toxic.zen Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 http://www.cracked.com/article_18955_6-crackpot-conspiracy-theories-that-actually-happened_p2.html some f'ed up stuff! enjoy... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I really do not know if they are or are not. However the fluoride maximum limit for dosing tap water has just been reduced in the US as it can damage teeth ...! And in China it is reported that two comparable villages, one with fluoridated water and one without, compared badly when childhood intelligence was measured. Now I am not suggesting that this is sufficient proof but interesting. I am always nervous when scientists start reducing "safe" level limits that they assured everyone were safe a couple of decades ago. Is it me or does distrusting science come with age - and experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 Is it me or does distrusting science come with age - and experience. Well, taking any particular claim with a grain of salt is advised. Especially if it is trumpeted in the news as a new discovery, miracle cure, etc. I tend to view any idea held by a consensus of scientists over several decades is probably reliable, although still subject to review. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 the "previous" fluoride level in the US didn't "damage teeth" - it probably was a cause of higher levels of fluorosis - which is an entirely cosmetic patchy whitening, often not noticeable except by direct close examination. And Fluoride is about as much a poison as iron or oxygen, and less so than chlorine (put any salt on your chips lately?) And the chemtrail one is bravo sierra - certainly in the past populations on both sides of the Atlantic have been exposed to various things more-o-r-less sprayed on them. However the chemtrail hoax says that the spraying is at high altitude and is done by commercial airliners on normal routes.] So that's 2 that are simply not true out of the first 3 - dunno about the rest, didn't bother going any further. IMO this drivel is part and parcel of social-political atmosphere in the US and which is gradually spreading worldwide - distrust and polarisation leading to paranoia, and in some cases action such as the attempted assassination of the US congresswoman much discussed in another thread. It is not that any 1 person is responsible for it - it is that the whole society is driving itself in this direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxic.zen Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 "And the chemtrail one is bravo sierra - certainly in the past populations on both sides of the Atlantic have been exposed to various things more-o-r-less sprayed on them. However the chemtrail hoax says that the spraying is at high altitude and is done by commercial airliners on normal routes.]" well that was the point of that segment. that in fact our government has a history of spraying poison on the populace... to say EVERY chem trail is poison is of course silly, but to say our government has sprayed poison on us so a chem trail could conceivable be laden with poison is based on our past quite feasible.... as for fluoride there are doctors and experts on both side of the debate, its not just wackos versus doctors and experts... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak_43 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 "to say EVERY chem trail is poison is of course silly, but to say our government has sprayed poison on us so a chem trail could conceivable be laden with poison is based on our past quite feasible...." Which means the theory is not "true", just (from your perspective) a likely event, you'll note the original title of the article labelled them as "true" and then just walks away from that to discuss "the likelihood" of them being true. For an article discussing "the truth" I'd expect a little more evidence than: 1) Our government has done something similar to (A) before 2) Therefore they are doing (A) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxic.zen Posted January 14, 2011 Author Share Posted January 14, 2011 good point, one that SHOULD have been clarified in the article... i am at fault there though, as the article is actually titled "6 Crackpot Conspiracy Theories (That Actually Happened)" which is more in line with what they post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 "And the chemtrail one is bravo sierra - certainly in the past populations on both sides of the Atlantic have been exposed to various things more-o-r-less sprayed on them. However the chemtrail hoax says that the spraying is at high altitude and is done by commercial airliners on normal routes.]" well that was the point of that segment. that in fact our government has a history of spraying poison on the populace... to say EVERY chem trail is poison is of course silly, but to say our government has sprayed poison on us so a chem trail could conceivable be laden with poison is based on our past quite feasible.... It is conceivable whether the Govt has a history of it or not - being conceivable does not make it true - have a look at all the fiction titles (science and otherwise) in your local book store for things that are "conceivable" and not true! as for fluoride there are doctors and experts on both side of the debate, its not just wackos versus doctors and experts... AFAIK doctors will debate whether it is ethical o treat whole populations with fluoride - they do not debate that it is causing actual harm other than fuorosis. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxic.zen Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 well they have done it MANY times before, so it's not a stretch to say they wont continue.... that alone is eyebrow raising enough for me, if it doesn't concern you, then don't be concerned about it and Doctor Paul Connett among others state many problems that come from fluoride increased bone cancer, reduces thyroid hormone production, and others. and Nobel laureate Dr. James Sumner is quoted saying "We ought to go slowly. Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances...We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body. That is the reason things are poisoned; because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die." in my humble opinion from what i have read, if fluoride is really supposed to help your teeth, then apply it topically via toothpaste.. it doesnt need to be put in the water ingested and processed by the body for this effect... this and the other crap that ends up in water is why i and my family only drink water further purified by reverse osmosis, and eventually we will distill our own water when were able too... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 I tend to view any idea held by a consensus of scientists over several decades is probably reliable, although still subject to review. Why does that statement make me think of all those poor devil's who fell off the edge of the world before the Earth was reviewed to be round? *grin* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 You think the fluoride in toothpaste never ends up in your body?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxic.zen Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 You think the fluoride in toothpaste never ends up in your body?? no i actually believe it can and does... although without the addition of fluoridated tap water you will be getting less.... though it is ultimately irrelevant as i don't use fluoridated toothpaste anyway... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugged Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 The tinfoil hat conspiracy theory is listed at #6? That's the first thing that comes to mind when I think about crackpot conspiracy theories. I hadn't even heard of the other conspiracy theories on this list. And who hasn't met someone who needs to wear a tinfoil hat? I was at a veterinary clinic one day when a balding man with a lumpy scalp came in asking to have his head scanned with the microchip reader. He needed a tinfoil hat. As for myself, I believe the toilet paper manufacturers intentionally use dull equipment to create the perforations so that the squares don't separate easily, causing users to rip one, two or three more squares than they meant to. And the only reason this didn't make the list is because there's nothing 'crackpot' about it. It's for realz, man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 18, 2011 Share Posted January 18, 2011 Did you hear about the amazing advances that hey made in aircraft design in the 30's? tehre was this one design that has a serious structural problem - the wings kept falling off the aircraft - bit of a worry. So they got in all sorts of enginers & tried this & that to fix it, but none worked. then little Johnny came along & told them to drill a line of holes along the wing root - and it worked. Johny had observed that toilet paper doesn't rip along the holes even way back then, and figured that the principle woudl apply to aircraft wings too! Here's a couple of cases of het chemtrail wackos getting their knickers seriously twisted over something that is not that unusual - I posted a reply to the Kaikoura one saying that red sunssets hav been around for a while & are quite pretty - and it was promptly deleted & my account banned!! 1/ "Photos Of Geo-engineering Over Kaikoura In January Posted on 18/01/2011 by Clare Swinney Thank-you to Rose in Kaikoura for sending the link to these photos she took over January, 2011. They show a wide range of geo-engineering-related formations – including, aerosols, ripples and the bright oranges the aerosols become as the sun sets. http://chemtrailsoverkaikoura.ning.com/photo/photo/slideshow?albumId=4744723:Album:10615" 2/ http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=153105 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 And the only reason this didn't make the list is because there's nothing 'crackpot' about it. It's for realz, man. Damn straight! And there is also that group of people who are watching me to see when I discover a product I really like. Then they bring pressure on the manufacturer to stop making it. It then gets replaced on the shelves by another product that doesn't work nearly as well. Are they Satanists? Well, there's no proof that they aren't. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugged Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Damn straight! And there is also that group of people who are watching me to see when I discover a product I really like. Then they bring pressure on the manufacturer to stop making it. It then gets replaced on the shelves by another product that doesn't work nearly as well. Are they Satanists? Well, there's no proof that they aren't. Michael That's just like when a new food item comes to market and it's soooo super delish that you're hooked right away because the ice cream, for example, is filled with lots of Little Pieces of Heaven. Then one day you buy the ice cream and you notice the search for Little Pieces of Heaven is eerily similar to the Hunt for Red October* and you're all like "Wtf, where's all the good stuff?" But by then they think they've got you hooked and you won't notice, and even if you do notice, you'll continue purchasing the product because you are, afterall, a creature of habit. Don't tell me that isn't done on purpose 'cause I know better. *with the exception of, among other things, the politics, nuclear threat and seamen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 The guy in this is annoying but what he says is scary horrid http://obrag.org/?p=31003 and http://www.foodinvestigations.com/ For ************'s sake how can it be legit to pretend a cereal contains food it doesn't!!! I hope it is better regulated in Canada! : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Whiskas cat food contains heroin - not a lot of people know that... http://www.btinternet.com/~paul.wilkinson46/heroin.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 It's not just nw foods get caught out - here a year or so ago a high school pupil tested Ribena (IIRC) - a very old brand or black current drink that advertised that it had lots of vitamin C in it, and lo and behold it did not have the claimed levels - none at all in fact! The drink has been a staple kids drink in NZ for decades! And sometimes it is not what is lacking - but it is that there is much more than is claimed - which can b a problem too!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Another bait and switch tactic that is showing up in US stores more and more lately is the reduction of the amount of whatever it is in the package, while still charging the same or greater price. Examples: 6 oz cans of tuna now contain only 5 oz and 5 lb bags of sugar now contain only 4 lbs. A related absurdity is using packaging that is much too large for its contents. I buy aspirin in a 300 dose size and the bottle it came in was about twice as large as needed to contain all the tablets. Then I noticed about a year ago that for the same number of tablets the size of the bottle had doubled again! Of course all this comes down to a dishonest attempt to manipulate the mind of the buyer: "Oh look, a bigger bottle, it must hold more!" Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Wicky - ah proper poetry. I do agree that Whiskas does seem to be addictive to cats. In fact it was the last stuff we gave him before he curled up and died. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxic.zen Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 here is a good example of the size ripoff: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.