Facebook and CIA conspiracy theory

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I hope he gets back on track again...Seems pretty eaten up over it but then so are a lot of people.

I would be pretty pissed off as well if I found out I had been used like he was by the government to go and kill a load of people on a lie and for the profit of some already stinking rich obsessed people... Bush Cheyne Obama etc

BTW... It is hardly surprising he is like that when you see the junk they feed them on...

This is the recruitment video he says he wants to emulate.

<font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2"><font size="2">

Says a lot in itself IMO

 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Still no proof he was used to "kill a bunch of people'. You think that, I don't. You see a conspiracy, I see someone with mental illness
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
I'm not sure why the fact that he was released is interpreted by some people to mean that there was no reason for him to have ever been arrested. The guy was detained on an emergency custody order. A judge signed it because they found probable cause.

Later, another judge ruled that there was no case to proceed with having him committed involuntary. So he was released.




On a side note, Raub's home page is a little deceptive. The selected Facebook quotes are about god, Martin Luther King and the picture is of him holding a puppy. They conveniently neglected to reprint his posts of revolution, decapitation and the Facebook avatar picture of him brandishing a shotgun.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
by some people to mean that there was no reason for him to have ever been arrested.
He was never officially arrested though, was he?
The problem is that if it hadn't found its way in front of a judge this guy would be locked up in an institution for no specific reason whatsoever, for an indefinite period. Whatever problems this guy might or might not have, there was no suitable case for detaining him, as determined by a judge in a court of appeal. Whatever judgments those in this thread may choose to make against his character, do you truly believe he deserved indefinite detention without charge? If you don't think it reflects on the nature of the organization as a whole, do you at least believe that in this case the FBI was overstepping?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
He was never officially arrested though, was he?

What's your point? He was detained on a warrant that just needed a single judge to believe there was enough cause to have him evaluated. Apparently, that particular type of warrant does not require the individual to be mirandized or charged. He wasn't informed of why he was being arrested because he wasn't being arrested.

Whatever judgments those in this thread may choose to make against his character, do you truly believe he deserved indefinite detention without charge?

Did I say that? Seriously, enough with the strawmen. Perhaps you should stop projecting and actually read what people are saying.

The system concluded that his FB posts were just batshit crazy enough to have him taken in and looked at. After he was evaluated, the system concluded that he was not batshit crazy enough to keep him. The prosecutors lost, the defendant won, the judicial system did it's job.

do you at least believe that in this case the FBI was overstepping?

Overstepping what? Overstepping how? How will the benefit of hindsight bias an answer to your question?

I can only assume the authorities believed they were dealing with a shotgun toting war veteran who believed he was the chosen leader of some kind of immanent revolution. On the other hand, I never understood the "storming the castle" tactics of the FBI (e.g. Waco Texas). Why not just apprehend him when he's out buying a bag of chips or something.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Did I say that? Seriously, enough with the strawmen. Perhaps you should stop projecting and actually read what people are saying.
Not talking about you specifically Trigger, but there does seem to be some folks of the opinion that this was indeed a crazy guy who unjustly 'slipped the net', and not a veteran who suffered harassment and relatively prolonged detention without charge by the authorities... or, to put it more basically, that this guy deserved what he got. I don't understand this point of view, and wanted to ask those people who seemed to share it if they felt, had the appeal not taken place, this guy would have deserved to be locked away for an undefined period in a mental institution.
Originally Posted by Grieves
He was never officially arrested though, was he?
What's your point?
I'm not sure why the fact that he was released is interpreted by some people to mean that there was no reason for him to have ever been arrested.
Point being, he wasn't arrested for any crime. So there was evidently no reason for him to have been arrested. Just 'detained', and in the end it was ruled there was no reason for that either.

the judicial system did it's job.
and all the power too it, but it doesn't change the fact the FBI tried to use some guys facebook shenanigans of no particular significance (A guy in the military posing with a gun for his profile picture, on facebook!? Outrageous..! A guy spouting off his conspiracy beliefs and about an impending wave of change in America, on facebook?! Unprecedented..!) to have him indefinitely detained. That's messed up. What's perhaps equally messed up is downplaying or disregarding how messed up it is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Still no proof he was used to "kill a bunch of people'. You think that, I don't. You see a conspiracy, I see someone with mental illness

That is what they were sent over there to do and they did it 'well' as evidenced by the thousands of people who were gunned down an killed and blown up by drones in their homes.

