems to relish the fight more than the point.' ..

I think you've nailed it Ascalon.
 
How are we communicating?
Well, this! One poster highlighted their satellite TV dish, saying I point it at the sky where I'm told there is a satellite — I get TV. If I point it somewhere else, I don't: QED. He did not have an answer.
I wouldn't even bother arguing with these people Kondoru, it's a waste of time. It's almost impossible to change the minds of the paranoid. I understand, you understand, they don't want to understand. They instead live for fringe beliefs and probably think The X Files were based on true stories.
This, too!
It is attributed to one Jonathan Swift, something along the lines of:
one cannot reason someone out of a position into which they have not reasoned themselves in the first place.

Still amusing though. :)
 
Back
Top