NWO/Illuminati $cience

[PoppedCorn]

some claim the history of modern science started around the enlightenment, some claim a few decades earlier around 1660 when the The President, Council and Fellows of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge was formed.

there is various 'proofs' that freemasonery and the occult played a big part in its make up.

Is it best just to trust current science with all our all hearts? or should we have a more skeptical view given the shady history of such organisations?

Some people say there's 4 levels
The media level, what is given to us
The academic level, the one that is uni and higher education level, professors and alike, still all given to us
The level above, stuff that's known to be avl but for whatever reason, money etc is not given to the general public, but a lot of people know this level exists, but it's not given to us
Thats where most people think it stops.....the conspiracy theorists harping on about suppressed inventions, ufos at papoose lake and s4
But some say there's a 4th level that is so advanced that there's massive fear if some of this gets out 'they' fear the loss of control should certain stuff be made 'public'

 

[cannot]

The pop scientists thrust in front of the uneducated are exactly the same as what Milli Vanilli or Betty Boo were to music.
Bill Nye has just been replaced by DeGrasse Tyson now while the important science like consciousness and the quantum world are being overlooked as we are continually fed garbage theories that are clearly no longer the truth.

as per usual an excellent point

obviously science in modern times is linked with its forefathers in the royal society with their occult activities

as you allude its funny how a measly few dollars can 'corrupt' science and influence billions with lies as this example too highlights:

In 2009, a meta-analysis of 21 unique studies, of about 350,000 people tracked for an average of 14 years, concluded that there is no relationship between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of heart disease or stroke. However, the Department of Nutrition, at the Harvard School of Public Health, quickly dismissed the findings as seriously misleading.

Now we know why.

We’ve been duped and brainwashed for more than five decades into believing that saturated fat causes heart disease. Well, the bigger culprit is actually sugar.

Documents from the 1950s and 1960s, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), reveal that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation (known today as the Sugar Association) paid three famous Harvard nutritionists in 1967 — including now deceased Dr Fredrick Stare and Mark Hegsted — the equivalent of more than $48,000 in 2016 dollars, to not only play down the link between sugar and heart health in their two-part review, but also to shift the blame solely onto saturated fats, by concluding that low-fat high-sugar diets could prevent coronary heart disease (CHD). The publication appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.


http://anonhq.com/shocking-sugar-in...tists-to-link-fat-not-sugar-to-heart-disease/

The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to play down the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show.

The internal sugar industry documents, recently discovered by a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, and published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, suggest that five decades of research into the role of nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.

“They were able to derail the discussion about sugar for decades,” said Stanton Glantz, a professor of medicine at U.C.S.F. and an author of the JAMA Internal Medicine paper.

The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of research on sugar, fat and heart disease. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat.

Continue reading the main story
an article in The New York Times revealed that Coca-Cola, the world’s largest producer of sugary beverages, had provided millions of dollars in funding to researchers who sought to play down the link between sugary drinks and obesity. In June, The Associated Press reported that candy makers were funding studies that claimed that children who eat candy tend to weigh less than those who do not.

The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another was Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.

In a statement responding to the JAMA journal report, the Sugar Association said that the 1967 review was published at a time when medical journals did not typically require researchers to disclose funding sources. The New England Journal of Medicine did not begin to require financial disclosures until 1984.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

 

[cannot]

Simon Singh takes money from Coca-Cola, and says that sugary drinks aren't unhealthy

Simon Singh's charity Sense About Science has been making unscientific claims that processed sugars aren't deadly or feed cancer-but hasn't revealed that it has been receiving funding from Coca-Cola

Simon Singh's charity Sense About Science has been making unscientific claims that processed sugars aren't deadly or feed cancer-but hasn't revealed that it has been receiving funding from Coca-Cola. The drinks giant has been spending millions of dollars on a dis-information campaign that has attempted to shift the focus away from its unhealthy products.
Coca-Cola has made contributions of lb20,681 between 2012 and 2013, and has retweeted Sense About Science's claims about the safety of processed sugars.

...

Mr Vincent said later: "It's really worrying the extent to which companies like Coca-Cola can fund organisations that the public might otherwise think are independent."

Coca-Cola is currently running a major dis-information campaign that claims that the obesity epidemic is caused by a lack of exercise, and not sugary drinks.

