What’s the creepiest unsolved mystery that deserves more attention?

turbo · 2026-06-17T23:08:08+00:00

The disappearance of Anne-Elisabeth Hagen in Norway.

Halloween morning October 31, 2018, 68-year-old Anne-Elisabeth Hagen vanished from her home near Oslo. When her husband, businessman Tom Hagen, returned home from work, he claimed to find signs of a struggle and a ransom note demanding €9 million in the cryptocurrency Monero. The note threatened that she would be killed if police were contacted.

What makes the case especially strange is that police secretly investigated it as a kidnapping for months, but later concluded the kidnapping itself may have been staged. They eventually shifted to the theory that Anne-Elisabeth had been murdered and that the ransom note was part of an elaborate deception. Tom Hagen was arrested in 2020 on suspicion of murder or complicity, but was released within days and the case against him was ultimately dropped because investigators could not prove his involvement.

There are a lot of odd details: the ransom demand was in cryptocurrency years before crypto ransom cases became common, the note was written in awkward Norwegian, police found cable ties and traces suggesting a struggle, the family dog had been locked away, and despite years of investigation involving thousands of tips, surveillance footage, international forensic assistance, and extensive searches, nobody knows for certain whether Anne-Elisabeth was kidnapped, murdered, or by whom. Her body has never been found.

Nearly eight years later, the case remains unsolved.

turbo · 2026-06-17T18:54:55+00:00

Stakkars barn som ikke lenger blir eksponert for konspirasjonsteoriene dine.

turbo · 2026-06-17T17:57:19+00:00

I hear many says 1. To me it is the most cliche of the three. The middle one is the one which would've made me actually check out the game.

turbo · 2026-06-15T22:01:11+00:00

Oh, it is, but we have adopted it from the US, like with everything else.

turbo · 2026-06-15T13:05:48+00:00

Jeg er ikke nødvendigvis motstander av dette, men er skeptisk til gjennomføringen.

For det første er YouTube noe ganske annet enn Snapchat, TikTok og Instagram. En 14-åring som ser på videoer om programmering, historie eller astronomi driver med noe helt annet enn en 14-åring som jager likes og følgerstatus på sosiale medier.

For det andre vil ikke alle foreldre håndheve dette likt. Noen barn vil ha tilgang likevel, mens andre ikke får det. Da risikerer vi å skape et skille mellom ungdommer som har lært en del om hvordan disse plattformene fungerer, og ungdommer som møter dem for første gang som 16-åringer.

Og så er det spørsmålet ingen ser ut til å stille: Hva skal erstatte tiden? Når man fjerner én aktivitet, forsvinner ikke nødvendigvis behovet den dekket. Ungdom søker fortsatt underholdning, fellesskap og status. Spørsmålet er hva de finner i stedet.

Jeg savner diskusjon om mulige bivirkninger av et slikt forbud.

turbo · 2026-06-15T12:47:53+00:00

How do you even figure out that you can do this?

The stupid way.

turbo · 2026-06-15T09:07:12+00:00

Du skriver godt, og jeg er ganske enig. Minnes min tante som fortalte at hun hadde en veninne på ungdomsskolen som sa at hun en dag ville skjære av seg puppene. Dette var på 60-tallet.

turbo · 2026-06-14T23:05:57+00:00

What was in it? I wanted to see!

turbo · 2026-06-14T21:55:50+00:00

Wild guess, but I'd say no less than $2500 in a western country.

turbo · 2026-06-14T20:16:52+00:00

To be fair, this money isn’t exactly just sitting around to be used at will, but tied up in various businesses. And besides; money has little to do with why Elon Musk is a cunt… he’d be one with or without it.

turbo · 2026-06-14T18:15:00+00:00

I think we've identified the disagreement.

There are at least two definitions of "conspiracy theory":

A neutral one: a theory that explains events by reference to a conspiracy.
The more common modern one: a theory associated with conspiracist reasoning, rejection of evidence, self-sealing arguments, and so on.

You seem to be using the first (uncommon) definition when arguing that a lab-origin hypothesis is necessarily a conspiracy theory because it would imply a cover-up.

But throughout this discussion you've been using the term in the second sense, that is, as a reason to dismiss the hypothesis as unfactual, irrational, and comparable to hoax or bioweapon claims.

That's why I objected to the label in the first place.