How to go from "Hero to Zero" in no time... get angry about what they turned you into and post it on FB.

Thousands of them are coming back mentally or physically maimed or both. You send them off to do your dirty work and then wash your hands of them when finished with.

Compassion or understanding doesn't seem to be your strong suit IMO.

BTW Trigger Hippie may want to reconsider his avatar :)
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Sorry, thousands of folks go to war, and all of them do not have PTSD afterward, some do. They do need more mental health care, and that may include medication at least for a short time.

Have you ever had any PTSD? of any type? I had some mild PTSD, some years ago. Some medication for awhile and some counseling and I got over it. The cause is a long story, but it does involve a traffic stop and a bad small town cop. I realized that when I kept reliving almost every night, that I needed some help.

Ignoring that there is a problem is why some of these folks become violent, or attempt to self medicate with alcohol or drugs.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Not talking about you specifically Trigger, but there does seem to be some folks of the opinion that this was indeed a crazy guy who unjustly 'slipped the net', and not a veteran who suffered harassment and relatively prolonged detention without charge by the authorities... or, to put it more basically, that this guy deserved what he got. I don't understand this point of view, and wanted to ask those people who seemed to share it if they felt, had the appeal not taken place, this guy would have deserved to be locked away for an undefined period in a mental institution.

I'm not sure if he got what he deserved and I can't comment on how crazy he really is. All I can say is that I would not have posted the things he did because I believe that with the freedom of speech comes the obligation to use it responsibly.

I don't see any evidence that the police, FBI, secret service or the judge who issued the warrant acted outside the law when they decided to apprehend Raub. The judge found enough probable cause to have him picked up for evaluation using a statute that did not require his rights to be read or charges to be laid. He was detained for a prolonged period of time without being charged because the authorities were within their rights to do so. When the appellate court ruled that there were no grounds to hold Raub, they lost the right to detain him and he was released.

I'm not sure why the fact that he was released is interpreted by some people to mean that there was no reason for him to have ever been arrested.

Point being, he wasn't arrested for any crime. So there was evidently no reason for him to have been arrested. Just 'detained', and in the end it was ruled there was no reason for that either.

Oh I get it... I think. I used the word 'arrested' instead of 'detained'.

but it doesn't change the fact the FBI tried to use some guys facebook shenanigans of no particular significance

You may well try to make light of Raub's Facebook posts by characterizing them as shenanigans, but the one person entrusted to evaluate whether or not there was a cause for concern did not find them as amusing as you do. So much so that he ordered Raub picked up involuntarily to undergo psychiatric evaluation.
 

Lunnaris2012

New Member
And for all those who cite lack of whistle blowers and lack of mainstream media dissent re the OS as evidence that there is no cover up... 'because they would all be coming out the woodwork in droves':

This is how people are treated who dissent and question:

I like Aaron Russo a lot-I´m Spanish,I know he past away(he must be in heaven).There are a lot of ignorance about WHO is our real governments in the world and how money is created.That´s the ONLY key,but people get absentminded with a LOOOT of conspiracy theorists,fantasies,politicians´s plays...It´s a pity.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Stop and think, please. It would take thousands of folks to monitor what is being posted on FB. Even FB depends on algorithms to 'punish' accounts that violate their rules.

I don't know if someone under investigation could be monitored, but I see a lot of posts that should have the FBI showing up at folks doors and they don't. Look at all the threats against the President that show up on FB, the threats against others. The threats of revolution and such.

