Follow TV Tropes

Discussion UsefulNotes / ConspiracyTheories

Go To

Mar 21st 2016 at 9:18:47 PM •••

Does anyone else find it awfully suspicious how many of these seem to be connected to Alex Jones? What is he up to?

Aug 13th 2013 at 1:45:33 AM •••

The 9/11 section mentions that the LIHOP crowd is more numerous than the MIHOP crowd. Is this actually the case, though? I can't say I've ever met or seen one. Are there polls that support that? From my own impression, the LIHOP theorists are very hard to find.

Jul 11th 2013 at 9:37:41 PM •••

This page has crept over the 400k mark warranting a page split. Splitting any useful notes page seems kind of odd to me, but the largest folder, Famous People, is at only 81,000 characters, hardly a massive chunk of the page, nor could it support a separate page on its own; in fact it's been split into several sub-sections. Next in line is Real Conspiracies at 39k. So it seems to me there are two options: condense the page by cutting natter and other such things, or partially or fully split the page.

May 27th 2013 at 5:09:37 PM •••

About Sandy Hook: I don't know if it's been acknowledged in the page yet, but there's been a theory going around that it was all some kind of setup, that the kids were never killed and the parents that were on TV to talk about their dead children were hired actors because they didn't really show their "true" sadness and grief about their losses. One such video on Youtube supporting this theory shows a guy who briefly appeared to be holding back a chuckle before a press conference. This was 5 hours after supposedly learning that his child has died from the attacks. link

Edited by
Sep 11th 2012 at 2:38:07 PM •••

I recall reading once that locksmiths have been suppressing knowledge of bump keys and lock-racking tools for 150 years or so. In the heroic version of the tale, The Open Organization of Lockpickers (TOOOL) exposes the conspiracy and recommends that the public investigate what locks they buy more thoroughly. I'm not sure where to look for credible documentation, but I think I recall a newspaper article about a massive robbery at some large organizational headquarters from maybe 10 years ago, before the TOOOL articles, that mentioned that someone who knows what to do can make a master key for an entire model line of locks from any key made for any specimen of that model.

Mar 24th 2012 at 4:37:38 PM •••

Has anyone noticed that 'conspiracy theory' is in itself about as bad as 'idea about food'? It's a theory about a conspiracy, that's all. There are conspiracies happening in every high school corridor, the government has admitted to lying all the time—and then the media gets people thinking that believing they might be lying is insanity.

That's some kind of Orwellian meta-lie going on there—they're lying about lying! And at the same time admitting that they are lying! Can you say doublethink?

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 30th 2012 at 2:31:47 AM •••

Like most terms in the world, 'conspiracy theory' doesn't mean Exactly What It Says on the Tin. You could believe, say, that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't work entirely on his own, but had a few cohorts who helped him plan things out but who have since kept pretty quiet about things for understandable reasons. That would be a 'theory' about a 'conspiracy', but not a 'conspiracy theory' in the sense commonly understood by the phrase.

Sep 22nd 2012 at 6:10:39 AM •••

That's not even the point. History shows us that conspiracies happen all the damned time. The very fact that the government keeps things secret means that there are government conspiracies all over the place.

And yet even the most reasonable theories are never even considered.

May 18th 2013 at 7:51:36 AM •••

.....You realize this about the common catch all term for the crazy theories that people attribute to people like the NWO or aliens or jewish people, right?

The term is almost never used as to what its actual wording would mean.

Mar 24th 2016 at 9:38:06 PM •••

What's wrong with "ideas about food"?

Jan 10th 2012 at 10:24:42 AM •••

In terms of conspiracy theories, I have uncovered a few that may be of note....

First off are the Columbine conspiracy theories. Before 9/11, these theories were all over the internet, and still linger in some circles.

There's the most famous theory of a third shooter, usually either another student (The name Robert Perry gets mentioned a lot, as his name isn't redacted from the FBI file on Columbine, and that same file mentions students seeing him wandering in the halls at the time), or a Government Agent/SWAT Officer.

