Conspiracy Theory anyone?

I don't agree with conspiracy theories at all, but I find this thread interesting, the OP is just trying to ascertain what other posters think.
Every poster has a right to a opinion, but some have been a bit mean. The theory on Brigitte Macron is interesting though.

No, Namsnanny by introducing libellous/salacious “gossip” even to discuss conspiracy theories is just one very small step from the gossipers.
It’s a well known journalistic ploy ask a scandalous question in banner headlines”Was Prince Philip Gay?” Or “Did the Queen Mum have an affair? “ (both totally ridiculous ) and then proceed to answer this hypothetical question in the negative.
But the damage is done.
Your OP was egregious whether or not your intention was, is up to you to decide.

love0c

Namsnanny I believe my friend that they have seen photos. But were they real? Photos can be altered. In my opinion the one of Prince Andrew with the young girl looked fake to me.

Yes good point, what we see nowadays isn't always the truth.

If conspiracy theories are warped ideas, which confuse, how easy it is/will be to control the narrative with images.
How will our gchildren tell what is what?

M0nica

The thing to remember is that the more you try and convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong, the more they become convinced that the conspiracy must be true - otherwise you would not spend so much time trying to convince them it is wrong .

So faced with someone who is capable of signing up to this mish mash list selection.of conspiracy theories and facts without discrimination. The only thing to do is to shrug and say 'whatever' and move on to another more intellectually challenging thread - like 'How to open a tin of salmon'

Exactly. Whatever.

If she was previously male (supposed to be her brother) why did both of them receive damages?
That makes no sense to me!

(Are both trans for this to work?)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0l0z1p628o

...and why would it matter anyway?
And who are her children?
The whole thing feels nuts to me.

Allira - you say you've got a huge map of the Earth at home, and it's flat well I agree the hypothesis is tempting - but if it's flat it must be very stretchy (or made of, say, jelly or bubblegum) - as I've also got some big maps that are flat but it doesn't explain all the different protections...
🤔

Allira

Namsnanny

Allira

In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

But why is it interesting to anyone but the people themselves and their families, particularly their children?

It's intrusive and just plain nasty.

And no, I'm not narrow-minded as one poster called some of us - narrow-minded is being interested in this kind of salacious gossip.

But you miss the point, the thread isn't about salacious gossip, well not by me as can be seen by the lack of info I have covered.

This is about why some ideas are attacked and the people who espouse them by implication.

Take David Icke, for example. If he believes in lizzard people why would I go out of my way to attack him?
It's easy for me to pass on by. Ignore him.

The thing to remember is that the more you try and convince a conspiracy theorist that they are wrong, the more they become convinced that the conspiracy must be true - otherwise you would not spend so much time trying to convince them it is wrong .

So faced with someone who is capable of signing up to this mish mash list selection.of conspiracy theories and facts without discrimination. The only thing to do is to shrug and say 'whatever' and move on to another more intellectually challenging thread - like 'How to open a tin of salmon'

Ilovedogs22

Some very rude & slightly narrow-minded Grans responding to the original poster on this topic!
Remember the saying.........
'There are more things in Heaven and Earth"
Sorry can't remember the rest!
I blame the dog for woofing for his walk. 🥴

"Than are dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio"

I hope dog enjoyed his walk.

Although I think most CTs and unsubstantiated rumours are rubbish, there is at least a grain of truth in some of them; including some of the ones cited by the OP.

Namsnanny I believe my friend that they have seen photos. But were they real? Photos can be altered. In my opinion the one of Prince Andrew with the young girl looked fake to me.

love0c

I know a journalist of a very well known newspaper and they informed me that they had seen photographic evidence to prove that she was born a man. Were the photos fake? Who knows. I most definitely believe the journalist though. They were not allowed to publish them.

So your perspective would be (and I don't want to put words in your mouth), you trust your journalist friend, and they have actually seen photos, so you trust the evidence your friend has seen?

You raise such a good few points in your post love0c.
If there were no restrictions on publication (to preserve the perceived position of BM) the public would have more information to decide for themselves how they feel about a trans man/woman being connected to a head of state, and how they feel about a head of state choosing a trans man/woman as a partner.

Why infantilize the public?

The point about trusting your source is more complicated in as much as it brings in an emotional response to the subject.
Which of course (not saying in your case) means we are capable of being easily manipulated through our emotional reactions by outside forces, ie, media etc.

Thank you for your post, it gave me something to think on

My response is that it's unkind to perpetuate theories about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama.
Also the constant searching for what happened to Princess Diana is wrong.
She died and she still has family who mourn her.

Namsnanny

Allira

In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

But why is it interesting to anyone but the people themselves and their families, particularly their children?

It's intrusive and just plain nasty.

And no, I'm not narrow-minded as one poster called some of us - narrow-minded is being interested in this kind of salacious gossip.

Namsnanny

Barleyfields

I haven’t read the docs myself . Maybe you should.

why?
As I said this thread wasn't about the veracity of the book. More about peoples responses to it .

Well that’s my response.

loopyloo

Perhaps we should go through them one by one.
Co2 is causing the earth to overheat is it not ?

Interesting. It might be better on a thread under environment though?

Allira

^In chat because it could be interesting and lighthearted^

Sorry, but I don't think the slurs about Brigitte Macron and Michelle Obama are at all light-hearted or indeed interesting.

They could well be slurs, but if it was true does it change anything?

Should we not speak negatively of some people, but we can call others names?
Why?

Should we suppress an idea for fear it is a slur, or examine it to find the truth?

Perhaps we should go through them one by one.
Co2 is causing the earth to overheat is it not ?

Barleyfields

^I haven’t read the docs myself ^. Maybe you should.

why?
As I said this thread wasn't about the veracity of the book. More about peoples responses to it .

NotSpaghetti

I think he's called Poussard by the way.

Thanks I do make many mistakes and probably will make many more.

I haven’t read the docs myself . Maybe you should.

Another one I had forgotten about is poor Diana Princess of Wales death.

NotSpaghetti

namsnanny - if there was anything in this it wouldn't have had to be self published!

Did you know it's an old non-story being rehashed by Trumps right wing?

www.lemonde.fr/en/m-le-mag/article/2025/03/13/who-is-candace-owens-the-pro-trump-influencer-who-is-spreading-transphobic-fake-news-about-brigitte-macron_6739123_117.html

No I didn't know Trump was involved

I know it took 8 years to publish and XP has yet to be taken to court over it.

I also know it is being used around the world to claim that Macron has lost his mind (in China at least). Which obviously it would be, (used politically by his enemies, I mean).

petra

So why was Bridgette awarded damages.
BTW, you need to get out more 🤦🏼‍♀️

www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2024/09/12/brigitte-macron-awarded-damages-from-women-who-spread-false-claim-she-is-transgender_6725808_7.html

I'm no expert on this subject, but I believe if you managed to find and read the court docs. you will find the court awarded damages for defamation on part of the accusation, but not the part about changing sex or living as a different sex.

As I say I haven't read the docs my self.

But this thread isn't about this case specifically, it was about what people think about subjects that are outside of the norm, how and what might make them change their perspective, and secondly, how some can be easily castigated by implication.

NotSpaghetti

Agreed Allira - not even the flat earth stuff is interesting or amusing.

Oh, NotSpaghetti, that's the only one which just might be true 😂

We've got a huge map of the Earth at home, and it's flat, honestly.

I know a journalist of a very well known newspaper and they informed me that they had seen photographic evidence to prove that she was born a man. Were the photos fake? Who knows. I most definitely believe the journalist though. They were not allowed to publish them.

Agreed Allira - not even the flat earth stuff is interesting or amusing.