Topic: It's a conspiraceh

[Macphisto80]

Very true. I’ve never witnessed such torrent of shit from all directions, complete pie in the sky crap - crazier it is more they believe. Utter lack of facts about anything, while at the same time posturing as experts in history, genetics, medicine, geopolitics you name it.

Like we’re stuck in permanent April fools day mode.

That's the ones that make me laugh. You only need to listen to how they start their point or how they speak, and usually within 10 seconds I can deduce that they may have a piece of paper that says they have "x" qualification, but no further proof is required that any fucking moron can pay their way to a certificate that says they're qualified, when they obviously aren't. I think that says more for the failings of the education systems than anything else.

[So… Howard Philips]

That's the ones that make me laugh. You only need to listen to how they start their point or how they speak, and usually within 10 seconds I can deduce that they may have a piece of paper that says they have "x" qualification, but no further proof is required that any fucking moron can pay their way to a certificate that says they're qualified, when they obviously aren't. I think that says more for the failings of the education systems than anything else.

You just gave to look at the credence given to the fraudsters behind the so called 'Great Barrington Declaration' to see how pseudo science takes hold.

[Jshooters]

Long read but very interesting written by a game developer comparing qanon to the way games are contrasted

https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5

[Riquende]

Long read but very interesting written by a game developer comparing qanon to the way games are contrasted

https://medium.com/curiouserinstitute/a-game-designers-analysis-of-qanon-580972548be5

Thanks, that goes in depth into a lot of areas I'd never even considered before. I, like I guess a lot of people who don't visit the darker sides of the internet (including social media) always assumed the Q thing to be some weird internet joke that got out of hand, and found it hard to understand how seemingly countless otherwise-rational people can go so far off the deep end on something so bizarre.

But that article (and another one on the site that explores the links to Russia) is somewhat eye-opening in just how well this thing has been created to get its hooks into people. I was talking to someone at work about Biden's win the other week and whilst they did agree that Trump was awful, I got a worrying "Mind you, I wouldn't leave the other guy alone with my kids. Haven't you seen the pictures?" This is a professional woman in her 50s, very active on Facebook etc. Probably on the path.

[Jshooters]

Yeah it does go some way to explaining how people can be taken in so readily. Particularly (for me) the bit about how the brain rewards with dopamine for coming to a conclusion rather than simply being told something. And that the brain is more likely to ‘protect’ that concluded idea no matter how seemingly far fetched.

[So… Howard Philips]

Yeah it does go some way to explaining how people can be taken in so readily. Particularly (for me) the bit about how the brain rewards with dopamine for coming to a conclusion rather than simply being told something. And that the brain is more likely to ‘protect’ that concluded idea no matter how seemingly far fetched.

Religions have been using those techniques for millennia.

[Riquende]

Religions have been using those techniques for millennia.

Do they though, mainly? I was actually pondering this earlier and I think that religions (the organised mainstream ones) have the advantage of warping the minds of children from a time before they'll be able to remember. If you grow up secure in the belief that what your parents and pastor tells you is true, then you don't need the conspiracy style drip-feed to try to convince you.

'Born again' converts, and modern 'religions' like Scientology will differ, though how widespread are they, really?

[Red-Soldier]

Thanks, that goes in depth into a lot of areas I'd never even considered before. I, like I guess a lot of people who don't visit the darker sides of the internet (including social media) always assumed the Q thing to be some weird internet joke that got out of hand, and found it hard to understand how seemingly countless otherwise-rational people can go so far off the deep end on something so bizarre.

But that article (and another one on the site that explores the links to Russia) is somewhat eye-opening in just how well this thing has been created to get its hooks into people. I was talking to someone at work about Biden's win the other week and whilst they did agree that Trump was awful, I got a worrying "Mind you, I wouldn't leave the other guy alone with my kids. Haven't you seen the pictures?" This is a professional woman in her 50s, very active on Facebook etc. Probably on the path.

One of my FB friends was posting some shite video clip of Biden groping girls.  Social media is the perfect medium to spread all kinds of nonsense.  Add to that your "smart" phone is a constant, direct link to every individuals brain on the planet - it's a very disturbing and serious situation.

The process has been ramped up over the past 5 years.

[Jshooters]

Religions have been using those techniques for millennia.

Further to Riquende’s post I’d say it’s a slightly different argument in that the author is saying that with Q what they’re doing is allowing the ‘parishioner’ to come to their own conclusion about things by drip feeding leading questions. Once the individual has ‘answered’ those questions they’re more involved with the conspiracy because they’ve, in their own mind, arrived upon the conclusions on their own steam

[Riquende]

One area where they do ape religions hugely is in making it difficult to move away from the conspiracy community. Just as a church looks to become a community's social and societal hub to keep people attending (even if their belief has waned), these conspiracy cults draw people in to building new online relationships with other people all excited reinforcing how smart and great they all are for seeing through the lies.

The stuff these conspiracies is promoting is so wild it leads to families falling out and decades-old friendships splintering, furthering the reliance on the rest of the cult for interaction.

[BarryCrocker]

Religions have been using those techniques for millennia.

You mean the "Religion sells the disease of guilt and then claims it has the only cure"

[So… Howard Philips]

You mean the "Religion sells the disease of guilt and then claims it has the only cure"

It's the clever way the assuage the guilt though. Ritual, praise for learning catechism etc. Carrot and stick all the way.

[BarryCrocker]

Comedy Gold

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/w3vY3yHkPtc&amp;t" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/w3vY3yHkPtc&amp;t</a>

Can't wait for the 3 Hour Full Length Movie. Popcorn preppers.

[oldfordie]

Ohh Brilliant. what is going on here. why isn't WHO ruling the Lab origin for Covid out. "We can't rule anything out" music to the ears of the CTs

WHO chief says investigators 'can't rule out' lab theory

A World Health Organisation (WHO) official investigating the cause of the pandemic has said he “can’t rule out” the possibility that Covid originated from a Wuhan laboratory.

Dr David Nabarro, who is conducting the probe into how the virus developed, said the WHO is currently working with Chinese authorities.

He told He told Sky News' Sophy Ridge On Sunday that “everything will be looked at” by the investigators.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/chief-says-investigators-cant-rule-121743954.html

[Jiminy Cricket]

Ohh Brilliant. what is going on here. why isn't WHO ruling the Lab origin for Covid out. "We can't rule anything out" music to the ears of the CTs

WHO chief says investigators 'can't rule out' lab theory

A World Health Organisation (WHO) official investigating the cause of the pandemic has said he “can’t rule out” the possibility that Covid originated from a Wuhan laboratory.

Dr David Nabarro, who is conducting the probe into how the virus developed, said the WHO is currently working with Chinese authorities.

He told He told Sky News' Sophy Ridge On Sunday that “everything will be looked at” by the investigators.
https://www.aol.co.uk/news/chief-says-investigators-cant-rule-121743954.html

To be fair, from a science perspective, it is not possible to speak of absolute certainties in a situation like this; and from an investigative standpoint, it is not appropriate to rule out particular outcomes before completion. And this is both a science question and an investigation.

[oldfordie]

To be fair, from a science perspective, it is not possible to speak of absolute certainties in a situation like this; and from an investigative standpoint, it is not appropriate to rule out particular outcomes before completion. And this is both a science question and an investigation.

Isn't that exactly what experts did though, they ruled out the possibility of Covid being manufactured in a Lab. in other words they ruled out Covid being a biological weapon.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Isn't that exactly what experts did though, they ruled out the possibility of Covid being manufactured in a Lab. in other words they ruled out Covid being a biological weapon.

Just my quick take here.

Well, there is strict science, and then there is politics. In some situations, I think it is OK for a scientist to state something in everyday unequivocal terms rather than sticking strictly with the scientific method. I do not disagree with you really. And then there is the politics of the situation, where if they choose the wrong words, they do not gain access. David Nabarro seems to have got it wrong on both counts: he could have chosen words to effectively rule out a 'lab-made virus' (which is pretty-much the science anyway); and as 'an investigator', he could (and should) have been totally non-specific about everything. Worse, the politics of the situation requires that he does not state anything which could lead to the Chinese change their mind about access. I suppose he was trying to throw the idiots a bone; he should have ignored them.

So, anyway, he did get it wrong as far as the real world and politics. He could have chosen his words more carefully, or at least expand upon them to make clear what he is saying. But, he's a scientist, and as a scientist, he's probably correct in his statement.

If he had to say something, maybe something more along the lines of: scientifically speaking, we rarely talk in absolutes. And although I am leading an investigation and investigators should rule out noting while carrying out there duties, I am aware of no evidence for COVID-19 being created in laboratory. Indeed, all the available scientific evidence suggests otherwise - that COVID-19 is the result of a random mutation occurring in nature. But, again, he's a scientist. WHO probably should have someone else as spokesperson.