Another theory on Columbine that is more far out there is the idea that Eric Harris, whose father was an Air Force pilot, was subjected to MK-ULTRA type mind control that backfired and made him a killing machine. Or that he was programmed to kill in order to push for tighter control.

The third Columbine theory and the most far-out of them all is that the media they consumed were used to brainwash Eric and Dylan by the creators of said media. Doom gets mentioned the most, as that is the most well-known of their games that they played, but the second-most mentioned and definitely more far-out theory involves Vampire: The Masquerade. I saw on a conspiracy forum how someone tried to link VTM to Columbine by using misquoted material, a page for a LARP in nearby Denver, and the Rod Ferrell Vampire Cult murders (which had nothing to do with Columbine at all, and little to do with Vampire: The Masquerade, despite initial media shock) as evidence. One of the most ridiculous points is the Vampire stock character wearing a black trenchcoat and carrying a katana or shotgun. And because Eric & Dylan wore black trenchcoats...well you get the picture.

Hide/Show Replies
Jan 10th 2012 at 10:33:14 AM •••

On another note, I've read a lesser known conspiracy theory regarding the Norwegian Black Metal scene of the 1990's, particularly Varg Vikernes's actions and the murder of Euronymous.

The theory goes that someone (Usually the Church of Norway or the Norwegian Federal Government, although other culprits such as the Oslo Police Department, a major record label, and the like are mentioned) hires Varg Vikernes and Bart Faust of Emperor to commit the crimes that made them famous and made Black Metal extremely stigmatized by the Norwegian media.

They hire Faust to rob and kill a gay man jogging in the park, and later use Varg to burn down the churches and kill Euronymous, guitarist of Mayhem. By killing Euronymous, thus shutting down Deathlike Silence Productions (The main Black Metal record label at the time, owned by Euronymous) and the record store Helvete (Which was the epicenter of Black Metal culture at the time), and ensure Varg gets paroled early, despite his racist and radical nature.

One variation takes it even further to say that the same people who hired Varg to kill Euronymous and burn the churches, sent hitmen to kill Dead, vocalist of Mayhem (Regardless of the fact that Dead was very depressed, withdrawn, and made prior suicide attempts), usually in the form of Norwegian Federal Agents or even inquisitors (Nevermind that the Church of Norway doesn't have an inquisition)

Nowhere near as famous as the ones regarding JFK or Tupac, but worth noting, given the bizzare nature of Black Metal's fandom, especially in Norway during the 1990's.

Dec 25th 2011 at 2:41:01 PM •••

Since this wiki is just a bit of fun, surely this page is a little off-kilter in emphasizing certain topics that are guaranteed to attract the attention of True Believers who tend to be abusive, stupid, and probably insane - see the comments about holocaust denial above for a very good example (I'm looking at you Unknown 20 Troper, you sniveling little douchebag).

Obviously some conspiracy theories - Watergate for example - are true. In fact, it's quite strange that the nearest we have to a claim that Watergate itself was a conspiracy to dethrone the noble and stainless President Nixon because he was about to reveal the truth about something or other is the short-lived Broadway musical "He's Innocent Of Watergate" starring Peter Sellers (seriously! - you can still get the soundtrack CD, I think). But that doesn't mean that this is the place for people who hold fanatical opinions about real-life events to have an opportunity to air them while bad-mouthing everyone who disagrees with their pet strain of rabies (in most cases, about six billion and counting). You might as well forbid all mention of religion in case people who believe in any form of God get upset.

In terms of how relevant they are to this wiki, holocaust denial ranks well below "Paul Mc Cartney is dead" because there are several novels and at least one feature film based on this idea (unfortunately I can't think of the titles offhand), since although it's so silly that it only briefly gained any kind of widespread acceptance, it's the kind of theory you can play with without gratuitously offending anyone (except possibly Paul Mc Cartney, but he inflicted "Mull Of Kintyre" on the world, so he deserves pretty much anything). By the way, Andru J. Reeve's book "Turn Me On Dead Man" is by far the best overview of that particular theory, if you like that sort of thing.