Don't forget that anyone that wants to cover their presence can use a proxy as well.

I think in the light of Snowden revelations it's a good idea to revisit some of the debunking on this subject and just take a look how the debunkers have defended the government on this, (as well as most everything else) and maybe ponder about what you (as debunkers) are criticising conspiracy theorists about.

Time tells but in this instance how quickly have we gone from... 'Oh it's not real it's satire from the onion'... to 'The whistleblower is a traitor'.

So what about the whistleblower who blows 9/11 out of the water.... are they a 'traitor' as well... anyone who opposes/questions the government, (which is really the big corporations/wall st... are they traitors as well.

What is debunking really about?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Debunking is about getting the facts right.

I think it far more involved than that. Facts are not necessarily conclusive of anything by themselves but the interpretation of the facts is what counts and that is politics.

Even the law is subject to interpretation and where the law does not fit the politics the politics may change the law... it is if the people sit dumbly by and accept it that counts or if they can be brought to support a policy by patriotism or fear or greed or self interest or xenephobia.

Facts are tools that may be represented or misrepresented or interpreted. Facts like history are written by those in power.

89% of statistics are made up.

Are Snowden, Assange, Manning etc heroes, spies, traitors, whistleblowers.....

Are Bash, Chainy, Obomber etc war criminals or patriots, despots or saviours.... what?



What do they have on Obama?

Why the U turn?

Undoubtedly, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' but so are many other things, many of which are not pretty in the least.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think it far more involved than that. Facts are not necessarily conclusive of anything by themselves but the interpretation of the facts is what counts and that is politics.

That's why I prefer try to avoid interpreting facts, and just focus on verifying or disproving them.

The labeling of people as traitors or heros is pretty subjective, so it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. I'd rather focus on what people actually do.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That's why I prefer try to avoid interpreting facts, and just focus on verifying or disproving them.

The labeling of people as traitors or heros is pretty subjective, so it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. I'd rather focus on what people actually do.

I would pretty much agree with that Mick, especially labelling people but I think it is pretty easy for people to agree on the facts but totally disagree on the interpretation of the facts... which often accounts for the divergence of the OS and CT's.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would pretty much agree with that Mick, especially labelling people but I think it is pretty easy for people to agree on the facts but totally disagree on the interpretation of the facts... which often accounts for the divergence of the OS and CT's.

It's not all as subjective as agreeing if Snowdon is a traitor or not, or if recording metadata is legal or not, there's more fundamental disagreements which really should be matters of science, but somehow get phrased as matters of opinion because of a failure to fully understand the facts and/or science.

A simple example would be that tall building on fire in Chechnya. Everyone agrees that it was on fire, and looked like it was quite impressively burning for several hours, and that it had more visible flames over a larger area than WTC7.

Then you have some people saying that this is evidence that WTC7 should have survived the fires. But it's not, and the fact that it is not should really be agreed upon by everyone as a fact. There's really no room to describe it as anything other than a superficial fire on a different type of building.

So I think there's often something more going on that simple difference of opinion.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
It's not all as subjective as agreeing if Snowdon is a traitor or not, or if recording metadata is legal or not,

It is more than metadata... it is actual written and audio contents... that is beyond doubt now.

But even if it wasn't it would still be 'more than' if it is legal... it is that Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar... now that is a fact.

Can we agree on that? :)

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It is more than metadata... it is actual written and audio contents... that is beyond doubt now.

But even if it wasn't it would still be 'more than' if it is legal... it is that Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar... now that is a fact.

Can we agree on that? :)


Arguable. Could you quote exactly what he says that you think is a bare faced lie and then link to the evidence that proves he was lying at the time?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Arguable. Could you quote exactly what he says that you think is a bare faced lie and then link to the evidence that proves he was lying at the time?

Seems clear cut to me... Have I missed something?