(Source: The Times, October 10, 2015)

 

[POGMA]

The problem with science is primarily money/greed,ie it can be corrupted...however if you study the philosophy of science you'd learn that honest science is epic and far superior to any other method of knowing.

Modern medicine is a drug pushers paradise....immunization and germ theory of disease both wrong.

We also have global warming lies via IPCC.... the last c stands for cocsucer.

 

[HairyO]

I thought lizard people were colluding with vampires to overthrow humanity?

Sent from my D5803 using Tapatalk

Actually its the reverse vampires with a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal dinner.

 

[Snake_Baker]

53 threads in the science forum

561 threads in the conspiracy forum.

Says it all really.

 

[darthbards]

53 threads in the science forum

561 threads in the conspiracy forum.

Says it all really.

It's pretty sad I agree if that's what your saying.
1500 posts in all while flat earth has 5000 on its own,go figure.
Even worse when you consider how many posts are dedicated to Twitter/social media being a legitimate way to bypass the peer review process,string theory being dismissed as legitimate science and new findings in regards to black holes being dismissed from discussion despite the fact the papers were peer reviewed.

 

[CM86]

53 threads in the science forum

561 threads in the conspiracy forum.

Says it all really.

It's easier to lie than tell the truth?

 

[Procrastinator35]

53 threads in the science forum

561 threads in the conspiracy forum.

Says it all really.

Imagination trumps nerdy boredom.....No surprises here.

Does anyone else get the impression that posters are too frightened of saying 'boo' on the science board?

Fear & trepidation rule it's corridors.....Sanitation & sterilization are it's principal protocols.....Break em & you're a goner.

 

[darthbards]

Imagination trumps nerdy boredom.....No surprises here.

Does anyone else get the impression that posters are too frightened of saying 'boo' on the science board?

Fear & trepidation rule it's corridors.....Sanitation & sterilization are it's principal protocols.....Break em & you're a goner.

it's like Fort Knox. It's certainly not science,it's like thier own Bigfooty branch of science,heavily sanitised and policed.
On what planet isn't string theory science?
It's a mortuary,a sad lonely place where nothing is allowed to be said so basically nothing is.

 

[cannot]

science board ban first ask questions after

 

[JCHolmes]

wheres my flying car

and my hover board

 

[darth_timon]

It's easier to lie than tell the truth?

Science is hard and can also be boring. Conspiracies are exciting, edgy, and easy. That, if you ask me, explains the difference in activity between the two boards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Procrastinator35]

Science is hard and can also be boring. Conspiracies are exciting, edgy, and easy. That, if you ask me, explains the difference in activity between the two boards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or to put it another way: Science is souless & soul-destroying.....Conspiracies are fervent waters for the imagination & inspire the entire person's holistic being.

I guess science always has the nuclear bomb to fall back on as a cure-all alternative.

 

[darth_timon]

Or to put it another way: Science is souless & soul-destroying.....Conspiracies are fervent waters for the imagination & inspire the entire person's holistic being.

I guess science always has the nuclear bomb to fall back on as a cure-all alternative.

Except that's not at all the case nor what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Procrastinator35]

Except that's not at all the case nor what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yet it is the case, nonetheless.

TV, computer games, movies & the internet grab the imagination (Literally; the Nation of images)....The mind's eye has it; As Plato knew full-well.

 

[darth_timon]

And yet it is the case, nonetheless.

TV, computer games, movies & the internet grab the imagination (Literally; the Nation of images)....The mind's eye has it; As Plato knew full-well.

Science is only soul destroying to those who don't understand it. It is however, challenging, whereas conspiracies are the easy way out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Procrastinator35]

Science is only soul destroying to those who don't understand it. It is however, challenging, whereas conspiracies are the easy way out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Conspiracies can often require just as much detective work as a scientific discovery.....Both require the application of logic & reason....And both are just as open to human error as each other.

There have likely been just as many scientific frauds as there has fallacious conspiracy claims......Human beings are always the common denominator.

 

[darth_timon]

Conspiracies can often require just as much detective work as a scientific discovery.....Both require the application of logic & reason....And both are just as open to human error as each other.

There have likely been just as many scientific frauds as there has fallacious conspiracy claims......Human beings are always the common denominator.

I dare say most conspiracies - particularly those masquerading as scientific ideas - don't rely on logic. The rely on scientific-sounding terms but unscientific methods. And yes, science can get things wrong, but it's a continually evolving field - as we learn new things and make new discoveries, our theories are updated and modified accordingly. With conspiracies, they need to massage the evidence to support their conclusions, rather than drawing their conclusions from the evidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Procrastinator35]

I dare say most conspiracies - particularly those masquerading as scientific ideas - don't rely on logic. The rely on scientific-sounding terms but unscientific methods. And yes, science can get things wrong, but it's a continually evolving field - as we learn new things and make new discoveries, our theories are updated and modified accordingly. With conspiracies, they need to massage the evidence to support their conclusions, rather than drawing their conclusions from the evidence.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't make this generalization.

Otherwise....The govt position on 9/11 is in fact the conspiracy.

 

[darth_timon]

You can't make this generalization.

Otherwise....The govt position on 9/11 is in fact the conspiracy.

It's what I've generally found to be true - conspiracy theorists, especially in scientific fields, work backwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Procrastinator35]

It's what I've generally found to be true - conspiracy theorists, especially in scientific fields, work backwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like how investigative journalists & detectives work also?....Deduction is the logical process enacted after the fact.

Usually conspiracy theories abound where some clear inconsistency occurs, where the facts don't fit the narrative, or a series of coincidences just seems too odd to have occurred randomly.

For example: The U.S is currently involved in murdering & massacring tens of thousands of innocent people world-wide, in over 9 different countries currently, either directly or via proxy - forces armed, sponsored & trained by them.....These wars are utterly unconstitutional, illegal & without a shadow of a doubt, war crimes.....And yet the MSM & it's horde of journalists remain silent.

Coincidence?.....You be the judge.

 

[darth_timon]

You mean like how investigative journalists & detectives work also?....Deduction is the logical process enacted after the fact.

Usually conspiracy theories abound where some clear inconsistency occurs, where the facts don't fit the narrative, or a series of coincidences just seems too odd to have occurred randomly.

For example: The U.S is currently involved in murdering & massacring tens of thousands of innocent people world-wide, in over 9 different countries currently, either directly or via proxy - forces armed, sponsored & trained by them.....These wars are utterly unconstitutional, illegal & without a shadow of a doubt, war crimes.....And yet the MSM & it's horde of journalists remain silent.

Coincidence?.....You be the judge.

What does your example have to do with scientific study? Or conspiracies loosely based on scientific ideas?

With science (actual science), it starts with an idea. 'Will this object melt if exposed to enough heat? How much thermal energy is required to melt it?' Next comes an experiment to try and melt said object. Conclusions are drawn from the success (or failure) of the experiment.

With conspiracies, the assumption is that the object has a specific melting point and if it doesn't melt at that point, the details of the experiment are manipulated and 'massaged' until it reads that that in fact, the conclusion is correct, no matter how fudged together the details are.

 

[Total Power]

.And yet the MSM & it's horde of journalists remain silent.

Coincidence?.....You be the judge.

You mean the US MSM? duh-uh! US MSM will rarely be critical to US foreign policy, just like if you can show me how Russian MSM been critical of Putin's policy? oh thats right. Every single Russian Media/journos critical of Putin either gone missing or been shut down, including radio stations. It happens everywhere, power corrupts, period. Russia is only defending their interests in Syria, they are not doing any social service, the biggest mistake you can make is to think that governments dont have cynical motives. They all do.

Outside of that plenty of UK and EU based MSM been critical of US/EU foreign policy.

 

[Total Power]

What does your example have to do with scientific study? Or conspiracies loosely based on scientific ideas?

With science (actual science), it starts with an idea. 'Will this object melt if exposed to enough heat? How much thermal energy is required to melt it?' Next comes an experiment to try and melt said object. Conclusions are drawn from the success (or failure) of the experiment.

With conspiracies, the assumption is that the object has a specific melting point and if it doesn't melt at that point, the details of the experiment are manipulated and 'massaged' until it reads that that in fact, the conclusion is correct, no matter how fudged together the details are.

Wrong board for it though bro. This board is his playground, so let him be. But you are quite right in your observations.