Personally, I like the theory that Paul Mc Cartney was not only killed, but his replacement was Vivian Stanshall of the Bonzo Dog Doo-Da Band, who didn't actually exist, but was some other guy impersonating two famous people at once, hence the faked death of his non-existent Vivian Stanshall identity in order to give him more time to pretend that Paul Mc Cartney was still alive. Sadly that one never really caught on, I can't think wjy.

Jul 6th 2011 at 10:53:23 PM •••

I believe this page could be greatly improved if we put some of the evidence that backs up each conspiracy theory under each one if at all possible. After all, this is supposed to be Useful Notes, and it would certainly help everyone interested if they could go and read a few of the documents and stories that lend credence to them. (Plus, it would balance the rather obvious bias this page has against Conspiracy Theorists)

Conspiracy theorists do not believe what they believe because they're insane, they do so because they view the underlying evidence as sound. Your Mileage May Vary of course, but they do have their reasons. Plus, if you don't believe the conspiracy, you can get a good laugh out of their so called "evidence" (or maybe, just maybe, become a believer yourself). Everybody wins! So why hasn't that happened?

Edited by hitman359 Hide/Show Replies
Feb 4th 2012 at 6:40:16 PM •••

Yes, please. This page seems a bit too close to 'how dare you have conspiracy theories about our Black Ops' to me. We know there have been conspiracies in history or there wouldn't have to be a word for them, and when our government has hundreds of files marked Top Secret it's only natural that people come up with ideas about what's in them.

Mar 7th 2011 at 11:32:57 AM •••

What's the deal with the extreme animosity on this page towards all these theories? Just because you personally don't agree with them, doesn't give you the right to smarmily mock them as nonsense. Believing in things like these kinds of conspiracy theories is very much a matter of personal opinion and belief. Some people do fervently believe these things. It is as inappropriate to mock them in this way as it would be to edit the useful notes pages about, say, Christianity or Judaism, to point out how "stupid" or "laughable" you find the ideas that Jesus could have risen from the dead, or Moses could have parted the Red Sea.

Edited by Unknown20Troper Hide/Show Replies
Mar 7th 2011 at 11:35:48 AM •••

Any principle that means we cannot make fun of David Icke and his Space Lizards  *

is a rubbish principle.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Mar 7th 2011 at 11:43:08 AM •••

Ah, you can feel free to make fun of him as much as you like, on forums or other places such as that. A useful notes page is NOT the proper place to do that, it's meant to do exactly what it says on the tin, provide useful information about a topic. Mockery is not useful information. It's useless information. That's what I would call rubbish!

Mar 7th 2011 at 12:01:30 PM •••

It is when the principle media involvement of the parties involved (again, I'm looking at David Icke here) is people making fun of the idea.

Mar 7th 2011 at 10:21:32 PM •••

1. Stop using David Icke as an example for everything. Not everything listed on this page is proposed by David Icke, not by a long shot.

2. Maybe the principal involvement in the media you watch is to make fun of the idea(s), in the ones I watch, it's not.

3. Either way, it's flame bait. There's a reason people say "never discuss religion or politics''. People tend to get very defensive about things they believe in, and will often write off anyone who doesn't agree as simply "an idiot" or a "non-believer" in their preferred way of thinking. Which is why sensitive topics should be approached from a neutral standpoint. To do otherwise is unlikely to lead anywhere good.

Mar 8th 2011 at 8:30:25 AM •••

Some things are beyond being worthy of respect. You want an example of a non-Ickey theory that its mandatory to mock? The theory, on this page, that the holocaust is a lie. Along with all the other antisemetic theories listed. As a Jewish person, I may be a bit biased here, but if this wiki sees it neccesary to treat antisemetism with honor and respect, then something is very wrong with it- in fact, its probably Flame Bait not to explain and bring up the ridiculousness of those theories.

On a lighter note, the fluoridation of water conspiracy is most notable for being mocked in Dr. Strangelove.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Mar 9th 2011 at 7:49:54 PM •••

Yes, some things ARE beyond being worthy of respect.

You are one such thing.

