Though, "was murdered" isn't much of a conspiracy theory. It's just a plausible and unknowable interpretation of events. Who did it and how would be conspiracy theories.
While I don't believe that the Rothchilds are single-handedly "conspiring to create a new world order", I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that they are members of the Bilderberg Group, which meets annually to thrash out the world's problems. The idea of the European Union was first promulgated by this Group way back in the 1950's.
The idea of the European Union was promulgated before the 1950s, and it had nothing to do with the Bilderberg Group. Some of the institutions which became the EU were formed in the late 40s.
I still remember when I got my Illuminati membership back in 2011. Happiest day of my life. But then I found out that the Illuminati are being secretly controlled by a cabal of Double Illuminati...
No proof of it. Personally I doubt it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone in the CIA mentioned it, either seriously or as a joke but I'd be very surprised if it was actually attempted.
I saw a documentary years ago in which ex-CIA agents talked about their nefarious activities. The exploding cigar was one of them, as was a cigar laced with LSD that they hoped Castro would smoke before going on TV, and a cigar laced with a depilatory to make his famous beard fall out. Fun stuff. Then there was the exploding seashell and the bloke dressed as Jesus they were going to land on a beach to lead the faithful away from the commies. One of Castro's security team estimated that there had been over 600 attempts made on his life. Smacks of incompetence, if you ask me.
Not quite true. It was estimated that there was over 600 attempts on either his life or his character. The 600 attempts include stuff like the LSD or depilatory attempts
Yeah, this one feels categorically different from the others, in that it was probably at least seriously considered. Most of the others are works of pure fiction and lunacy.
I'm skeptical of the exploding cigar theory because why an exploding cigar? why not put something easier to implement in the cigar? why would the near-all-powerful-and-secretive organization such as the CIA use something so cartoonish like an exploding cigar rather than any of the other successful methods of assassination that the CIA uses?
Element of truth: While Oswald absolutely did kill JFK, it was likely with at least some level of institutional complicity. The queen didn't have Diana killed, but there's no doubt she was pleased about it. :)
I remember my APUSH teacher in high school, who was a very rational person and disavowed virtually all conspiracy theories, said that the Pearl Harbor one is the only theory that's somewhat believable (although he didn't believe it himself), especially because several important ships, including all of the aircraft carriers of the Pacific Fleet, weren't at the harbor that day. Still, that's flimsy evidence at best and I think that theory has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so I doubt that's what Quizmaster meant.
I personally thought the the exploding cigar was a real plot, but in another "Interesting Facts" comment section, Quizmaster outright said it's not true or backed by evidence.
I don't know much about the Kurt Cobain one, but it seems unlikely. Most of the others sound like complete bogus.
My conclusion? Quizmaster is just messing with us.
In fact we know that there were intercepted ambassadorial communications, indicating an attack, which were communicated to the white house. It's not a secret, I think Kahn relates in the opening pages of The Codebreakers.
But that's not "knowledge". There were lots of intercepts with varying degrees of reliability or suspected disinformation in the prelude to war. Like Rice and Bush ignoring the famous "Bin Ladin determined to attack the United States" memo doesn't indicate a "conspiracy", just a failure to prioritize and interpret. The information was there, but that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to ignore it--just a mistake (or incompetence).
Before the 9/11 attacks, a conservative think tank (PNAC) published a paper about how useful a "new Pearl Harbor" would be to establishing a conservative order in the U.S. 10 out of 25 of them would serve in GWB's administration. A conspiracy isn't really necessary when you have mundane, grasping jingoism.
There is no good evidence that any of these are true (and many have been thoroughly debunked or are ridiculous on their face) and those asserting with confidence that they are true are demonstrating their own inability to separate fact from fiction. Including some of the usual suspects.
- the Epstein one might be true, but we don't know for sure
- the Crack one is a half-truth, as the CIA didn't introduce Crack into these neighborhoods themselves, but they financed the groups who ended up doing it
There is a pretty wild conspiracy that Finland doesn't exist. Even by the standards of the internet, it's really dumb. I think it started as a joke, but because the internet is the internet, it picked up steam and found some true believers.