[stoa]

Isn't that exactly what experts did though, they ruled out the possibility of Covid being manufactured in a Lab. in other words they ruled out Covid being a biological weapon.

I'm not sure, but couldn't it still have come "from" the lab like in terms it was some mutation of the virus the Chinese found in nature and brought to their lab and then some guy got infected and the virus "got out" that way? So, it would still not be manufactured in the lab, but as they were experimenting with it or whatever it could have still come from there?

[oldfordie]

I'm not sure, but couldn't it still have come "from" the lab like in terms it was some mutation of the virus the Chinese found in nature and brought to their lab and then some guy got infected and the virus "got out" that way? So, it would still not be manufactured in the lab, but as they were experimenting with it or whatever it could have still come from there?

Something to think about yes. do you mean someone working on the Covid virus in the Lab got infected and passed it on to others outside the Lab?
Not sure how it could have been passed on any other way.

[stoa]

Something to think about yes. do you mean someone working on the Covid virus in the Lab got infected and passed it on to others outside the Lab?
Not sure how it could have been passed on any other way.

Yeah, something like that. Basically, they discovered that some animal had this new virus and they took it to a lab to have a closer look at it and for whatever reason some guy got infected and spread it outside. Don't know whether that's a possibility, because I have no clue whether labs work that way or whether someone could get infected that way from working with it in a lab when it's from an animal. Just a try to make sense of it all, and that would fit in the narrative of experts saying there is no sign of Sars-CoV-2 having been engineered in some lab somewhere and the WHO guy not ruling out that it somehow came from a lab.

[oldfordie]

Just my quick take here.

Well, there is strict science, and then there is politics. In some situations, I think it is OK for a scientist to state something in everyday unequivocal terms rather than sticking strictly with the scientific method. I do not disagree with you really. And then there is the politics of the situation, where if they choose the wrong words, they do not gain access. David Nabarro seems to have got it wrong on both counts: he could have chosen words to effectively rule out a 'lab-made virus' (which is pretty-much the science anyway); and as 'an investigator', he could (and should) have been totally non-specific about everything. Worse, the politics of the situation requires that he does not state anything which could lead to the Chinese change their mind about access. I suppose he was trying to throw the idiots a bone; he should have ignored them.

So, anyway, he did get it wrong as far as the real world and politics. He could have chosen his words more carefully, or at least expand upon them to make clear what he is saying. But, he's a scientist, and as a scientist, he's probably correct in his statement.

If he had to say something, maybe something more along the lines of: scientifically speaking, we rarely talk in absolutes. And although I am leading an investigation and investigators should rule out noting while carrying out there duties, I am aware of no evidence for COVID-19 being created in laboratory. Indeed, all the available scientific evidence suggests otherwise - that COVID-19 is the result of a random mutation occurring in nature. But, again, he's a scientist. WHO probably should have someone else as spokesperson.

Yeah. He did handle it wrong, I get the point your making, also hard to state Covid never came from a Lab while insisting Wuhan Lab is checked. really about finding the source and ruling out theories, one of those theories is Covid came from the Wuhan Lab.

[Zeb]

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-ivermectin-is-not-making-people-poop-out-rope-worms-the-truth-is-much-worse/

The data is in: being double vaccinated reduces your risk of catching COVID-19 by up to 60 percent and your risk of dying by more than 85 percent. And so naturally tens of thousands of people have done the sensible thing and ... totally rejected the vaccine in favor of scarfing down obscene quantities of foul-tasting goo designed to kill parasitic worms inside horses.

Thousands of conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers have gone to extreme lengths in recent months to get hold of ivermectin, a medication for diseases caused by parasites in horses. The idea is that this will cure or prevent COVID-19, an illness that is notably not caused by a parasite and affects horses very differently to humans.

It's got so bad that the FDA has had to issue a reminder that people are not horses. In fact, now the universe itself seems to have weighed in, with some of the conspiracists who managed to choke down the disgusting paste developing a nasty case of pooping themselves in public. Ignoring even this hint that maybe their chosen curative might not be the wonder drug they’d been told, ivermectin true believers have continued dosing themselves with dangerous levels of horse de-wormer – and while their COVID-19 is probably no better, some have noticed another side effect: the appearance of “rope worms”.

“Might be a stupid question but has anyone pooped out worms from taking ivermectin?” one woman asked a Facebook group devoted to the horse medicine. “[I’m] just curious.”

“Yes,” replied a fellow equine de-wormer aficionado. “[I’ve] been expelling rope worms with coffee enemas for a while now [but] it’s different with [ivermectin] … I got this tummy rumbling like I had to go with diarrhea … so I go to the pot and out comes a bile dump with full rope worms heads and all!”

They aren’t the only ones. So what are these “rope worms” that so many people are apparently infested with? How are they spread? And really, what are the chances that all these people actually needed de-worming?

Well, as you may have guessed from the title and general tone of the article so far, those … aren’t worms.

“Rope worms”, or to use the scientific term, “bits of intestinal lining that have been sloughed off because you’re ingesting poison and your body can’t handle it”, have a rich history in pseudo (which is to say, anti) scientific circles. The idea dates back to 2009, coincidentally not long after one Jim Humble started marketing what he called his “Miracle Mineral Solution”, or MMS. This, he said, could cure cancer, AIDS, malaria, autism – pretty much anything short of death itself. So why haven’t you heard of this miracle cure? Well, you probably have – but under a different name. You probably know it as industrial bleach.

So people started drinking bleach. They started squirting bleach up their butts. More upsettingly, they started forcing bleach into their kids, prompting more than one report to child protective services. And the result of all this bleach – apart from the vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, liver failure, and death – was the appearance of long, rope-like, and never-before-seen organisms in the toilet bowl.

These, people decided, must be intestinal worms, which were (somehow) responsible for (usually) their kids’ autism (warning: that link is extremely upsetting). The worst part was that this was taken as proof that the bleach cure was working – in fact, it was causing irreparable damage to the organs of the “patients”.

“It can lead to kidney damage and kidney failure,” medical toxicologist Dr. Daniel Brooks told NBC. The idea that MMS could treat autism was “ludicrous … This stuff does nothing other than introduce potential risk,” he said.

As you’ve probably guessed, the “rope worms” that people have reported after taking ivermectin are caused by the same thing: their intestines being attacked by a massive dose of, essentially, poison. Veterinary-grade ivermectin – there is a version made for humans, but it comes in much lower doses – is causing their guts to shed its protective mucusy lining. To the untrained eye, these strands of human tissue may look like worms, but in fact they’re a sign that something is terribly wrong.

"[If] people are taking product designed for topical application or products designed for cows, horses, or other things then there's no telling what that might look like on the back end, so to speak," pathologist Dr Wesley Long told Business Insider.

With the coronavirus pandemic in full swing, we are living in a golden age of medical misinformation (and yes of course MMS has been touted as a COVID-19 cure). Whether that’s sharing the details of conspiratorial doctors willing to issue dangerous prescriptions over the internet, or insisting that the mucus lining of your intestines is actually a parasitic worm unknown to conventional medicine, the results are the same: more sickness, and potentially even death.

The biggest irony of all is perhaps that, in small doses, ivermectin really is used to treat people with diseases caused by intestinal worms. There’s really only one small detail the conspiracy theorists have got wrong: the worms have to actually exist if you want the medicine to work.

I mean... Well... Oh fucking hell.

[KillieRed]

Rachel Maddow has been talking about that for a while. Not only don`t they work as cures or preventatives, they are potentially fatal and the manufacturers of the drugs are begging people not to take them. Social media echo chambers continue to promote them as alternatives to the FDA approved vaccines that even the Great God Trump has admitted taking. What can you do...stupid is as stupid does.

[So… Howard Philips]

Rachel Maddow has been talking about that for a while. Not only don`t they work as cures or preventatives, they are potentially fatal and the manufacturers of the drugs are begging people not to take them. Social media echo chambers continue to promote them as alternatives to the FDA approved vaccines that even the Great God Trump has admitted taking. What can you do...stupid is as stupid does.

Is Rachel Maddow shitting worms then?

Thought she was an anti vaxxer.

[Welshred]

A judge in Cincinnati has ordered Drs in there to use Ivermectin to patients...

[Red Beret]

https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/no-ivermectin-is-not-making-people-poop-out-rope-worms-the-truth-is-much-worse/

I mean... Well... Oh fucking hell.

They will take absolutely fucking everything except the one thing recommended to take. It's a pathological distrust of authority and science, combined with a seeming pig-headed stubbornness to admit they're wrong.