No, the holocaust is not a lie, it happened, and I agree that antisemitism should not be supported or encouraged. But you are using a claim of it as a shield to try to make your beliefs unassailable, like people who wrap themselves in the flag, of whatever country, to try to position themselves as if their nation itself has the full weight and force behind their every opinion and view.

It's not beyond being worthy of respect just because you think it is. I find your ideas and opinions about as repulsive and sickening as anything I've ever encountered and you know what? If you want an edit war with me, you've got one. Bring it on, I love it!

Mar 10th 2011 at 5:59:50 AM •••

I'm not going to edit war; it only ends in annoyance. That's why we're here on the discussion page, discussing it like civilized people, instead of saying "does not" and "does too" with the actual wiki page.

And I am not "wrapping myself in the holocaust like a flag". I am simply bringing up the issue that pure 100% neutrality is not necessarily the best method of flame-war avoidance for every single theory listed- for a number of 'em, the best method of flame war avoidance is to lean to the side of the overwhelming majority. I didn't even bring the holocaust up at the beginning, you'll notice, mainly because I was trying to be jokey and make light.

In short, pure neutrality on everything would, in my opinion, be the Golden Mean Fallacy.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Mar 24th 2011 at 8:36:39 PM •••

Hmm well let's see, where do I even start to respond to this? I suppose I might as well number it.

1. About the Holocaust issue, one way or the other, I might just as well mention that I am also of Jewish descent. My maternal great-grandfather was, by all accounts I've heard, a fairly well-known and respected rabbi in Austria. He came to the states. I was born Jewish and quite strongly believed in it until I was about 14 or 15, when I learned to start thinking for myself and realized it was all a huge load of crap. I didn't bring it up before 'cuz you know what? It's not relevant to the situation. You didn't need to bring it up either.

2. As to the golden mean fallacy, perhaps true neutrality on everything would be an example of this, though I would argue that what you suggest, simply kowtowing to what you claim and believe to be the majority, amounts to the same kind of fallacy. To quote from that trope page “Of course, one of the hazards of this trope is that you'll end up angering both sides of the debate, who might be more interested in complaining about what they wanted but didn't get, without even acknowledging anything that they might have gained. Alternatively, an attempt to compromise too closely might result in a watered-down solution which fails to satisfy anyone or accomplish anything; sometimes, tough decisions do have to be made for good or ill.” What it boils down to is, you want your side of the debate to be represented, and my side not to be. Not gonna happen. Which leads me to my third point…

3. “I'm not going to edit war; it only ends in annoyance.” You are, you are if you don't like what I say and you want to do something about it. Because I am planning to take this beyond just the discussion page. I plan to edit the wiki page for this—extensively—to more fairly represent both sides of the debate on many of these issues. I don't care what you may believe the majority opinion to be, there is a dissenting opinion as well and this page needs to reflect that.

I mean…I'm not going to do that right now. But when I have more free time on my hands. It's on my to-do list.

Mar 25th 2011 at 8:34:33 AM •••

I agree that some can have both sides. But not all. 9/11 conspiracy theories? OK, fine, its annoying, but easy to counterpoint with logic, and a recent enough event for confusion and maybe coverup to reasonably exist. David Icke? Sure, look for some "evidence" for the extradimensional shapeshifting lizards that isn't antisemetism, it could be amusing, if said evidence isn't just antisemetism and "they're all the same families". "Chariots Of the Gods" type Ancient Astronauts stuff? Bring it on, I read that stuff for entertainment and it couldn't actually hurt anyone besides SETI employees and the actual architects of the Pyramids. But the holocaust is where I draw the line. And pardon my early-60s comic-book-esque Bold Inflation, but its the only way I know to show angry incredulity in written form.

And the holocaust is a "load of crap"? I'm sorry, but your arguments are more or less invalid now, and I no longer feel any obligation to civility. Those six million of our people did not just vanish into thin air. The five million innocent Roma and miscellaneous others didn't just Ascend to a Higher Plane of Existence. The Nazi war machine was measurably affected by the carting of millions to death camps rather than carting supplies to troops. To deny it is an insult to more lives than you can possibly imagine, and denies unedeniable facts regarding logistics and statistics of Nazi behavior and percentage of Jews in places like Poland after the war.

