(Close Window)
Topic: Conspiracy Theories
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (May 8, 2020 04:43PM)
This is a video I posted a few days ago on YouTube:
[youtube]DB4Ny75HjR8[/youtube]

The most interesting part are the responses on FB where this was originally posted:
https://www.facebook.com/StevenKeyl/posts/2921478547932641?comment_id=2925244424222720&reply_comment_id=2933654086715087¬if_id=1588971803366153¬if_t=feed_comment

Though I can't get the actual metrics, it seems like most people are posting comments without having actually watched the video--which is something that happens all too often these days, it seems. In any event, if you're so inclined, give it a look.

Happy Friday, and stay safe!
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 8, 2020 05:19PM)
If a conspiracy theory was proved then it would not be a theory anymore would it?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 8, 2020 05:40PM)
It's the opposite of Fight Club where you can talk about it all you want but they hide the metrics from us. :)
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 9, 2020 03:45PM)
[quote]On May 8, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
This is a video I posted a few days ago on YouTube:
[youtube]DB4Ny75HjR8[/youtube]

The most interesting part are the responses on FB where this was originally posted:
https://www.facebook.com/StevenKeyl/posts/2921478547932641?comment_id=2925244424222720&reply_comment_id=2933654086715087¬if_id=1588971803366153¬if_t=feed_comment

Though I can't get the actual metrics, it seems like most people are posting comments without having actually watched the video--which is something that happens all too often these days, it seems. In any event, if you're so inclined, give it a look.

Happy Friday, and stay safe! [/quote]

Well done! Thanks Steve.

Ron
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 10, 2020 08:28PM)
You can get them talking about their theories... to what purpose? Listen more and you hear the complaints (ain't it awful) and playbows for rounds of "yes but". And then what?

Time bandits!
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 10, 2020 08:45PM)
You can get them, police conspirators, talking on tape and get yourself off conspiracy charges. Note there is no IMHO in that.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 11, 2020 09:11AM)
OK, I'll bite. Take this as friendly devil's advocacy.

I think the framing of disagreement of world views as "conspiracy theorizing" is not conducive to rational discourse.

What is the difference between a "conspiracy" and a conspiracy? Most bodies of law seem to recognize the possibility of the latter.

What (and who) determines whether something is a "conspiracy" or not?

Are there no individuals who act in concert, secretly, to achieve common goals? Are there no nation-states, or governments which act in concert, secretly to achieve common goals? Are there no intelligence services which act in concert, secretly, to achieve common goals? Even the most cursory examination of the historical record confirms such actions.

Who gains from such a view?

IMO, in rational discourse, when there are differences over surrounding evidence regarding an issue, rather than dismiss one side as conspiracy theorists, it's more useful to provide opposing evidence so that people can make up their own minds, and do further research. The rest is name-calling.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (May 11, 2020 10:49AM)
Jack, did you watch the video? What I mean by "conspiracy theory" is when one rejects the consensus conclusion that has a varying level of empirical support (which is fine, and not in and of itself a conspiracy theory) AND THEN substitutes it with an alternate narrative that is far less likely.

The point of the video is to explain the psychological attraction to a conspiracy theory when there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief.

[quote]
I think the framing of disagreement of world views as "conspiracy theorizing" is not conducive to rational discourse.
[/quote]

I agree. I've never suggested that every disagreement is summarily classified as a conspiracy theorizing, and you're smarter than to try to straw man my position is such a transparent way.

[quote]
What is the difference between a "conspiracy" and a conspiracy? Most bodies of law seem to recognize the possibility of the latter.
[/quote]

The legal definition of a conspiracy is quite different than a "conspiracy theory", but again I think you know that. I think you're being intentionally obtuse, but I'll play along. A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister, hidden, and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. A conspiracy theory is generally marked by several common characteristics (Note that not every conspiracy theory contains every characteristic):
[list]
[*] No amount of evidence would dissuade the conspiracy believers
[*] Any attempt to falsify a conspiracy theory is met with even more intricate, and less plausible explanations
[*] Lack of evidence in support of a conspiracy theory is taken as proof of a massive coverup
[*] Involves unknown, secret, organizations with vast resources and members
[/list]

[quote]
Are there no individuals who act in concert, secretly, to achieve common goals? Are there no nation-states, or governments which act in concert, secretly to achieve common goals? Are there no intelligence services which act in concert, secretly, to achieve common goals? Even the most cursory examination of the historical record confirms such actions.
[/quote]

I've never claimed that conspiracies don't exist--in fact, history plainly shows us that they do. Again, you're trying to saddle me with a position that I don't hold.