[Riquende]

A judge in Cincinnati has ordered Drs in there to use Ivermectin to patients...

It's a little bit more nuanced than that, it's one patient who has had a prescription written for it (probably by some internet conspiracy quack) that the hospital have refused to administer. His wife took the hospital to court on those grounds.

I'm not defending the guy, his wife or their doctor, it's still bloody mental, but it's not a blanket order to start giving it to everyone.

[Red Beret]

It's a little bit more nuanced than that, it's one patient who has had a prescription written for it (probably by some internet conspiracy quack) that the hospital have refused to administer. His wife took the hospital to court on those grounds.

I'm not defending the guy, his wife or their doctor, it's still bloody mental, but it's not a blanket order to start giving it to everyone.

Well seeing as doctors take an oath to do no harm I hope they get the bastard to sign a waiver for when he starts shitting his guts out.

[RedBootsTommySmith]

They're clamping down on it, now....

https://twitter.com/rayredacted/status/1432101388318822401?s=10

[Red Beret]

They're clamping down on it, now....

https://twitter.com/rayredacted/status/1432101388318822401?s=10

Question:  Do people who own horses typically walk around with a photo of themselves and their horse?

If OkCupid is anything to go by, then yes, yes they do.

[KillieRed]

Is Rachel Maddow shitting worms then?

Thought she was an anti vaxxer.

If she is she hides it very well.

[BarryCrocker]

Is Rachel Maddow shitting worms then?

Thought she was an anti vaxxer.

Rachel Madcow yes. Rachel Maddow no.

Rachel Maddow describes the concerns she had about her own health before getting the Covid-19 vaccine and encourages people who are reluctant to get vaccinated to consider how they'll feel if they spread the virus to someone else, God forbid someone they love.

[Fortneef]

If OkCupid is anything to go by, then yes, yes they do.

I always think they are going for this

https://youtu.be/jyI0RpYA85M

[So… Howard Philips]

Rachel Madcow yes. Rachel Maddow no.

I've confused her with another, British, Rachel who is a mad cow.

[Nobby Reserve]

BA flight 149 took off on 1st August 1990, two hours late. It was the regular service between Heathrow and Kuala Lumpur, stopping off at Kuwait and Madras. On this particular day, whilst it was in the air during its first leg, Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Nobody in the government told BA, and certainly nobody told the pilot.

They landed at a near-abandoned airport at Kuwait City, to the surprise of the few remaining airport staff. All other planes from other countries had been told by their governments to divert.

When they did land, a man in military uniform greeted and escorted off the plane 10 military-type men who were passengers.

Unable to take off again - the airport runway was bombed soon after landing - the rest of the passengers and air crew were taken hostage by Iraqi forces. One stewardess was raped, other female passengers sexually assaulted. Men were physically assaulted. One Kuwaiti national on board was executed. After a month the women and children were allowed home, but the men were taken to different military facilities to be human shields, before they were also released after 4 months and a lot of diplomatic wrangling.

Operation Desert Storm kicked off the following month.

The then PM - the Thatcher - feigned ignorance about the government not informing the flight. And - following accusations that the government deliberately kept the invasion news from the captain so the 10 military operatives could be deployed in Kuwait, at the expense of the passengers - her government denied there were any British military personnel on the plane and insisted the plane landed prior to news of the invasion reaching the UK.

On the latter point at the very least, she and her government lied.

After the evil witch was ousted John Major faced new calls for an inquiry. He also insisted the government did not know of the invasion before the plane landed.

Those on that plane never stopped campaigning. Their case was taken up by Nigel Baker (then LD MP for Lewes). Hansard records an interesting exchange in the Commons, recorded in Hansard, between and then Europe Minister and former Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon. Baker lays out the specific allegations exactly. Hoon promises to look into it. No follow-up was made public (or at least I can find no record of one), although the Labour government did state in Parliament that 'the government in 1990 did not exploit the flight in any way for military personnel'. A documentary was made in 2007 that interviewed some of those 'military types' on the flight, who admitted they were there to conduct a spying mission - but were operating 'off the books'. Other campaigners took up the cause.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2007-04-27/debates/07042736000004/BAFlight149?highlight=%22special%20forces%22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6053948.stm

These campaigners were dismissed by many as conspiracy nuts.