I refer here to the bullshit that is "intelligent design as equal to evolutionary theory". Just because some yahoo doesn't agree with objective reality, easily proven by undeniable facts, doesn't mean that automatically gives that yahoo equal standing to reality and the right to parade psuedo-logic and ideology as being the same as those facts. Up until now I assumed, like an idiot, that you simply had unusual ideas (as stated above, some things can have the other side put in without inviting a biblical deluge of flame), but by denying the holocaust, you have firmly placed yourself in the "delusional and dangerous" camp, and while I am constitutionally obliged to respect your right to say your dangerous bullshit, but I am not obliged to let you give it equal standing in the arena of truth. I wasn't going to bother anything more than trying to dissuade you beforehand back when I thought you were just going to put arguments about the silly stuff. But this? This changes things, bitch.

Yes I want my side to be represented and not yours, because if your side is the same as Mahmoud Amadinijad and the Neo-Nazis, your side is bupkis. If and when you actually go ahead and put holocuast denial in this page, I am not only deleting it, I am putting in a formal request for page lockage. I won't until then- maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you'll still see the light of reason. But holocaust denial is a Moral Event Horizon or a sign of insanity. Or both.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Apr 10th 2011 at 11:43:54 PM •••

You're a moron, or perhaps you cannot read. I never said the Holocaust didn't happen. I know it did. I wasn't personally there, obviously, but I have heard many stories from relatives and their friends, or their friends' relatives, about people who were in the camps. I have no reason to believe they're lying.

What I SAID, if you can read, is that when I was about 14 or 15, I stopped believing in the doctrines of Judaism. Not that the Holocaust was a load of crap.

Please learn to read.

Apr 11th 2011 at 6:33:29 AM •••

I do know how to read. What you said what that "about the holocaust issue", you stopped believing in it when you started thinking for yourself. Evidently I misunderstood your not-very-clear statement; you might want to say "about the religion", rather than "about the holocaust".

I myself am religiously atheist as well, for much the same reason; that doesn't change blood or history. I am sorry for the misunderstanding, but I am glad that you do understand there ARE things we don't need to invoke the Golden Mean Fallacy over, like the Holocuast- which we'd have to deny if we were to show "both sides" of every conspiracy.

Apr 12th 2011 at 10:00:40 AM •••

I apologize if my statements seemed unclear. They were two separate statements, first I was addressing the one issue, then the other. Perhaps I was unclear in the way I said it, though. And that's my fault. It was most likely late, and I, tired, when I wrote it.

I'm not saying we have to show both sides of EVERY conspiracy, but we could at least give a bit of a mention to some. The page as it is now feels very lop-sided towards a certain, very “mainstream” political viewpoint. That's all I'm saying. Perhaps we could, not change anything that's there, but on SOME of them just edit in a little

  • opposing arguement: blah blah whatever

just to show that there IS one.

Apr 12th 2011 at 2:33:38 PM •••

That sounds like a much better idea... the only issue is of expertness. I don't know all that much about any but the environment-related stuff, and can only judge which ones are plausible enough to get both sides and which ones the counterargument is a load of BS in that field- most of hte other folders I rely on common knowledge and hearsay for rather than study. We need experts on the different folderized areas- and that brings up the issue of who's an expert and who thinks they're an expert.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Apr 25th 2011 at 5:15:45 AM •••

Well, as you know, on this wiki, there is no such thing as notability. So I wouldn't say we necessarily need experts. The page is, as per its name, about theories. Therefore, people should be able to present those theories, as theories. Not unvarnished fact. Right now the page is full of mainstream arguments presented by folks who may or may not be experts in the relevant fields. Just add a little disclaimer

  • opposing theory: this did happen I think, because of x, y, and z

And let 'em have at it.