While there are exceptions, the majority of conspiracy theories (think "flat earthers", moon landing conspiracies, etc.) are not just differences of opinion. Saying Jeffrey Epstein's death was likely not suicide is one thing, but when you further claim that his death was orchestrated by Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, and other members of the deep state, without any evidence whatsoever, you've crossed the line into conspiracy theory.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 11, 2020 10:57AM)
Do we really need clarification on the difference between an actual conspiracy
And conspiracy theories?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 11, 2020 11:05AM)
Jessie Ventura thinks we do.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 11, 2020 12:44PM)
[quote]Jack, did you watch the video?[/quote]

Steve, I wouldn't have commented had I not done so.

[quote] What I mean by "conspiracy theory" is when one rejects the consensus conclusion that has a varying level of empirical support (which is fine, and not in and of itself a conspiracy theory) AND THEN substitutes it with an alternate narrative that is far less likely. [/quote]

"Consensus conclusion," "varying level of empirical support," "far less likely" are exactly my points of contention. Person A's conspiracy theory is Person's B studied opinion and vice-versa. Consensus conclusion may be incorrect, varying levels of support are just that, varying, and far less likely does not necessarily mean incorrect.

All too often the term is used to squash further discussion of certain issues--and while [i]I probably agree with you on 99.9% of the things you would consider outlandish, [/i] the use of the term to me is problematic. It stops us from evaluating claims too soon.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 11, 2020 01:43PM)
That is why I only watched the first two minutes of the video because it only took me that long to see it was based on a diatribe of nonsense and false premises
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (May 11, 2020 02:28PM)
Jack, I'm not following your point.

[b]Are you saying that my definition of conspiracy theory isn't defined enough?[/b] If so, then move two paragraphs down to the more formalized definition:

[quote]
A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister, hidden, and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. A conspiracy theory is generally marked by several common characteristics (Note that not every conspiracy theory contains every characteristic):

[list]
[*] No amount of evidence would dissuade the conspiracy believers
[*] Any attempt to falsify a conspiracy theory is met with even more intricate, and less plausible explanations
[*] Lack of evidence in support of a conspiracy theory is taken as proof of a massive coverup
[*] Involves unknown, secret, organizations with vast resources and members
[/list]
[/quote]

-------------

[b]Or are you saying that all assertions deserve equal consideration in the marketplace of ideas?[/b] When Alex Jones says that Sandy Hook never happened, are we required to convene a panel of experts to launch an investigation into whether or not this school shooting actually happened? I don't think this is a defensible idea, but I also don't think this is what you're trying to say (at least I hope not).

-------------

[b]Or are you saying that the term "conspiracy theory" should not be used when discussing unsupported, non-falsifiable assertions that involve secret societies and global coverups with hidden and nefarious motives?[/b] As with all language, words are a shorthand to convey ideas. But if you'd prefer a different term, what do you propose?

While I agree that people sometimes lump legitimate skepticism in with other conspiracy theories, that is not sufficient reason to eliminate its use altogether.
Message: Posted by: Pop Haydn (May 11, 2020 02:54PM)
All of the important conspiracy theories since the Kennedy Assassination and the fake Moon Landing, have been generated from the same tiny, sinister cabal in Lithuania. They seek world domination through sowing confusion and selling videos. This becomes obvious when you research the secret files of the Illuminati at the Democratic National Committee. You just have to get past the giant three-headed dog...
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 11, 2020 03:00PM)
Now that's a conspiracy theory.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 11, 2020 03:20PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, Pop Haydn wrote:
All of the important conspiracy theories since the Kennedy Assassination and the fake Moon Landing, have been generated from the same tiny, sinister cabal in Lithuania. They seek world domination through sowing confusion and selling videos. This becomes obvious when you research the secret files of the Illuminati at the Democratic National Committee. You just have to get past the giant three-headed dog... [/quote]

Well played.