The release of papers yesterday confirms that the government lied, lied and lied again. The UK government knew about the invasion and - for whatever reason - chose not to inform the captain to instruct him to divert the plane to safety.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59388975

They still refute that British military personnel were on the plane, and that BA/the pilot were deliberately not informed of the invasion so that the spies could be deployed. On the former, they almost certainly hide behind semantics; on the latter, it's impossible to prove.

But the conspiracy theorists will feel a bit smug.





 

[Alan_X]

There's a difference bewteen conspiracy theorists who believe there's a grand conspiracy in spite of all available evidence and the case of BA 149, where there has always been evidence that the Government concealed details of what happened.

It's not helpful to compare this case with the far-fetched and evidence-free nonsense that typifies most grand conspiracies.

[Nobby Reserve]

There's a difference bewteen conspiracy theorists who believe there's a grand conspiracy in spite of all available evidence and the case of BA 149, where there has always been evidence that the Government concealed details of what happened.

It's not helpful to compare this case with the far-fetched and evidence-free nonsense that typifies most grand conspiracies.

'Conspiracy theories' have always run across a wide spectrum of reality, though. I agree that many, the most extreme, are fruit-loop paranoia on steroids. But many others are less implausible and have elements of truth within them. Some big exposés began life as 'conspiracy theories'.

It's not helpful group all 'conspiracy theories' in with the most nutty ones. That just shuts down debate about potential scandals, and helps governments and corporations dismiss genuine concerns as 'conspiracy theories'.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/theres-a-us-based-conspiracy-theory-that-birds-dont-actually-exist-279332?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=JOE.co.uk&utm_campaign=feed

There's a US-based conspiracy theory that birds don't actually exist

The theory is so popular that the group have launched a tour across the US.

The moon landings were faked. JFK was killed by the FBI. Bill Gates is microchipping us with vaccines. The Earth is flat. The world of conspiracy theories is a weird and sometimes dangerous one. But I think this one definitely falls into the weird category.

Birds Aren't Real is a 'meta conspiracy movement' that claims the pigeons, crows, magpies and other birds we see everyday are in fact.... surveillance devices planted by the government.

Vice report that the conspiracy theory got underway in 2017 on social media, but the leader of the idea claims that the movement has its roots in the 1970s. They argue that the US government has been engaging in a decades-long and generational campaign to rid the country of birds, replacing them with surveillance devices.

Followers suggest that between 1959 and 2001, successive governments killed roughly 12 billion birds with a secret virus and have been carefully replacing them with covert spy technology.

The initial aim of the mass bird genocide was supposedly to stop the vast amounts of bird poo being dropped on the nation, but that the crafty CIA soon realised they could use the concept of birds to spy on us.

Leader Peter McIndoe said: "I think the evidence is all around us, birds sit on power lines, we believe they're charging on power lines, we believe that bird poop on cars is liquid tracking apparatus."

Now, the movement have gone on a nation-wide tour of the US to raise awareness of their cause.

The first stop on the tour was in Springfield, with hundreds turning out to show their belief in the conspiracy theory, although I'd suggest more than a few present had their tongues firmly in cheeks.

It seems like it's a massive movement as well. On Instagram, the Birds Aren't Real account has 325,000 followers, with a further 67,000 followers on Twitter, and the movement even has its own merch.

In a statement, the group say: "Our movement is quickly approaching a critical juncture. As we grow stronger in number, more and more highly classified information is being relayed to us by whistleblowers across the nation. Expect massive leaks soon."

They even claim that different breeds of so-called birds have different skill sets. Apparently vultures are mainly used for public sanitation and watch out if you see a hummingbird because apparently they are assassination drones. Obviously.

So now that you're armed with this vital information, you're probably wondering what you should now do next time you see one of these surveillance drones. Well, apparently you should establish dominance and "look the bird straight in the eyes and declare the following statement confidently 'I know your secret. I know that you are a surveillance drone in disguise.'"

Then just watch your back for hummingbirds seeking you out to keep you silent...

[Elmo!]

https://www.joe.co.uk/news/theres-a-us-based-conspiracy-theory-that-birds-dont-actually-exist-279332?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=JOE.co.uk&utm_campaign=feed

There's a US-based conspiracy theory that birds don't actually exist

I should have learned by now that there were people that took this seriously... I've only come across this a long running joke on Reddit.

[So… Howard Philips]

I should have learned by now that there were people that took this seriously... I've only come across this a long running joke on Reddit.

I always thought that Three Eyed Raven was a wrong 'un.