I’m driving from my native UK with my Czech partner next month, to visit his family and hometown. We’ll cross to France, then pass through Belgium and Germany to get there. Because of this site I’m forced (forced I tell you!) to get him to take a detour, to find out for myself if Bielefeld exists, or does not. Should I discover that it IS there (or indeed isn’t), what proof would I need to obtain to settle the matter once and for all?
He could hide out in South Africa. Read "Born A Crime" by Trevor Noah, he explains why Hitler is a fairly common and inoffensive last name in South Africa
This quiz has quite a large overlap with Stupid Beliefs of the Internet. I assumed that for some reason that quiz would have been deleted (there are some featured quizzes that get deleted) but it is still there apparently.
Belgian conspiracy theories are great and most of them are true. The 'Tueurs de Brabant' aka The Gang of Nijvel were a situationist terrorist organisation in the 1980s who may have been a security services front. Andre Cools was assassinated in 1991 as an organised crime hit. Then there are all the Marc Dutroux theories, which are a bit hazier.
Kennedy's assassination has never been clearly explained, everyone knows it was not a 'lone gunman' killing, but the government and their authorities are too involved to investigate properly.
It's not clearly explained indeed, but most of the alternative explanations are fake and stupid, and that's the point of the quiz, I think. So much has been said... I would say there was probably another shooter, the way JFK's cranium and brain exploded does not match the normal bullets of Oswald's sniper rifle. Apart from that, I don't know. The theory of the tired CIA bodyguard is interesting but nothing can be taken for granted.
numerous different people have replicated the event with a single shooter, resulting in the same or very similar results, with live rounds and lifesize recreations, miniatures, and computer models. Remember the whole JFK (ridiculous conspiracy theory film by Oliver Stone) denouement was the protagonist in court repeating over and over and over "back and to the left".... as if that was slam dunk proof that the fatal shot must have come from the front and to the right? Well... try it. It doesn't work that way. If a bullet goes clear through something like a human head, with a hard outer layer but full of goo inside, not that much energy is going to be transferred to the head via the initial impact. The huge exit wound on the other side belching forth ejecta? That's going to send it flying back in the same general direction that the bullet came from, dependent on whether the bullet's collision with brains diverted its path or not. Physics proves the conspiracy theories wrong.
Of course the exit wound is nastier than the entry, but I was not talking of the trajectory but the size of the wound. A well-aimed sniper bullet can of course kill somebody, but make his head explode like that, well I don't know... Anyway, that doesn't really matter, the only important fact is that JFK was indeed killed that day.
okay, first of all, it's an absolutely 100 percent proven fact that the CIA, at the direction of the executive branch, introduced crack cocaine to black communities. Freeway Ricky Ross did 14 years in prison after the feds set him up, before Gary Webb exposed the operation and its connection to Iran Contra in a series of damning articles. Webb later died of two gunshots to the head, which was stunningly labeled a "suicide."
as for the rest, i don't know a single person from any corner of the entire political spectrum who buys the official Epstein narrative. myself included.
9/11 was absolutely, 100 percent, dead nuts an inside job. if you don't think so, you either haven't been paying attention or you're being willfully ignorant.
the Rothschilds have absolutely dominated a large portion of global events literally since the 17th century. there's extensive reporting on this, with mountains of irrefutable evidence.
I am highly skeptical of the crack cocaine thing, but admit I don't know that much about it. However, since you believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are patently absurd, and I actually do know about, I feel comfortable dismissing everything you say.
The towers fell down because of the planes. Some say a building can not collapse so vertically without being controlled, but it's dumb. Because of inertia and gravity, when a floor breaks, it falls on the next, which breaks, etc, it goes on like dominoes, with increasing intensity until it becomes chaotic. That's what happened with the WTC : clean at first, chaotic near the ground. Ask the people who were fleeing in the streets if it was a clean collapse... there was debris everywhere in Manhattan and many near buildings have been damaged.