Apr 25th 2011 at 7:08:48 AM •••

There may be no such thing as notability, but we frown on discussion in the main page... and that format is an invitation to "the problem with that refutation is blah blah blah", which will itself get a response, etc.

Edited by SchizoTechnician
Jun 4th 2011 at 6:47:37 PM •••

Unknown 20 Troper, that is not what There Is No Such Thing As Notability means. The reason why so many of these theories are mocked is because they do not hold up well under scientific scrutiny of the evidence. Also, please refrain from insulting other tropers for disagreeing with you ("You are one such thing.")

Sep 26th 2011 at 2:11:44 AM •••

No, because he was being a sniveling little douchebag. And…do not hold up well under scientific scrutiny of the evidence? Uhh, well, that's YOUR opinion, probably based on you believing the alleged "scientific scrutiny" of the very people who have something to hide in the first place! Conflict of interests much?

Oct 25th 2011 at 7:14:46 PM •••

Disagreeing with you is not the same as "being a sniveling little douchebag". I would certainly say that calling your opponent a "moron", "beyond respect", and a "sniveling little douchebag" makes you one.

Evidence is hardly subjective. Off the top of my head, the first three conspiracy theories that I think of are 9/11, JFK, and the moon landing. Just about every argument claiming that the WTC was not brought down by the planes has been debunked by countless private investigations. JFK theories have also been scrutinized by independent research, and their conclusions have matched the official report. The moon landing theories have been debunked for decades by numerous people, including the Mythbusters. Unless you think that the government constantly pays off hundreds of independent researchers, and that all of the reaserchers take the bribe, then the evidence is overwhelmingly against the conspiracy theories.

Oct 25th 2011 at 7:17:19 PM •••

Even if you don't trust the independent researchers, you can do the research yourself, but make sure you don't get your data from biased sourced, like conspiracy websites, or even conspiracy-disproval websites. If you have doubts about a claim, look it up in a database or encyclopedia, or ask an expert. For most theories, this method will disprove most of the theorists' claims.

Feb 4th 2012 at 7:17:39 PM •••

And for the rest it will prove them right.

I did a bit of editing that I think will help show both sides without being too preachy

Oct 23rd 2010 at 2:49:02 PM •••

Pulled some natter:

  • First, why would a doctor know anything about the effect of atomic bombs on seawater? Second, it is THEORETICALLY possible that an atomic blast could trigger a tsunami by aggravating an unstable fault line.

I think that it should have been PHYSICIST, and I'm not sure about the probability of a nuclear tsunami. I fixed "physician" to "physicist" in the original edit.

Oct 7th 2010 at 11:49:20 AM •••

The twin towers were commercial office buildings open to the public, not secured facilities; anyone could walk into either building carrying a suitcase or wearing a backpack (remember: this was before the post-9/11 rise in security at national landmarks) and get on an elevator, go to any floor, and rig up the charges.

It may have been before post-9/11 security at landmarks, but 1999 was after the 1993 bombing, not to mention Oklahoma City. I worked at the WTC in 1994; you couldn't "just walk in" by a long shot.

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 25th 2011 at 5:19:29 PM •••

Well if government wanted to plan something, i don't thing they would have had hard time making some one entering there, maintenance controls would be a sufficient excuse to place a charge in any floor. This ain't no epileptic tree :).

Sep 17th 2010 at 1:12:30 PM •••

Would someone provide a link or other evidence that the spot where the Pentagon was hit had the high-security Pentagon computers?

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 21st 2016 at 9:21:52 PM •••

Don't most parts of the Pentagon have high-security Pentagon computers in them?

Jun 29th 2010 at 10:53:19 AM •••

This page lacks in mentioning that sometimes the official versions are conspiracy theories themselves! Sometimes so callaed conspiratcy theories are actually alternate investigations, but I don't want to abuse or stress the Unfortunate implications about this trope.

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 21st 2011 at 4:06:07 PM •••

what this page certainly doesn't lack is frantic handwaving

Jan 16th 2012 at 8:43:44 PM •••

Yes, because presenting objective facts and basic scientific analysis that disprove conspiracy arguments is definitely "frantic handwaving".

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: