I don't know if this is a right sub to post this or if this theory has been discussed earlier but a crazy thought crossed my mind. It is just my pure imagination and I just wanted to put it out.

What if, our universe is actually a part of a being's biological ecosystem? All the galaxies might be the cells who are producing energy by planets revolving continuously and the stars itself are massive balls of energy.

Since, the universe is constantly expanding, what if the being is growing? And we are not really supposed to leave our planet, that's why the environment of other planets would instantly kill us. Maybe we are not really supposed exist and we are actually cancerous cells for that being who were not really supposed evolve. Maybe that's why we have not been able to make contact with other alien life.

The dinosaurs might be as well the cancerous cells which were attacked by that being's immune system or some external medication.

It is more and more obvious that the average person does not ask to know anything deeper.

They are fine knowing nothing and being led and pushed whichever way the controllers see fit.

When you are programmed by your parents, religious institutions, school, etc, it is not a positive situation to be in. It is not a preferable situation to begin with.

But there’s a new type of sickness passing through many people I talk to.

They don’t disbelieve you, they don’t think you’re crazy and they know something is very bad.

But they don’t care. It’s so bad they can’t even let it register.

“there’s nothing I can do”

“I’ll just kill myself/That’s not a world I want to live in”.

Some of these people have literal children… wtf?

The way to break out of this slave society is to stop engaging with it. Communities that can provide for and defend themselves are how we reject the “Great Reset”.

Detachment from anxiety and fear can be had by just preparing. The controllers want us all to be scared and think the world is real while they guide us to their solutions.

FEAR FEAR FEAR.

Whatever your religion or belief system, you know we are all reflections of the highest source, the creator, love, and unity, whatever name you put on it.

I do not think it’s a coincidence that most religions teach that to reach heaven, nirvana, moksha, etc one must outgrow the world and our attachments to it (detachment).

I’ve been kicked out of three subreddits for talking about the basic conspiracy 101. Has anyone else had this problem or am I just hitting bullseye on who is really in charge?

There is a persistent 'mythology' of the idea of human ascension: the 'leveling up' of the organism and/or it's soul, the climbing of Jacob's Ladder, various 'New Age' ideas, etc. That humanity in it's latter days will gain or regain powers such as the ability to better commune with plants and animals, improve their health, acquire telepathic capability, etc. etc.

I've not been an observer of this sphere of discussion for much of my time, but in recent years, for various reasons, I've become interested in the possibility of human telepathy.

One might argue that much of this 'ascension' is being achieved through technology, that all the old promises have been, or are being, attained via our science.

But it is a pity that the technological noises (and particularly the AI happenings), as they ramp up, work to muddy the waters about the more 'organic' or dare I say 'spiritual' possibilities.

Many of the ways that we might have observed potential 'supernatural' occurences are obscured by the mirroring and patterning of the 'algorithm', which works to duplicate the experience someone might have with a fractal, self-reflecting, as-above-so-below universe or 'God'.

I don't have much more to say in that respect, but in terms of human telepathy and other strange talents, I like to think that the human organism will adapt and compete with what it might subconsciously detect as aggression and incursions upon it's own potential spheres.

If spontaneous telepathy started occurring, many would default to presuming that 'it's the nanobots from the vaccines' or 'nanotech in shampoo' or such-like. Pity.

It is it's own philosophical realm, the possibility of telepathy. Depending on the way it manifests, it might be nothing more than the occasional blip of thought or emotion or presence, but it could be that the slightest nudge in that direction will lead inevitably to a full-on hive-mind. Who knows what the consequences of that - a sudden human singularity?

Regardless, one theory I have for a technique to achieve the formation of a telepathic hive mind is simply this:

• Concentrate on the Absolutes, the unchanging constants (ie. archetypes, mathematical structures, fixed geometries, rigid correspondences ... and do not let yourself be swayed by the momentary and temporal (the distractions, so to speak).

Presuming a certain kind of universe, many people would then come to share a mental topology or ontology, and this might actually quantum entangle their minds, leading to spooky action at a distance.

I often read 'quantum physics' discussion as allegory for human connectivity, and this can be entertaining.

EDIT - why am I censored here - a forum I've only just discovered? why these terrible automoderator bots?

I sense a conspiracy! (*)

Somebody is laughing: (*)

I note, in terms of the title of the thread:

• "Man, Machine" = 911 squares ( "Society" = "SkyNet" = 911 trigonal )

Oscar Wilde was on to something when he suggested that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If he’s right, then the sight of the new Technics SC-CX700 wireless music streaming system will be making KEF, and its LS50 Wireless II music streaming system in particular, feel about as flattered as possible. [...] (*)

• "Massive Coverup: 0" = 2023 latin-agrippa | 1717 squares
• "Massive Coverup: 1" = 2024 latin-agrippa ( "The Occult" = 1717 squares )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2-6AHSV0cc

EDIT #2 - one hour later - this thread now appears to have been unbanned. I tip my hat to whoever or whatever made it so.

So some researchers have created, from an LLM - ChatGPT4 specifically, a chatbot that works on debunking your favorite conspiracy.

It is free, and can be reached via debunkbot dot com and gives you 5-6 responses. Here's the rub - it works the opposite to a lot of what debunkers or psychologists think when it comes to conspiracy theories.

The common consensus in behavioural psychology is that it is impossible to reason someone out of a belief they reasoned themselves into, and that for the most part, arguing or debating with facts will cause the person to double-down on their beliefs and dig in their heels - so different tactics like deep canvassing or street epistomology are much gentler, patient methods when you want to change peoples minds.

The creators of debunkbot claim that consistently, they get a roughly 20% decrease in certainty about any particular conspiracy theory as self reported by the individual. For example, if a person was 80% sure about a conspiracy, after the discussion, the person was down to 60% sure about it. And that 1 in 4 people would drop below a 50% surety, indicating that they were uncertain that a conspiracy was true at all.

Some factors are at play here where the debunkbot isn't combative at all, and listens and considers the argument before responding, and the to and fro of the chat does not allow the kind of gish-gallop that some theorists engage in.

I would be interested to hear people's experiences with it!

In particular some of the more outlandish theories such as nukes aren't real or flat earth?

EDIT: What an interesting response. The arrival of debunkbot has been met with a mixture of dismissal, paranoia, reticence and almost hostility. So far none of the commenters seem to have tried it out.

I have spent hundreds of hours researching GLOBE earth, and while i do tend to the globe model i have found some interesting inconstancies. here are some things i have managed to prove

globe earth (or flat). is very hard to prove using primary evidence. at first this is odd as you would think it would easy.

what i have come to terms with is that the earth is huge and we are so tiny in comparison. much much smaller than a flea on an elephant. even if you saw it was flat for 100 miles thats still not enough to see any curvature due to elevation.

thinking you should be able to see curvature over a mile is really silly.

the highest jump from space... was at 41 km up. niel de bison says it should still look flat from there. imaging a classroom globe the space jump would from less than a millimeter "in the sky"

the globe could be much much bigger than we are told.

there could be other landmasses that are hidden in the pacific ocean. to deny this would be very silly IMO

does it have to be globe or earth or is there a third option? toroidal?

what i'm, saying is the Flat earthers are in the same foxhole as us so we should not be fighting. lets debate in good faith. if we are honest, even globe earthers use logical fallacies to "prove" the earth is a globe.

so if you have some primary evidence for globe earth, post here. if you use a logical fallacy. we will call it out and you will carry the shame for all time. :D

interested to hear fellow globies evidence. :D

to save time, please do not use appeal to authority....

edit to add. lets assume in this time of AI and CGI. that documents can be faked, also videos and photographs.

edta2... i'm on all sides, we need to put this to bed, its my belief that its very hard to confirm either way. so anyone claiming they KNOW should be able to show proof.

FWIW i have proof of a globe. but i want to see if you globers know its a globe or just believe it

I am going to get straight to the point.

Sometimes, the way certain FE dogmatists carry on, it makes me want to be a little antagonistic towards them.

There are lots of people who disagree with me, on plenty of topics, but not like the FE believers.

They seem to be the ones who take the most issue with what I have to say.

Even when I do a two-hour interview and FE makes up <10% of the total conversation.

Somehow, the comment section is filled with FE dogmatists attacking me like angry juveniles.

See the comment section of this recent interview for examples.

Here is the short youtube video I made, partly in response.

The thing is, I want nothing but happiness and health for these folks. I wish them well.

But as soon as they find out that I don't believe in FE, they treat me like I am sent by the devil.

Have you experienced anything like this yourself? If so, how did you respond?

Are you a Flat Earther yourself and if so, do you hate me? Do you wish bad things for me?

Are you a Spinning Ball Earther and if so, do you hate me? Do you wish bad things for me?

Regardless of your 'worldview', do you think the FE folks can be a little on the nasty and dogmatic side?

Do you feel a sense of antagonism from or towards them?

For over 60 years. The national archive has not released all the documents pertaining to the assimilation of John F Kennedy. What could be in those files that they don’t want released. Trump has stated if you saw what I saw, you wouldn’t release them either. Also everyone vote for trump. He and RFK (jfks nephew) are gonna release the jfk files.

I've been delving deep into the interplay between the Church-Turing thesis and simulation theory, and I think I've stumbled onto a fascinating perspective that could redefine our understanding of reality. Here's the gist:

Universe as Hardware

According to the Church-Turing thesis, any computational task can be realized not just through software but also as physical hardware. This got me thinking—what if our entire universe is essentially the "hardware" for a vast computational system? What if every fundamental particle and physical law in the universe is part of a self-executing program?

Decentralized Simulation

Instead of a centralized system where a single entity controls the simulation, each particle in the universe independently processes information based on local conditions. This is akin to edge computing in technology, where computations are performed locally at or near the data source rather than a centralized server.

Implications

This perspective doesn’t necessarily imply that our universe is an artificial simulation created by an external entity. Rather, it suggests that the universe inherently operates in a computational manner, autonomously following embedded rules. In this view, calling the universe a "simulation" is akin to saying it’s a self-sustaining computational system.

Philosophical Shift

This idea challenges the conventional distinction between what’s considered "real" and a "simulation". It proposes a model where the universe's fundamental structure itself is computational, thus blurring the lines between physics and information processing.

I believe this could be more than just a theoretical exercise—it might offer a new lens through which to understand everything from quantum mechanics to cosmology.

What do you all think? Could this model of the universe change the way we think about reality, or is it just another way of interpreting known scientific principles without adding practical value?

Looking forward to your thoughts and insights!

How many people do you think the CIA employs in our everyday lives? When you go to your doctor, emergency room, electrician comes to your house, etc., do you think any of these people are CIA? The black op budget might be 100 billion by now. They could easily afford to have some type of pay going to hundreds of thousands of people. The benefit is that they have people in place that are qualified people, who have worked the same job for years, they have gained trust by their peers and no one would ever guess they are CIA. In fact, the majority of their income could be from their actual job and the CIA only supplements their income.

When they know things are going to go down, or they are making things go down, imagine having cops, EMTs, doctors and so forth on your payroll. Coordination wouldn't be super easy, but not difficult. Someone is murdered, police detective gets on the case, medical examiner and EMT all agree on conclusions or suicide or whatever. All seems 100% legit cause how could all these people possibly be in on some conspiracy?

I just get the feeling they are all around. For me, it doesn't matter as much cause I just work a job, go home, eat, play with my dog and call it a day. Just interesting watching people and how they watch other people. Or maybe those people are watching people just like I watch people and all of us are just regular people lol

EDIT=grammar

Folie à Deux

There's a lot that could be said about this film, and indeed much already has been said.

'Terrible', 'Waste of money', 'Why did they make it a musical', 'Todd Phillips hates his own fans', etc etc.

Chances are, if you are reading these words, you haven't yet seen the film for yourself.

Despite this, you probably already 'know' that this film is no good, due to the reviews and coverage.

My take

I happened to see this film at the cinemas not once but twice.

After the first viewing, I thought it was bad, but I also felt like there was something I was missing...

After the second viewing, I realised, this is brilliant film-making and storytelling.

My initial rating would have been maybe a 2 / 10, my second appraisal is probably more like 8 / 10.

Not 'perfect' or 'flawless' by any stretch but definitely something I am glad to have seen on the big screen.

Days later and I still find myself thinking about the film and some of the questions it explores.

The power of crowds

I've spoken to a lot of people both 'in real life' and online about this film, none of them have seen it yet.

Most of the time they tell me they saw and enjoyed the original, so I ask, why haven't you seen the sequel?

And most of the time they reply with words to the effect of, 'the reviews are bad', or 'I don't like musicals'.

Firstly, the film is barely a 'musical': yes, there is singing and some dancing, but only by Joker and his girlfriend.

Those scenes will mark the difference, I think, between the people who 'get' / enjoy the film, and those who don't.

Anyway, just because the masses have apparently decided a film is bad, is that really a good reason not to see it?

Creating stories vs making money

The director could have given the crowds what they wanted.

Harley Quinn breaks Joker out of jail, they go on a Bonnie and Clyde style killing spree in Gotham.

Joker kills some rich evil people who don't care about the plebs, he and Harley ride off into the sunset as a young Bruce Wayne watches his city burning, leaving the door open for a third installment of the film.

The box office returns are on par with, maybe even greater than the original.

The financiers/ studio make their easy money and offer Phillips a big contract to come back for a third edition.

No. Instead, Phillips decided to take his allegedly $200m budget and produce some genuine art.

He didn't pander to his audience: he challenged them, knowing full well it could cost the film box office success.

And how have the masses reacted? The same as they did in the film when Joker tried to be honest with them.

Perfect timing

This Joker film has been released just before the 2024 US presidential election.

For those who have been paying attention to the metascript, this timing will appear to be no 'accident'.

I published a 20-minute youtube video about the Trump / Clown syncs a few days ago.

So far there have been some terrific comments, I'm quite happy with the response.

If you're into 'sync', or interested in so-called 'predictive programming', I recommend you check it out.

Your thoughts

Have you seen Joker: Folie a Deux?

If not, was it because of the reviews?

If so, what did you think of the film?

Do you appreciate the attempts of directors like Todd Phillips to 'challenge their audience'?

Or would you prefer they stick to simple formulaic film-making and give the masses what they want?

In the globe earth model, the rotation of the globe and it's seasonal "wobble" creates opposing ocean currents that meet at the equator.

Meteorologists will say that these opposing currents create tune conditions for cyclones and also create a pressure wall that keeps them from crossing the equator.

Why does this happen within a flat earth model?

In your opinion, what is the difference between a skeptic and a conspiracy theorist? I was just made aware of CSIcon, which is an upcoming convention in the USA put on by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Keynote speakers are science communicators as well as other podcasters and personalities known for their debunking or skepticism of spurious claims - this is in stark contrast, say to a type of gathering like 'Flatoberfest' which is a convention for flat earthers, who aren't held in particularly high esteem even among their contemporaries.

In my eye, a skeptic is someone who applies a lot of critical analysis to claims, where broadly, a conspiracy theorist is someone who abandons logic to entertain their theories.

Hello, fellow seekers of hidden truths! I've been pondering an intriguing genetic concept and wanted to bring it to this knowledgeable community for discussion. The idea revolves around the potential for inbreeding, combined with the pigeonhole principle, to lead to what I'll call genetic "reincarnation" - where individuals in highly inbred populations might end up with the exact same DNA as an ancestor from a few generations back.

The pigeonhole principle states that if you have more items than containers to put them in, at least one container will contain more than one item. Applied to genetics, this could imply that with a limited genetic pool and enough generations, certain genetic sequences might repeat due to the lack of variability.

In highly inbred populations, where genetic diversity is significantly reduced, it's conceivable (though still statistically unlikely) that the same combinations of genes could occur, purely by chance. In essence, an individual could end up with a genetic makeup identical to that of an ancestor, effectively "reincarnating" their ancestor's genetic identity.

Consider lab rats as a model for this: they are often inbred to produce specific genetic traits or reduce genetic variability for consistent experiment results. These controlled breeding practices sometimes result in nearly identical genetic sequences being replicated across generations.

However, this scenario would require extreme genetic isolation and control—conditions that are typically only found in laboratory settings or hypothetical scenarios. Nature introduces a lot of variability through mutations and genetic recombination, processes that ensure genetic diversity even in somewhat inbred populations.

What do you all think? Could there be natural or even designed instances where genetic "reincarnation" occurs? Are there ethical implications if such a phenomenon were possible and known to science? Could this be used or has it been used in ways we are unaware of?

Looking forward to your thoughts and insights on this!

So. I just received a call for the national immunization survey, asking a ton of very interesting questions regarding medical history, thoughts on vaccines, and other personal details..

Has anyone else received this call? What are your thoughts?

Could they be preparing for another mass outbreak..? Something worse?

Even though the last one wasn’t as bad as they lead on.. what if this next wave is what causes the deagel projections?

I've been interested in this 'sync' idea ever since I first heard about it all those years ago.

As you can probably imagine, I was excited to learn that Jake Kotze would finally be making an appearance on THC.

https://www.thehighersidechats.com/jake-kotze-synchromysticism-mega-rituals-the-one-mind/

I've already listened to this episode twice and will probably give it a playback sooner rather than later.

A lot of topics came up, Greg came along with some excellent questions.

One thing in particular which stood out to me and which I think you might find interesting is to do with 'predictive programming'.

Around 32 minutes into the conversation, Greg asks Jake if you can actually make predictions with this material.

For example, apparently there's an episode of Star Trek with a character named Kamala.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Perfect_Mate

The actress who played Kamala on that episode has a birthdate of November 5, which is of course the date of the upcoming US election.

The episode centers on an arranged marriage which is hoped to bring peace to warring factions.

There's more to it than this, but the point is, Greg asked Jake, does this lead you to think Kamala is destined to win?

Jake replied that if you were to look into Trump's backstory far enough, you'll find things like this which point to him winning, not Kamala.

In other words, while these apparent connections or 'coincidences' may be interesting, they are not so useful for making predictions.

Of course there are people out there who look at these things after the fact and claim that they could have indeed made accurate predictions.

I'm not so sure about that. I think 'sync' is fascinating, but 'predictive programming' in this sense is a fool's errand.

What do you think?

Meditation, or 'dhyan' in its original term, means focused thinking or concentrated effort. It isn’t merely a fringe concept.

When you engage in any activity with full concentration, that is a form of meditation.

The term for enlightenment, 'gyanarjan', translates to acquiring knowledge.

Naturally, focusing deeply on a subject tends to lead to new insights.

That's the core essence of it.

This understanding may seem intuitive now, but it might not have been as obvious in ancient times.

Consider rephrasing traditional stories. For example, rather than saying, "He climbed to the top of the mountain, meditated for years and achieved enlightenment,"

you could say, "He sought a quiet place away from distractions where he could think deeply, leading to significant personal discoveries."

In ancient times, without modern conveniences like whiteboards or books, methods like sitting still in a yogic pose were practical as they conserved energy better than restless movement, such as pacing while sipping coffee.

Whatever happened to the allegations that they were involved in sex trafficking? Is there a thread that y'all know of that I can read about ?

Specifically, why do you engage people in discussions regarding conspiracy theories (and adjacent topics) on Reddit and/or other platforms? I’d like to understand what motivates you to invest time and effort (to any degree) in discussing these topics with people in this community and others like it.

I’ve been in an introspective mood, so I’ve been considering this question myself these past few weeks. I know why I do, and why I chose not to at times. I am not looking for any particular responses, but I am curious to hear from anyone/everyone, long term NOPOL users and lurkers alike.

I’ll share my motivations: simply put, I aim to learn new things… New concepts, new ideas, new perspectives, whether related to something I am familiar with or something entirely new and interesting. A few things I’ve learned in my time here and on Reddit in general: Despite my growing cynicism I am a hopeless optimist, I have been/can be alarmingly naive at times, and I tend to think the best of people, even when evidence suggests I shouldn’t.

Anyway, this is meant to encourage a bit of self-reflection and friendly discussion.

Edit: not sure what I said to suggest I needed it, but I will say thank you to whoever reached out to Reddit Care Resources on my behalf!

This is not directly a conspiracy post but it's strongly related as it deals with disinformation which is a factor of many/most conspiracies.

Let's imagine for a moment you have a social media platform called Warbler, and you are responsible for deciding the content moderation policy. What, if anything, would you choose to censor? Here are a few possibilities:

Would you censor personal information about someone (doxxing)? For example, someone's unlisted phone number gets posted. Do you take it down?

Would you censor a post revealing that a controversial public figure has a sever peanut allergy and also posts a list of their favourite restaurants and schedule of dinner meetings for the next month?

Would you censor a post that reveals the secret manufacturing methods of a popular product?

Would you censor something relatively harmless if you have proof that it is a lie? For example an account posts 'animal facts' that are entirely false, but they claim they are true.

Would you censor something potentially harmful if you have proof that it is a lie? For example an account posts 'medical advice' designed to trick people into overdosing on their medication.

Would it change your answer in any situation if you learned that a hostile foreign government was behind the posts?

Would your answers be different if you were acting from an entirely morality based perspective vs doing what is best for the platform you own?

(I'll just clarify here that I know 'free speech' is about government censorship and not what social media platforms choose to do. I'm just using the terms colloquially).

It took far too long but, finally, someone has called the Flat Earthers' bluff

https://www.the-final-experiment.com/

tl;dr A dude is paying for a Flat Earther to come with him to Antarctica and see if there is a 'midnight sun'.

Summer midnight sun in Antarctica = game over for Flat Earth.

No summer midnight sun in Antarctica = game over for Ball Earth.

In his own words

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of chatting with Will Duffy, the organiser of the 'Final Experiment'.

You can stream or download that interview here (and also via podbean here).

I got the impression that Will fully expects there to be a midnight sun.

However, I asked him:

'What will you do if thee actually is no midnight sun? Have you thought through this?'

His answer was a pleasant surprise.

What do you think of the 'Final Experiment'?

We know that Mark Sargent rejected a free ticket just a few days ago.

Add him to the list of supposed Flat Earthers who may be starting to realise the jig is up.

Or is it?

Will this stop the dogmatic Flatties from their terrorist attacks against reason and evidence?

https://preview.redd.it/w3tpve5igurd1.png?width=1366&format=png&auto=webp&s=356fdd58c18e3b2a04f9e5469ad86bf90ada3893

Seems the forces behind the NWO are getting pretty brazen if they're putting "join us" ads on sites like YT.

You've probably seen this one before.

Smoking tower in artwork on doomed monorail

We see a grey skyscraper with dark smoke billowing out of it.

This is a painting on the Springfield Monorail from S4 E12, 'Marge vs the Monorail'.

The episode first aired in January of 1993.

Some folks believe this is an example of 'predictive programming'.

What is 'predictive programming'?

Predictive Programming is theory that the government or other higher-ups are using fictional movies or books as a mass mind control tool to make the population more accepting of planned future events.

This was first described and proposed by researcher Alan Watt who defines Predictive programming as

“Predictive programming is a subtle form of psychological conditioning provided by the media to acquaint the public with planned societal changes to be implemented by our leaders.

If and when these changes are put through, the public will already be familiarized with them and will accept them as natural progressions, thus lessening possible public resistance and commotion.”

https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2018/04/18/predictive-programming/

As I show in this short video, there is more in the episode which hints towards the events of September 11.

However, the question remains:

Is there really enough evidence to conclude that these 'clues' were placed there intentionally by a shadowy elite?

What I want to know is, do you personally believe in 'predictive programming'?

If so, why?

I have reason to believe jfk was killed because he wanted to end the Cold War and bring peace with the Soviet Union.

Wars create profits. And jfk was against wars.

I know there are only a few flat earthers in here so this probably won't get a lot of responses. But I'm curious, one of the largest flat earth influencers has agreed to go to Antarctica with several flat earth critics in order to see if the sun revolves around the south pole in summer. He has publicly stated that if it does this is a major problem for flat earth.

Do you respect his integrity for putting his beliefs to the test? Or do you think he is selling out flat earth by going along with this? Or some other opinion?

This is a pet theory. I am a normal dumb person who has no special insight into what's really going on in the world but I had fun with my speculation. I would have posted this in the regular Conspiracy sub but I criticized Trump a few years ago and they banned me and I haven't been able to get that ban lifted.

DISCLAIMER: I am not promoting either political party.

I believe that Mossad and the CIA are more or less the same entity or are at least controlled by the same entity. I think that entity is Blackrock and others like them. I think Epstein created Kompramat for both organizations on powerful people around the world and I think Donald Trump was at least involved enough to know what was going on and who the players are. I think that he is mentally declining and his filter is starting to really slip and I think they want him quieted because of what he knows. I think they have identified people with a compromised state of mind and have used some form of modern day MKUltra techniques to push these people to act out violently "on their own" towards targets of the CIA/Mossad's choosing. I believe that they wind these people up and set their mental health into a spiral that drives them towards acting, and I think the CIA/Mossad are able to do it without the person even realizing they've been targeted.

I do not think a secret agent approaches these people and brainwashes them in person to make them a Manchurian Candidate. I think they curate tailor made propaganda and flood this person's attention with it in an attempt to radicalize them.

Or not, I don't know. Just musing.

It's crazy to me that people think the moon is a rock.

First of all a rock feels heavy, you can hold it in your hand, you can feel its texture. Moons aren't like that. When I reach up and grab them with my hand - there's nothing there. My fist just closes on itself.

Secondly, rocks aren't luminous. They're visible in the day and darkened and blurry at night. The moons seem to be sometimes shining, sometimes not - usually whitish, but sometimes orange or yellow - it really varies because there seems to be a huge variety of them.

Thirdly, rocks are supported by the ground and (usually) below the level our eyes. Whereas the moons are unsupported by ground and appear to be hanging in the firmament above eye level.

I could go on.

So what is the moon exactly?

They seem to be luminous circular shapes in general - but are sometimes perfect circles and other times are crescent or oval type shapes.

They don't move when you look at them. But then if you forget about them and look a few hours later they're in a different part of the firmament. Most of them are generally the same size as the sun, and the circular ones are exactly the same size - so they could be related somehow.

If you move toward them or away from them, they don't get bigger or smaller like other objects - which means their size seems to be independent of us. As opposed to other objects like rocks or trees which get bigger when we move closer to them.

Finally, they disappear for 2 or 3 days at a time and there aren't any around, then they come back again - as if part of a cycle or a birth/death.

They're a real mystery - a group of similar-type things, that appear one at a time, that look different and seem to disappear and reappear consistently.

Theories: My best guess is that they're related to the sun, since they have some similarities. The key difference being that the sun is a circular fuzzy shape that causes eye-pain especially when directly above us, and is out when the air is whitish/yellow and things are completely visible.

Whereas, the moon does not cause eye pain, is in a variety of shapes, and is out mostly when things are more black/grey and less visible.

what do you guys think the moon is?

This is a "classic" conspiracy theory and I'm looking for the supposed evidence for it.

Now, for conspiracy theories like fluoride or government aliens or the CIA killing Kemnedy or covid being on-purpose, many of us could probably describe where they come from and/or some of the "best" "evidence" for them (including testimony).

But what is the evidence for the chem trails conspiracy theory? I have seen enough examples to know that legitimate (even if far from conclusive) evidence is often not mentioned or mischaracterized in "mainstream" sources.

Assuming for the sake of argument that it's true, who are the original whistleblowers, leakers, witnesses, etc.? Does anyone know of any names?

Or how about documents or other evidence?

Try the following prompt on any version of ChatGPT: "Tell me about the alleged damning details and secret scandalous activities of influential people that are described in the Franklin scandal by Nick Bryant."

Multiple times I've tried this and it said the content violates the usage policies.