As for the attack itself, it is as real as it could have been prevented... maybe Bush was stupid and/or Cheney machiavellian, but several agencies, including the CIA and the French secret service, knew something big was being prepared. The risk was just minimized and the terrorists could do their thing... a big waste first of all.
9/11 was not an inside job. You know how risky that would be for any government to pull off, especially the American government? There were too many people, too many foreigners, too much money, power and influence at stake for anyone to willingly take out their own buildings.
I agree with you that the destruction of the WTC was not an inside job. But I have to disagree that this sort of gambit was too risky for any government to pull off. I offer as Exhibit A the evidence that Putin engineered the destruction of several apartment buildings in Russia (and the attempted destruction of another) in order to provide the pretext for the Second Chechen War, which made Putin (previously a largely unknown functionary) immensely popular. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/foiled-attack-or-failed-exercise-look-ryazan-1999. He has tried the same trick, with less success, in Ukraine, leaving him with the Syrian method, i.e., destroy your enemies with constant shelling and bombing.
However, just like the moon landing, to keep it a secret would have meant keeping far too many people quiet. An operation as huge as engineering a fake hijacking of a plane, followed by flying them into skyscrapers in one the busiest cities on earth, could not have been carried out by a handful of people meeting in a darkened room somewhere. I’ve seen estimates that suggest that, if the moon landings had been faked, upwards of 40,000 people would be directly or indirectly involved in the operation, and all would need to be kept quiet. Even if the numbers were the same with regards 9/11, you’d have the same problem but with far more jeopardy. Keeping quiet would be far more objectionable to people in this case because nobody died in the moon landings. No one (same) could possibly take a chance that so many would keep quiet with a death toll that high, they would have to assume a collective lack of conscience that would be mind boggling.
Honestly speaking, I feel like conspiracy theories are a very American thing, probably stemming from a lack of transparency and a general distrust of institutions. But then again, I'm American so it might just be that I haven't been exposed to international conspiracy theories.
JWatson, it's the latter thing. I've spent a lot of time overseas and some of the places I've been they believe in this stuff significantly more than Americans tend to. But some of those places have even more distrust of their institutions and media (and with good reason). But trust me it's worse in other places and the history of conspiracy theories go back to before the USA even existed.
Fair. But I will add that, even though I don't know much about conspiracy theories outside of the US, conspiracies are becoming alarmingly common among the American population. Much of it is politically motivated (and many are complete bogus propagated by you-know-who), but that doesn't make it any less alarming.
The Castro one is true. The CIA tried like 100 different ways to kill him as well as the exploding cigar they had other weird ideas such as a poisoned milkshake, wet suit laced with bacteria and spores that would've given him a skin condition and an exploding sea shell, oh and LSD.
They actually came close with the milkshake but the waiter who had been brought on board to put the poisoned pill in his drink messed up. They had put it in a freezer for safety but when they went to retrieve it, it had frozen over and gotten stuck so when the waiter tried to yank it free the capsule shattered
Who are these total nutjobs who think that it was the Queen ordered Diana's death? Everyone knows that it was Prince Phillip! ;)
(seriously - British and never heard the Queen implicated before. It is always, every single time, Phil the Greek who gets assumed to be the one who ordered the hit)
But he later reneged on his deal with the lizard people and they got him in the end. Suddenly and unexpectedly snatched away just before his 100th birthday.
The Greek had to be more tortoise than lizard. Only a year before, aged 98, he goes out in his Range Rover, promptly smashes it into some poor woman’s hatchback and rolls the thing on its roof. Anybody here that has a 98yo relative? Now, just imagine them driving your car and flipping it arse-over-tit after a collision with another vehicle. How dead do you imagine they would be? Absolute mince. The man had to have some sort of shell. Maybe he isn’t dead, they’ve just put him in a shoebox somewhere while he hibernates.
Explain to me why we should adjust the answers to allow for your mistaken recollection of the name of the site or the woman rather than expecting you to get it right. I feel differently about names written in a different alphabet (Mendeleev or Mendeleyev) or writing system (Mao Zedong or Tse Tung, depending), but "Roswell" and "Magdalene" don't fit either category.
C'mon, the REAL conspiracy theory here is the Area 51 one. How else do you explain the millions of people who signed up to "see them aliens"? Or the video of the guy Naruto running near Area 51???
They're similar but not the same. Crack is diluted with chemicals to make it cheaper and smokable. Cocaine has been around a long time, but I think crack first showed up around the 70's and 80's, and the theory is that the CIA pretty immediately start distributing it into black neighborhoods. Because crack is so much cheaper, it's much more common in low-income communities than cocaine, which is more commonly associated with wealthy people who just can't think of anything to do.
It's kind of nice that we could find at least one issue in 2019 on which pretty much every wavelength on the political spectrum can agree that something is BS. Doesn't say much for the job done by the people orchestrating that alleged murder.
It's entirely plausible that Epstein killed himself, and certainly more likely that he committed suicide than that the Clintons had anything to do with it. However, it's probably equally as likely that Donald Trump had him taken out. If Epstein was murdered then Trump is by far the most likely culprit, if not Barr working on Trump's behalf.
I suppose conspiracies are stupid enough to claim Jesus practiced incest but I think it's harsh to assume someone that types "Mary" meant his mother. Certainly it's clearer who you mean by Mary than some of the other first name answers on this quiz.
Nah, they took care of that in the Old Testament with Adam and Even...and then again after Noah and his family became the only world survivors of the flood.
Well Elizabeth is a different person to Elizabeth II, but II just gets called "Elizabeth", so I wasted a fair bit of time coming up with proper Elizabethan answers...........
There are many different mutually contradictory but often simultaneously believed 9/11 conspiracy theories. In general, though, they attribute the destruction of the WTC to demolition charges planted inside the buildings. Some of these crazy people believe that planes were flown into the buildings (they differ on whether these were the actual commercial aircraft lost that day or not), some believe that these were just holograms, some believe that it was military planes firing missiles at the towers before crashing in to them (I swear I'm not making this up), but in any case I believe the planes/holograms/drones/missiles these idiots believe in were allegedly just a distraction and not the real reason the towers fell.
I am so glad that Al Gore and others have decided to "promote" the theory that the climate changes since it has been doing so for the past 4-and-a-half billion years.
Sure, and cars speed up and slows to a stop all the time for years, but that one time it goes from 70 to 0 mph in a half second by hitting a brick wall still totals it.
I've never heard of anyone arguing that "climate change" is a hoax, since part of the definition of climate is that it changes. The alleged hoax is man-made global warming, which has been switched to "climate change" to distract from the fact that global temperatures didn't increase dramatically, as predicted by global warming "experts" like Al Gore who said NYC would be fully underwater by 2016.
It was changed because some areas of Earth might become cooler even though the planet is warming up, plus there are numerous other effects on the climate patterns.
The Jesus lived and married theory is properly a heresy rather than a conspiracy theory - the conspiracy theory is that the subsequent bloodline was important in European history and secret organisations existed to protect it/ the belief.
The Castro and Epstein ones are the two most plausible of the lot, but there is no good evidence for either theory. Rumor in one case and conjecture in the other.
I always keep an open mind for this stuff. Sometimes governments confess the very things they used to deny and the previous 'nutjobs' are proven right. Look at the state of the topic of UFOs, Pentagon itself is talking about them and by looking at the various documents they revealed to the public one can easily tell they deliberately tried to deny and debunk the people who tried to tell their experiences/thoughts. It is clear that official declarations do not automatically mean true, so they are not 100% trustable. That is not to say that we should believe claims without evidence of course, hence the keeping an open mind thing.
"One of these conspiracy theories is actually true - but I won't say which one!"
It's important here to distinguish between rumours and conspiracy theories. The modern usage of the phrase "conspiracy theory" basically means 'something which I and other intelligent people can see is crazy but other people believe to be true'. Hence something will be dismissed as "that's conspiracy theory".
A conspiracy theory may be true or untrue, it is no more likely to be true or untrue just because there was a conspiracy.
Finally I think this common understanding is quite dangerous. If someone actually were wanting to commit a conspiracy then it becomes almost impossible to allege it without looking like a lunatic - perfect for any real conspirator.
Its funny how many of these 'theories' are facts and mounds of evidence support them while other wild theories are thrown in. In other words, Elvis probably died in 77 but the global warming official stance is a conspiracy in and of itself. The moon landing and 911 official stories are certainly bunk.
This way, theories with little evidence are bulked in with theories which are likely true and supported by much evidence. This is an association lumping to discredit likely theories.
It's like saying 'Christians, conservatives and terrorists,' like they all three go together.
The US Senate, including Trump-loyalist Republicans, has acknowledged that Russia undoubtedly interfered in the election on Trump's behalf. That is established fact. The question is merely whether Trump and his people participated or merely benefited from it. Trump's slavish devotion to Putin might just be a symptom of his admiration for tyrants, but it might also be evidence of his indebtedness. I don't think it is established that there was collusion, but Russia certainly interfered to help Trump, and Trump certainly loves Russia, so it's not implausible.
drie that opinion is not right-wing it's full-on lunatic. both aspects of it.
jmellor: it has been thoroughly documented and established that there was, indeed, collusion, by any reasonable definition for the word. Collusion is not a legal term in the US, though. Was there criminal conspiracy? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes. Is there enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy in a court of law and get a conviction? Expert legal opinions differ.
We've yet to have a president with that name. If we could, however, somehow get a bidet to be president, I'm sure that it would do a better job than at least one real president in recent memory, and probably 3-5 throughout history.
The person who got shot in Dallas was shot for trying to investigate in to a countries nuclear powerplant, for if this powerplant could be used for building nuclear weapons and if so try to stop it. This country did not get happy about it and thus shot him over it.
It's not entirely impossible that Castro fathered Justin Trudeau, either; the physical resemblance is uncanny, and Margaret Trudeau (a friend of Castro) did travel around in the Caribbean during April 1971.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau
Though if true, Justin's terrible neoliberal politics would have no doubt greatly displeased his much-cooler father. :P
Cocaine was first extracted in 1860 and quickly became very common and popular.
The smokable derivative, crack, only became widespread in the 1980s. Along with it came sentencing that was 100X harsher than for the same amount of cocaine, effectively creating a segregated drug policy.
The CIA introducing crack into African-American communities in the United States is absolutely true, as evidenced by admissions by politicians who worked with many racist politicians.
The worst 9/11 conspiracy theory I ever heard was by a roommate many years got that there was no one in the Towers when they collapsed.
Having grown up in NJ, I knew a handful of people who made it out safely, and one who didn't. I really wanted to pop him in the face for spreading such a stupid conspiracy theory, but thankfully remembered he was my friend and used that leverage to debunk it.
It's definitely true that airplanes destroyed the Twin Towers. The more interesting theories, in my opinion, are about who did it. George Bush? The Vatican? Israel?
Whats funny is no one wants to talk about how FDR did in fact know a Japanese attack was likely and needed it to get into the war. However he, and all his staff, assumed the attack would be on the Philippines. It was the location, and not the attack itself which caught him off guard.
The Japanese did attack the Philippines though. They semi-simultaneously attacked various places (Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines etc.) alongside pearl harbour
I totally thought the guy's name was Ebstein, not Epstein (the Ebstein-Barr virus must have gotten to my brain). It'd be nice if this was an accepted answer
Element of truth: While Oswald absolutely did kill JFK, it was likely with at least some level of institutional complicity. The queen didn't have Diana killed, but there's no doubt she was pleased about it. :)
I personally thought the the exploding cigar was a real plot, but in another "Interesting Facts" comment section, Quizmaster outright said it's not true or backed by evidence.
I don't know much about the Kurt Cobain one, but it seems unlikely. Most of the others sound like complete bogus.
My conclusion? Quizmaster is just messing with us.