Edit: Oh I see... he wasn't lying... he changed his mind. Just normal 'political' stuff... promise one thing then turn around and do something completely different... phew... Thought he lied for a while there... glad that's cleared up.
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/bob-par...apping-american-citizens#sthash.nTnH9D0k.dpuf
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You quote comes from him saying: "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime."

Now I'm not defending his current actions, I'm just taking issue with you saying "Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar", and I though you would have some more definitive examples, given the strength of that statement.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You quote comes from him saying: "No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime."

Now I'm not defending his current actions, I'm just taking issue with you saying "Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar", and I though you would have some more definitive examples, given the strength of that statement.

Well there probably is better evidence but I thought that more than sufficient to be going on with. But the quote says
"That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are"

So the 'whole of America, (not to mention the world)' is now suspected of a crime?

Or is it just that he has subsequently changed his mind and I cannot prove he was lying at that specific point in time as the words were tumbling from his lips in an effort o get elected by the American people?

Which one do you like?

BTW what does No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime... even mean?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well there probably is better evidence but I thought that more than sufficient to be going on with. But the quote says "His administration would not "spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, " then-Senator Obama promised in a Woodrow Wilson International Center, Council on Foreign Relations speech on August 1, 2007:
"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom."


So the 'whole of America, (not to mention the world)' is now suspected of a crime?

Or is it just that he has subsequently changed his mind and I cannot prove he was lying at that specific point in time as the words were tumbling from his lips in an effort o get elected by the American people?

Which one do you like?

That's not his quote though. Thats just the paraphrasing from cnsnews.com. Obama said: ""No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.". In full:

 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That's not his quote though. Thats just the paraphrasing from cnsnews.com. Obama said: ""No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.". In full:


Yep I had already edited my post to reflect that... but your answer does not make sense to me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yep I had already edited my post to reflect that... but your answer does not make sense to me.

My point was that he never said "His administration would not "spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, ""

Let's reboot. Which statement is a bare faced lie?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
My point was that he never said "His administration would not "spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime, ""

Let's reboot. Which statement is a bare faced lie?

Who is this guy?



Did this guy say: "That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are"?

Did he also say
"I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/bob-par...apping-american-citizens#sthash.nTnH9D0k.dpuf
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm asking you which statement is a bare face lie, and what is the evidence of the lie.

I think you think that you've proven you case with these statements. But I just see statements, the drift of which does not seem entirely consistent with the drift of what Snowdon claims.

You said:

"
Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar"

So back that up. Which bit is the lie? What is the evidence that it's a lie?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I'm asking you which statement is a bare face lie, and what is the evidence of the lie.

I think you think that you've proven you case with these statements. But I just see statements, the drift of which does not seem entirely consistent with the drift of what Snowdon claims.

You said:

"
Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar"

So back that up. Which bit is the lie? What is the evidence that it's a lie?

Obama lied.... You know what he said and you know what he did.... if you can reconcile that, please let me know how?

Others are a little less blunt in the way they say it, (opting for 'hypocrite' rather than 'liar') but I think it pretty much mirrors my POV.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/5...ard-snowden-have-exposed-obama-as-a-hypocrite

Bold added.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/06/understanding-prism-leaks-understanding-rise-new-fascism
http://www.aclu.org/national-securi...itor-americans-international-calls-and-emails

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant

 

xenon

Active Member
Obama was an extremely well documented liar before the spook eruption.

Here are some examples:

30 lies in 14 minutes:



How many lies does one have to tell to be found not credible?

If Obama said it was sunny at noon in July in San Diego it would be wise to doublecheck.
He makes Dick Nixon look like Thomas Jefferson



**************************
Demand your Facebook Data (law not applicable in US)
http://europe-v-facebook.org/EN/Get_your_Data_/get_your_data_.html
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Obama was an extremely well documented liar before the spook eruption.

Here are some examples:

30 lies in 14 minutes:

Take the first one. Explain why it is a lie. Has someone come to take away anyone's guns?

Or the second one. Which is the same one Oxy is talking about, and on topic. Is it a "bare faced lie"?

You can't bring your personal feelings into a judgement of a lie. Just list

A) What he said, exactly.
B) What he DID that proved this was a lie. Exactly.

And a broken promise is only a lie if you can prove he never intended to go through with it. Circumstances change. Congress does not cooperate.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Obama here. I'm trying to get some intellectual rigor into the discussion. If you just shout "Obama is a liar!" then you are just preaching to the choir, and everyone else ignores you. But if you can actually demonstrate a "bare faced lie", then you might actual convert someone.

So what's your intent?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
And just to be clear, I'm not trying to defend Obama here. I'm trying to get some intellectual rigor into the discussion. If you just shout "Obama is a liar!" then you are just preaching to the choir, and everyone else ignores you. But if you can actually demonstrate a "bare faced lie", then you might actual convert someone.

So what's your intent?

So let's be clear. I think https://www.metabunk.org/posts/51075 sums up pretty well.

What do you say to this argument:

Does this show he lied or that he changed his mind and if the latter is claimed, (which so far it hasn't been), is it necessary to 'actually tell people that you have changed your mind and are not going to carry out that which you previously stated you would do'.

If you do not 'tell people' your position has changed 'even though it has'... then clearly that is a lie.

If a lie is only a lie when it is said to deceive, how does one determine the voracity of a stated undertaking?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
People intrinsically understand when they have been lied to... it is a basic human understanding. No matter how it is later mitigated or caveated or downplayed or obfuscated.

It is interesting that they are not even bothering to try to wriggle out of it at this stage... preferring to attack the messenger as the culprit for daring to expose their lies and many people are apparently happy to go along with that.

What does this say about these people who are happy to go along with it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again, your claim was "Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar"

Now you reduce this to something like "not telling people exactly how much his position has changed"

I think you need to be much more precise if you are going to claim such certainty, unless you add "at least, to my way of thinking" to the end of it.

I'm disappointed that Guantanamo did not close. But I don't think he lied when he said he was going to close it. It's a bit more complicated than that.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Again, your claim was "Obama is a proven 100% out and out bare faced irrefutable liar"

Now you reduce this to something like "not telling people exactly how much his position has changed"

I think you need to be much more precise if you are going to claim such certainty, unless you add "at least, to my way of thinking" to the end of it.
I'm disappointed that Guantanamo did not close. But I don't think he lied when he said he was going to close it. It's a bit more complicated than that.

No way Mick. I stand by what I said... he lied and that is that.

He made a commitment and a statement.... (which he was elected on), to stop illegal spying on innocent people... it was explicit... you cannot deny it and neither can anyone else.

He went against everything he said and instead of curbing spying and expanding civil liberties; he did the opposite.

At no time did he recant on his commitment to stop (in his words) 'the illegal spying'... the fact that he did not recant that means he was knowingly lying.

Now you can play around with semantics all you like but you cannot escape the fact.

No point conflating with Gitmo... apparently he tried but couldn't do it because he was blocked in Congress... ergo he did not lie there he simply failed and he publicly admitted it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Alright, I can accept that interpretation of it. You think that not telling people that he changed his position is a bare faced lie.

Like I said before, I don't like arguing over the meaning of a word, and prefer to look at what people actually do. To me the important issues are exactly what is the NSA doing, and how can safeguards be put in place to protect privacy?

Slightly shifting things, I'm a little bemused as to how conspiracy theorists didn't already believe that far worse spying was going on. Do these revelations really fit into your idea of how the world works? Or do you think there is much more than this going on?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
For what it's worth, I'll tell you what I believe... I think he thought he could do a lot more than he actually could. I think he did not realise the extent of the powerful forces that he would be taking on and I believe he buckled under the pressure... likely blackmailed as well and has become something of a puppet to Wall St and the Illuminatti.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Alright, I can accept that interpretation of it. You think that not telling people that he changed his position is a bare faced lie.

