No one is saying that secrets of limited scope can’t be kept, at least for a few decades. But there is a giant leap between that and a centuries old conspiracy involving thousands worldwide that leaves no evidence behind. Apparently they let people talk freely about it but no one with any evidence of it has ever come forward. There must be a lot of robots around us.
And your own cite refutes it. The bigger black book operations leave footprints. People know something is going on. A money trail. Maybe the whole story isn’t known. Revel came out with a pretty go approximation of a stealth fighter before it was declassified. Tom Clancy wrote about it.
It’d be contradictory if these investigators had completely exposed the scope of black ops, but these guys are only scratching the surface, and if you are smart, you’ll know it.
So, the black budget operations which were hidden well enough that no one knows about them are the proof that black budget operations exist which are well enough hidden that no one knows about them?
Well, yes. Any number of operations have been completed without being discovered. Again, these are not point in favor of a Conspiracy, just (repeating ourselves) that limited scope operations can be successfully completed and maintain security. This does not indicate the feasibility of any long-range supernational plans or plots.
Yes, and especially in consideration of the amount of time a given project must be kept secret. A large project can be kept quiet fro a short time (a few years, no more than a decade) whereas a small project could be kept secret almost indefinitely.
Still waiting to hear what far-ranging conspiracies have gone many years without detection, only to be uncovered by private citizens doggedly investigating and sharing information through public forums and articles.
How does believing in conspiracy theories affect your actions - does it change who you vote for, or whether you vote? Does it affect where you go (or what places you avoid)? Does it lead you to take precautions about who has access to your information, or who you talk to about politics?
Or does it have no particular impact on your actions?
The motive was to demonstrate that men could go from the earth to the moon and from the moon to the earth.
I do not believe that it continued on in secret; however, there could be something more to it.
Yes, I believe in many paranormal activities, especially ones that involve the government, like remote viewing.
Yes.
Ok.
Excellent question! In the 2012 election, for the purposes of this thread, there are conspiracy theorists and non-conspiracy theorists and then non-conspiracy theorists is further subdivided into “political junkie” non-conspiracy theorists and “regular voter” non-conspiracy theorists. A “regular voter” non-conspiracy theorist is your classic undecided, your average American. They do not necessarily pay attention to politics and when they do, they only think of how it effects them. A “political junkie” non-conspiracy theorist is someone who not only votes but tries to pursade others to also vote, usually in a certain way. They pay close attention to politics (not as close as conspiracy theorists, though) and they think of how “regular voter” non-conspiracy theorists think about politics. They don’t watch Obama or Romney and think of Obama or Romney, for example, no - they watch Obama or Romney and think of “regular voter” non-conspiracy theorists watching Obama or Romney thinking about Obama or Romney.
Similarly with conspiracy theorists, I don’t “take” that with me when I go in the voting booth. I base my vote, with - considering that or disregarding this, and then I vote.
No.
Yes. I do not talk about politics at work. The only “evidence” is that co-workers will occasionally see me reading The New York Times.
Yeah, so Mr. Obama, I want to make sure you got the memo about the TPS reports. The cover sheets now need to go to Illuminati HQ, the Reptilian Overlord Council, and the Reptilian Overlord Secret Cabal. The original goes to K’rth’lax in the Antarctic base as usual. So if you could go ahead and try to remember to do that from now on, that’d be great…
HAARP was used to cause Sandy so that, among other things, Michael Bloomberg would endorse Barack Obama. I am not the first to come up with this conspiracy theory.
Because there were no grounds for bringing it up. As I mentioned in the OP, conspiracy theory is the limit of my understanding of politics, not the beginning of my understanding of politics nor the end of my understanding of politics.
So the conspiracy theory involving Hurriance Sandy would go something like this:
Team A calls Michael Bloomberg some time before Hurricane Sandy and cryptically tell him that he should endorse Barack Obama. Team B has it so that Chris Christie is the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. Team C would cause Hurricane Sandy.