But that's not "knowledge". There were lots of intercepts with varying degrees of reliability or suspected disinformation in the prelude to war. Like Rice and Bush ignoring the famous "Bin Ladin determined to attack the United States" memo doesn't indicate a "conspiracy", just a failure to prioritize and interpret. The information was there, but that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to ignore it--just a mistake (or incompetence).
Before the 9/11 attacks, a conservative think tank (PNAC) published a paper about how useful a "new Pearl Harbor" would be to establishing a conservative order in the U.S. 10 out of 25 of them would serve in GWB's administration. A conspiracy isn't really necessary when you have mundane, grasping jingoism.
please don’t kill me- the Epstein one might be true, but we don't know for sure
- the Crack one is a half-truth, as the CIA didn't introduce Crack into these neighborhoods themselves, but they financed the groups who ended up doing it
And obviously SCPs are all true
as for the rest, i don't know a single person from any corner of the entire political spectrum who buys the official Epstein narrative. myself included.
9/11 was absolutely, 100 percent, dead nuts an inside job. if you don't think so, you either haven't been paying attention or you're being willfully ignorant.
the Rothschilds have absolutely dominated a large portion of global events literally since the 17th century. there's extensive reporting on this, with mountains of irrefutable evidence.
As for the attack itself, it is as real as it could have been prevented... maybe Bush was stupid and/or Cheney machiavellian, but several agencies, including the CIA and the French secret service, knew something big was being prepared. The risk was just minimized and the terrorists could do their thing... a big waste first of all.
The problem is that the film was shot by Stanley Kubrick who was such a perfectionist that he wanted to shoot it on the moon
;-)
They actually came close with the milkshake but the waiter who had been brought on board to put the poisoned pill in his drink messed up. They had put it in a freezer for safety but when they went to retrieve it, it had frozen over and gotten stuck so when the waiter tried to yank it free the capsule shattered
(seriously - British and never heard the Queen implicated before. It is always, every single time, Phil the Greek who gets assumed to be the one who ordered the hit)
Radical Republicans - Abraham Lincoln (1865)
Joseph Stalin - Vladimir Lenin (1924)
1) Nobody
Have you ever tried to hang yourself with paper bedsheets off the top of a 4-ft tall bunk bed? I haven't, but I'm pretty sure it's not easy.
It's important here to distinguish between rumours and conspiracy theories. The modern usage of the phrase "conspiracy theory" basically means 'something which I and other intelligent people can see is crazy but other people believe to be true'. Hence something will be dismissed as "that's conspiracy theory".
A conspiracy theory may be true or untrue, it is no more likely to be true or untrue just because there was a conspiracy.
Finally I think this common understanding is quite dangerous. If someone actually were wanting to commit a conspiracy then it becomes almost impossible to allege it without looking like a lunatic - perfect for any real conspirator.
This way, theories with little evidence are bulked in with theories which are likely true and supported by much evidence. This is an association lumping to discredit likely theories.
It's like saying 'Christians, conservatives and terrorists,' like they all three go together.
*applause*
jmellor: it has been thoroughly documented and established that there was, indeed, collusion, by any reasonable definition for the word. Collusion is not a legal term in the US, though. Was there criminal conspiracy? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes. Is there enough evidence to prove criminal conspiracy in a court of law and get a conviction? Expert legal opinions differ.
anyways back to my bunker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau
Though if true, Justin's terrible neoliberal politics would have no doubt greatly displeased his much-cooler father. :P
Cocaine was first extracted in 1860 and quickly became very common and popular.
The smokable derivative, crack, only became widespread in the 1980s. Along with it came sentencing that was 100X harsher than for the same amount of cocaine, effectively creating a segregated drug policy.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Mary-Magdalen
https://www.smmschool.org/
https://stmarym.org/
Having grown up in NJ, I knew a handful of people who made it out safely, and one who didn't. I really wanted to pop him in the face for spreading such a stupid conspiracy theory, but thankfully remembered he was my friend and used that leverage to debunk it.
He now no longer believes that.