Like I said before, I don't like arguing over the meaning of a word, and prefer to look at what people actually do. To me the important issues are exactly what is the NSA doing, and how can safeguards be put in place to protect privacy?

Slightly shifting things, I'm a little bemused as to how conspiracy theorists didn't already believe that far worse spying was going on. Do these revelations really fit into your idea of how the world works? Or do you think there is much more than this going on?

CTists have been saying it since before 9/11... of course we knew... we just couldn't prove it to any standard that people like yourself would accept.

We have been ridiculed for saying it and many other things but we are not as silly as people like to portray us and we are by no means in as small a minority as people would like to portray either.

The poll you posted at https://www.metabunk.org/posts/50994 is very interesting. It demonstrates quite well that although people can strongly oppose something... they lack the will to actively seek to change it.



Maybe that's why they are termed Sheeple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
For what it's worth, I'll tell you what I believe... I think he thought he could do a lot more than he actually could. I think he did not realise the extent of the powerful forces that he would be taking on and I believe he buckled under the pressure... likely blackmailed as well and has become something of a puppet to Wall St and the Illuminatti.

I think it's more like he did not realize the full extent of just what a bunch of corrupt idiots congress was/is.

Still, he did get health care reform passed, and a bunch of other stuff.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think it's more like he did not realize the full extent of just what a bunch of corrupt idiots congress was/is.

Still, he did get health care reform passed, and a bunch of other stuff.

At least he did that. Perhaps the spying was part of the price he had to pay.... it's hard to tell. Many deals have to be done there is no doubt about it and we only get to hear a small part of it.

Personally, I can't understand why so many Americans are against it.

OOI What was the 'bunch of other stuff'... key ones...?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Trailspotter The Spreading of Misinformation Online Practical Debunking 13
P Claim: "Dogman" spotted on a Facebook livestream Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 35
Mendel Facebook Removes all QAnon Pages, Group, and Instagram Accounts Current Events 0
Oystein AE911Truth: Analysis of their Facebook "Likes" 9/11 27
Mick West Tales From The Rabbit Hole Facebook Group Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
Eyes_Open Hi Everyone - General Discussion 1
Mick West Hoax: Fuel Dump video on Facebook [Flight BA244 from Buenos Aires to London] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 181
KC-10FE "Team Chemtrail" & Chemtrail Pilots Anonymous Satirical Facebook Group Contrails and Chemtrails 22
Mick West How to Find the Exact Upload Time of a Facebook Photo Practical Debunking 5
Mick West New sharing buttons Site Feedback & News 0
Svartbjørn Debunked (sort of): Picture of LEO spraying a child with Mace General Discussion 1
Pete Tar "Facebook tinkered with users’ feeds for a massive psychology experiment" General Discussion 111
TWCobra International Chemtrail Association-FaceBook Hoax Contrails and Chemtrails 114
Christian Svensson Chemtrails Global Skywatch facebook discussion Contrails and Chemtrails 49
TWCobra Facebook chemtrail "whistleblower" Contrails and Chemtrails 119
JRBids Facebook violence General Discussion 7
HappyMonday MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory Boston Marathon Bombings 2
Mick West Chemtrail Awareness on Facebook, moves on a bit Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Debunked: Chemtrail Plane and Other Unlabeled Photos from Facebook etc. Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 227
Mick West Metabunk facebook page Site Feedback & News 6
chem_what Chemtrailers on Facebook. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
HappyMonday Chemtrails / Orgone Sponsored link on Facebook Contrails and Chemtrails 0
brent_brent facebook friend uploads Aluminium, Strontium & Barium In Brisbane Rainwater LOL Contrails and Chemtrails 16
P Facebook group dedicated to spamming contrail science Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Des O Discussions with chemtrailers on facebook Contrails and Chemtrails 216
L Is there an updated or expanded version of the conspiracy theory spectrum? Practical Debunking 2
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top