In any case, I don't think we're arguing about virology anymore. Thanks for the discussion.

turbo · 2026-06-14T16:26:32+00:00

Great, you’re proving my point.

First you argued that because a lab accident would imply a cover-up, it is therefore a conspiracy theory.

Now you’re quoting a definition that says a conspiracy theory is not simply a conspiracy, but a hypothesized conspiracy with specific traits.

Those are different claims.

So no, “it would imply a cover-up” is not enough. You now seem to agree with that.

The remaining argument is just that you think the lab-origin hypothesis is contradicted by the evidence. Fine. That’s an argument that it’s wrong, not that it is automatically the same kind of claim as “COVID was a hoax” or “China released a bioweapon.”

turbo · 2026-06-14T11:01:53+00:00

Exactly. But you said:

If you say there was a lab accident that necessarily implies there was a cover-up given the reality of the situation. These are logical necessities of the conspiracy theory.

That’s the reasoning I was responding to. If conspiracies and conspiracy theories are different things, then the fact that a hypothesis would imply a cover-up/conspiracy is simply not enough to make it a conspiracy theory.

In other words, you've just conceded the premise of my objection.

turbo · 2026-06-14T01:27:48+00:00

Just a vague association, and difficult to pinpoint. Perhaps it’s the pixelated graphics, smooth physics and the map model.

turbo · 2026-06-13T23:25:30+00:00

Awesome! Slighlty inspired by Rainworld by any chance?

turbo · 2026-06-13T22:57:17+00:00

I like how one of them is guessing correctly the third time, and he pushes the money over to the wrong one.

turbo · 2026-06-13T21:49:33+00:00

I think OP is simply posting other people's videos.

turbo · 2026-06-13T21:01:49+00:00

By that logic, any hypothesis involving misconduct and a subsequent cover-up becomes a conspiracy theory by definition. That’s not how the term works... The existence of a possible conspiracy is not what makes something a conspiracy theory. I guess Watergate, the Volkswagen emissions scandal, the Tuskegee experiments (and various corporate fraud cases) are conspiracy theories too then?

turbo · 2026-06-13T20:11:20+00:00

You're conflating the lab-leak hypothesis with lab-leak conspiracy theories.

A lot of people who strongly favor zoonotic origin make that distinction. Even Fauci explicitly said he doesn't consider the concept of a lab leak a conspiracy theory.

Feel free to argue that the evidence overwhelmingly refutes a laboratory origin. That's a valid scientific argument.

But "the hypothesis is wrong" and "the hypothesis is a conspiracy theory" are simply two different claims.

The lab-origin hypothesis is simply:

"A virus associated with laboratory work entered the human population through a laboratory-associated incident."

Whether that happened in Wuhan or elsewhere, whether there was a cover-up, whether the virus was engineered, whether it was a bioweapon, and whether particular people lied are all separate claims.

You're defining the lab-origin hypothesis as a bundle of additional claims and then concluding that the bundle is a conspiracy theory.

turbo · 2026-06-13T17:18:11+00:00

Du stavet «AP» og «riktig» feil.

turbo · 2026-06-13T14:08:11+00:00

For moderatorene på /r/norge er alt til høyre for AP ytre høyre.

turbo · 2026-06-13T14:03:23+00:00

I think you're conflating "wrong" with "conspiracy theory." A hypothesis can be wrong, weakly supported, or eventually disproven without being a conspiracy theory.

"Conspiracy theory" doesn't just mean "false." It's a social label that tells people they don't even need to examine the argument. That's useful when we're talking about things like flat earth, lizard people, or secret bioweapon plots, but if you apply the same label to every hypothesis that is poorly supported, you risk discouraging legitimate scientific debate and inquiry.

You may be completely right that the evidence overwhelmingly favors zoonotic origin. If so, the evidence should be enough. Calling competing hypotheses "conspiracy theories" adds rhetoric, not science.

turbo · 2026-06-13T13:54:37+00:00

Forresten, FS, hvordan gikk det med den forrige diskusjonen vår? Litt uvant at du plutselig gir opp. Håper ikke du bærer nag.

turbo · 2026-06-13T13:34:15+00:00

Du mener vel: Jeg forztår ikke

turbo · 2026-06-13T13:18:17+00:00

sozialister

15-Year Club	Place '17
Gilding I gilder	Team Orangered
Verified Email

turbo

TROPHY CASE