I know this is true. Bigfoot told me it was in the Loch Ness Monster's autobiography.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 11, 2020 03:30PM)
That was funny last week.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (May 11, 2020 04:00PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, landmark wrote:
--and while [i]I probably agree with you on 99.9% of the things you would consider outlandish, [/i] the use of the term to me is problematic. [/quote]

I was trying to think of something else where not acquiescing to the .1% in naming/description is problematic, but I couldn't come up with anything. Seems like you're giving undue weight to that .1%?

If a "conspiracy theory" graduates to an actual conspiracy, so be it. But I think the term (per Steve's description) is appropriate and useful.


Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 11, 2020 04:13PM)
Well I wasn’t one of those who believed the Lithuanian Russian Gate conspiracy theory anyway.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (May 11, 2020 05:05PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:

Well played.

I know this is true. Bigfoot told me[/quote]

His name is Darryl. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 11, 2020 05:14PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On May 11, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:

Well played.

I know this is true. Bigfoot told me[/quote]

His name is Darryl. :rolleyes: [/quote]

I'm an idiot I am sorry. Yes of course! I should have put that in. My bad. But to be fair, I am not certain everyone would have known that.
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (May 11, 2020 05:17PM)
Well, apparently, he actually spells it Daryl, but I didn't have time to fix that. No worries. :spoon:
Message: Posted by: magicalaurie (May 11, 2020 05:20PM)
For the skeptical:

[youtube]AeavqyDYQtQ[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Cain (May 12, 2020 11:33AM)
Solid work, Steven.

The Epstein conspiracy was especially infuriating as people did not even seem bothered to try to explain anything at all. It was just so "obvious." Yes, the man with a previous suicide attempt was clearly done in by a super-assassin (who left no signs of a struggle and vanished). There was a real conspiracy in that case... the keystone guards tried to cover up shirking their duties.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 12, 2020 05:32PM)
Was Epstein charged with conspiracy and if so does it not follow that the state must have had a conspiracy theory to charge him?

Moreover, if we go by Steven's definition of what a conspiracy theory is, then Epstein and co must have had no case to answer.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 15, 2020 03:36PM)
Looks like a safe game to add things to the story. Like adding sand to make a larger pile. Reverse Jenga? Added points for stabilizing the existing pile?
"They" like things warmer and more greenhouse gasses so they support industry.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 15, 2020 04:32PM)
We get theory from theatre; spectators take a view.
Message: Posted by: landmark (May 15, 2020 08:48PM)
[quote]
"They" like things warmer and more greenhouse gasses so they support industry.[/quote]

The "theory" is exactly the opposite.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 17, 2020 12:16PM)
Spectators in the theatre take a view of the plot.

In magic, the plot is nonsense, which turns out to make sense.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 17, 2020 02:26PM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On May 11, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:

Well played.

I know this is true. Bigfoot told me[/quote]

His name is Darryl. :rolleyes: [/quote]


Does he have brothers named Larry and... well... Darryl? :sun:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 17, 2020 09:25PM)
The ever expanding dictionary: https://www.ubergizmo.com/2020/05/ai-generates-random-words-dictionary/
Meanwhile in the dialectic... ;)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 17, 2020 10:04PM)
[quote]On May 17, 2020, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On May 11, 2020, magicalaurie wrote:
[quote]On May 11, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:

Well played.

I know this is true. Bigfoot told me[/quote]

His name is Darryl. :rolleyes: [/quote]


Does he have brothers named Larry and... well... Darryl? :sun: [/quote]
Now you're just being silly.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 21, 2020 07:12PM)
Yep.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 21, 2020 11:35PM)
If you can’t believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast, then how are you ever going to create a magic effect?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 22, 2020 03:16PM)
[quote]On May 21, 2020, tommy wrote:
If you can’t believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast, then how are you ever going to create a magic effect? [/quote]By getting the audience to temporarily believe one? :D
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2020 07:37AM)
Little children are the ones who can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast and follow them to their logical conclusions in play; it is called freedom or free-thinking or something. Little kids may be a great source of magic plots.

As children grow older they lose this freedom, are told what to think and cannot think for themselves at all. At least 97% agree and God forbid anyone expressing a thought that does not toe the party line.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (May 24, 2020 05:42PM)
Agreed. And there is a world of difference between thinking for yourself and actively eschewing the opinion of a consensus of experts and substituting it with a counter idea that has no evidentiary warrant for belief.
Message: Posted by: karnak (May 24, 2020 09:10PM)
Reminds me of the famous quote by Isaac Asimov:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (May 25, 2020 01:27AM)
Conspiracy also reads as a fancy word for blame.
Expert opinion can be a sponsored product.
The disclaimer at the bottom of the screen says to ask your ****** if opinions lasting more than four hours have been known to cause serious side effects including discussion and in extreme cases may lead to questions.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 2, 2020 08:25PM)
The Ghislaine Maxwell Conspiracy Theory

Will the conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts be proven true?

Or will Jack Ruby shoot Madam Maxwell?

Legal experts say as a charged co-conspirator, Ms Maxwell is just as liable for Epstein's crimes and faces the same potential punishment.

Death by mysterious suicide?
Message: Posted by: borz666 (Aug 16, 2020 06:59PM)
And yet when the evidence is out,like here

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

No news outlet even bother to mention or bring it up. and will still call it a conspiracy theory... tell me isn't that a heard mentality?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 16, 2020 07:23PM)
It's called a conspiracy theory, because it is one. (And I think you mean HERD mentality. If you're going to use these threadbare, ad hominem attacks, at least get it right)

9/11 conspiracy theorists usually end up in one of two camps:

1) The US Government knew about the plot against the WTC and did nothing
2) The US Government collaborated with the terrorists to bring the buildings down

The evidence commonly cited is that the way the buildings came down closely resembles controlled demolition, so that must be what happened. To that end, there are a handful of engineers and architects that support that conclusion.

The problem is that far greater numbers of engineers and scientists have reviewed the data and found that the building collapse is consistent with the NIST findings.

As a lifelong skeptic, and one that is not a structural engineer, I'm certainly open to the possibility that either side of this debate might be right. The thing to remember, though, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but we only see conjecture, hypothesis, and assertions.

If this claim is ever to have merit, you need far more evidence to support them. The time to believe an extraordinary claim is when it is accompanied by extraordinary evidence--and we don't have that here. That is why it is a conspiracy theory.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 18, 2020 08:54AM)
Popular Mechanics debunked the controlled demolition.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 18, 2020 03:09PM)
Thanks, I'll look that up. I like their articles.

There is a bunch of counter-evidence out there, nearly all of which discounts the controlled demolition theory.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 19, 2020 08:01AM)
The best was when noted scientific expert Rosie O'Donnell claimed it was the first time in history that fire melted steel.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a1539/4213805/

Not as much fun as a conspiracy I'll admit.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 20, 2020 05:28PM)
Nice article. Rosie might be wise not to wade in on scientific issues in which she is clearly out of her depth.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 20, 2020 05:36PM)
At first I really thought the statement was a parody. But she is serious. Then when they go on to give weakening temperature and melting point it is hilarious.

Yes out of her depth indeed. Then again if she had to only speak in issues in which she is educated she would be saying far less. Not a bad thing come to think of it.

Don't forget that ignorance is a KEY component in most conspiracy theories.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 21, 2020 08:15AM)
[quote]On Aug 16, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:

The problem is that far greater numbers of engineers and scientists have reviewed the data and found that the building collapse is consistent with the NIST findings.

[/quote]

The problem with that is that science is not decided on a show of hands.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 21, 2020 12:31PM)
Correct, Tommy. It's about the weight of the evidence, not about how many people agree with it. There are many studies and papers written that show how AND WHY the collapse of the towers were consistent with the NIST findings. It's when that evidence is dismissed in favor of already-refuted evidence that you run into problems.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 21, 2020 12:39PM)
[quote]On Aug 20, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:

Don't forget that ignorance is a KEY component in most conspiracy theories. [/quote]

Well said!

Also, Rosie is talking to people that first and foremost want to be entertained, not educated on the interaction of heat and steel. So, from that perspective, she's been a success.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 21, 2020 02:14PM)
The problem with that is the back-pedal; to retreat from or reverse one's previous stand on any matter; shift ground. to back-pedal after severe criticism..
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 21, 2020 04:11PM)
[quote]On Aug 21, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
Correct, Tommy. It's about the weight of the evidence, not about how many people agree with it. There are many studies and papers written that show how AND WHY the collapse of the towers were consistent with the NIST findings. It's when that evidence is dismissed in favor of already-refuted evidence that you run into problems. [/quote]

Right. Also, the only thing that corrects bad science is more/better science. Not gut feelings or hearsay or anything else.

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 21, 2020 05:22PM)
Https://youtu.be/dvFuRYyEkiU

The problem with Popular Mechanics is that it has been debunked with ease.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 21, 2020 07:37PM)
Not a single mention of anything they spoke of. Just trolling again?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 22, 2020 03:35AM)
[quote]On Aug 18, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
Popular Mechanics debunked the controlled demolition. [/quote]

The problem with that is that Danny does not mention a word of what they said nor unlike me gives a link to them speaking.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 22, 2020 05:52AM)
[quote]On Aug 19, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
The best was when noted scientific expert Rosie O'Donnell claimed it was the first time in history that fire melted steel.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a1539/4213805/

Not as much fun as a conspiracy I'll admit. [/quote]

Not to be contrary, but he absolutely did provide a link. Here it is again. And the article is not a comprehensive response to conspiracy theorists, but rather a specific refutation of O'Donnell's claims.

Having listened to your link, first of all it doesn't discuss the article cited above. It must be addressing a different one. And once again it contains nothing but assertions and claims without any actual evidence. The only people buying it are those that don't need evidence to believe whatever story is put in front of them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 22, 2020 07:25AM)
My sinsere apologies. I did not it see sorry.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Aug 26, 2020 11:48AM)
Context: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/20/715211935/republic-of-lies-explores-the-fixation-with-conspiracy-theories
Some news - tinfoil hat optional
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 26, 2020 01:06PM)
[quote]
https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destro......e6744d59[/quote]

What a brilliant guy Doctorow is. A real education there. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 27, 2020 01:52AM)
Popular Mechanics say in the linked to article:

“2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren't knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O'Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word "melted": Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.”

My question is this; if the steel structures did not melt, then where did the pools of molten steel found at Ground Zero come from?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 27, 2020 11:58AM)
This is from the NIST Q&A: Question 23:
[quote]
23. Why didn't the NIST investigation consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
[/quote]

The full Q&A, and I encourage everyone interested in the topic to give it a read. Interesting stuff:
https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 27, 2020 12:25PM)
I just figured other steel in the building accounts for it. Not all steel is structural. Not all steel melts at the same heat points.

I could be, and probably am way off. I after all am not the scientific expert that ol Rosie is.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Aug 27, 2020 12:32PM)
That actually fits in with other things I've read. A lot of nonstructural elements in buildings are made of aluminum, not to mention the planes themselves. The melting point of aluminum is much lower and the heat generated by the fire could easily melt any aluminum in the buildings or the planes.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 27, 2020 12:41PM)
Yes it makes sense. It is just not as much fun is all.

People still parrot Kennedy conspiracy stuff and it is just nonsense.

Oddly enough Lincoln WAS a conspiracy involving a bunch of folks! Not many know that. More can spout off Kennedy nonsense they saw in an Oliver Stone movie than what is documented the night Lincoln was shot. How sad.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 27, 2020 04:48PM)
[quote]On Aug 27, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yes it makes sense. It is just not as much fun is all. [/quote]

Right. For most people mystery and intrigue are more compelling than plain cold facts. And when something impactful and historic happens, mundane explanations seem inadequate. Where I live there is a local access TV station that to this day runs a 9/11 truther program every month or so. They just won't let it go.


Ron
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Aug 27, 2020 07:28PM)
Yep.

I have told this story but here goes again.

I did a research paper on conspiracy theories. They are great because they give you either someone to blame, or someone to join.

The real purpose seems to be one of balance.

Kennedy is a wonderful example. The man has the hope of a generation and new world! He was much larger than life. The idea that he could be killed by this wretched disgusting human being Oswald does not fit. It is out of balance. Our mind has a tendency to seek balance and reasons. If you imagine a scale like Lady Justice holds with Kennedy on one side and Oswald on the other it is WAY out of balance. To add weight to Oswald is desired and a conspiracy will do just fine.

It is actually an interesting topic.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Aug 28, 2020 07:16AM)
Another really good example is Bruce Lee. How could the world's premier martial artist die so young from something like an adverse reaction to medication? He HAD to have been killed! So they say. Then came the sequel to "Enter The Dragon" and it was called "Enter The Conspiracy Theories."

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Aug 28, 2020 08:18AM)
“The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.” - NIST

Wow!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 2, 2020 08:17AM)
According to Ron Paul quoting a recent poll, 80% of Americans believe that the Murder of JFK was a Conspiracy. So did Congress. I also do not believe he was the only one involved.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2020 10:30AM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2020, Slim King wrote:
According to Ron Paul quoting a recent poll, 80% of Americans believe that the Murder of JFK was a Conspiracy. So did Congress. I also do not believe he was the only one involved. [/quote]

All that poll proves is how uninformed 80% of Americans are. And the number is shifting. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/

It also not quite true what you say about congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Assassinations

From Wiki. "The HSCA found that although the Commission and the different agencies and departments examining Kennedy's assassination performed in good faith and were thorough in their investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald, they performed with "varying degrees of competency" and the search for possible conspiracy was inadequate.[1]:2 The HSCA determined, based on available evidence, that the probable conspiracy did not involve the governments of Cuba or the Soviet Union. The committee also stated that the conspiracy did not involve any organized crime group, anti-Castro group, nor the FBI, CIA, or Secret Service. The committee found that it could not exclude the possibility that individual members of the national syndicate of organized crime or anti-Castro Cubans were involved in a probable conspiracy to assassinate president Kennedy.[3] Although some members of the committee would later state their personal belief that one of those groups were involved in the assassination with Representative Floyd Fithian believing that the Kennedy assassination was orchestrated by members of organized crime.[4]

In a Justice Department memo to the House Judiciary Committee in 1988, the Assistant Attorney General formally reviewed the recommendations of the HSCA report and reported a conclusion of active investigations.[5] In light of investigative reports from the FBI's Technical Services Division and the National Academy of Science Committee determining that "reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman", the Justice Department concluded "that no persuasive evidence can be identified to support the theory of a conspiracy in … the assassination of President Kennedy".

So I am not quite sure where you get that congress thought there was a conspiracy other than you were told by some other conspiracy theorist.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 2, 2020 01:24PM)
That intensity of misguided attention - similar to people trying to follow the pea under a shell or a cat chase a laser pointer dot.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 2, 2020 01:51PM)
Like the misguided Cubans and George Bush?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 2, 2020 09:35PM)
A Florida Man joke? :nose: :innocent:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 3, 2020 01:16AM)
Some conspiracies are so incredible that it’s hard to believe them, even after they have been declassified.

Like magic; a dilemma.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 4, 2020 12:55PM)
And some conspiracies are so fascinating that it’s hard not to believe them, even after they have been debunked.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 4, 2020 03:20PM)
The quality of debunking is evidently not what it used to be.

We did not find any evidence of molten steel in the basement because we did not look and so there goes that theory.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 4, 2020 03:49PM)
If a debunker is debunked does that mean s/he's bunked?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 4, 2020 05:37PM)
Alan Watt Debunks Albert Einstein

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2csora
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 5, 2020 06:24AM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2020, tommy wrote:
The quality of debunking is evidently not what it used to be.

We did not find any evidence of molten steel in the basement because we did not look and so there goes that theory. [/quote]

Oh tommy, if you have to straw man the position your fighting so hard against, then you've already lost the argument.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 5, 2020 06:38AM)
[quote]On Sep 4, 2020, landmark wrote:
If a debunker is debunked does that mean s/he's bunked? [/quote]

And what if you're trying to debunk Archie Bunker??

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 06:42AM)
What positition do you think I am fighting?

Why do you think what I said is a strawman?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 5, 2020 07:23AM)
Just for completeness regarding the House Select Committee investigating the Kennedy Assassination.

While it did find, as Danny said, that various postulated groups were not involved, it was quite specific that there [i]was[/i] a conspiracy. [[b]I bolded some portions in the following official summary[/b]]

"B. Scientific acoustical evidence [b]establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy.[/b] Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that [b]President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.[/b] The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.

D. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was conducted. [b]The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate.[/b] The conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive."

The summary then goes on to say [b]the Secret Service, The FBI, The DOJ, The CIA and the Warren Report all inadequately investigated the possibility of a conspiracy.[/b]

The official summary and links to the full report can be found here:
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html#kennedy
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 08:13AM)
JFK was probably assassinated by the Gehlen Organization.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 5, 2020 08:48AM)
Probability is the key word isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 5, 2020 08:49AM)
Jack, this phrase is mentioned several times in the quotes above "the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved". This only suggests the possibility, not the probability, that others may have been involved.

This is not evidence, it is saying involvement of others cannot be ruled out. That does NOT automatically mean that involvement of others is ruled in. Evidence would be required for that.

Also, section B indicates there is competing data between the acoustic evidence and "other scientific evidence." This does not mean there were two gunmen, it only indicates there is a conflict among different data sets that would need to be resolved.

At the end of the day, alleging that a conspiracy DID happen requires evidence that no one seems to be able to produce.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 09:19AM)
Probability is a key concept to understand. Between the extreams of certainty and impossibilty, which are essentially two wonderful pieces of nonsense, there are in reality variouse probabilities of one thing or another being true.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Sep 5, 2020 09:32AM)
Well, [I]somebody[/I] conspired to kill Kennedy, whether it was Oswald acting alone or some nefarious cabal. So in that sense, you can always say it was a "conspiracy."

But, to extrapolate beyond Oswald and to imply a wider plot would require that additional evidence, as Steve said. In my opinion, this is one case that will never be conclusively resolved.


Ron
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 5, 2020 09:32AM)
[quote]Jack, this phrase is mentioned several times in the quotes above "the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved". [b]This only suggests the possibility, not the probability, that others may have been involved.[/b]
[/quote]

Read again:

[quote][b]establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy.[/b][/quote]

and

[quote][b] The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.[/b][/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 10:03AM)
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people. Oswald acting alone it can still be conspiracy if there was an agreement with others. i.e. if he was paid to do it.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 5, 2020 10:05AM)
Good points.

All that means, however, is that PROBABLY there was a second gunman, which means that PROBABLY there was a conspiracy. Why? Because the legal definition of conspiracy only requires 2 people.

I'm happy to follow the evidence, and if it shows that a second gunman is the most likely explanation of the data, then so be it. However, most conspiracy theorists depart from this narrow interpretation and supply all manner of additional explanation where there is NOT sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. Tommy's mention of the Gehlen Organization above is a demonstration of that. Although more commonly we hear about organized crime, CIA, FBI, Cuba, USSR, and some plots that even include LBJ.

IF there were two people involved in the shooting, which by the way, is still unproven, that doesn't mean there was a network of shadowy operatives involved in a global conspiracy to kill JFK. All of those assertions would require evidence.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 5, 2020 01:02PM)
There was 1 gunman. He was caught.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 5, 2020 02:53PM)
? And you know this how?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 04:33PM)
The fact that there were two or more gunmen does not prove that the gunmen conspied with one another or anyone else actually. Hoever, one can infere that it was no coincidene.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 5, 2020 04:55PM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2020, landmark wrote:
? And you know this how? [/quote]

How do you know there was more than one? The shot can, and has been EASILY duplicated in EVERY way by many people. In sniper school it was an exercise the first week! It is NOWHERE NEAR as implausible as Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone would have you believe. It is easy to do it, it is easy to use that rifle, it is easy to get down the stairs and so forth. It is simply NOT a difficult shot.

Can you prove a giant raccoon fart didn't start the big bang? Obviously no you can't. Does this in any way lend credibility to the theory? Absolutely not. A non disprovable theory is not evidence of anything.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 5, 2020 05:39PM)
The House Select Committee, which had access to a lot of evidence, believed there was a high probability of a second shooter. Not certainty, but a high probability.

Maintaining that there was one shooter without outlining other evidence not addressed by the Committee is not convincing in the face of that. If there are two competing theories, then the one with the higher probability is usually what most rational people go with, unless confronted with opposing evidence.

I certainly agree with you and Steve that the House evidence does not support Stone's theories, nor many others. But that's different from insisting that there was only one shooter.

There's a high probability of a second shooter says the Committee. And the implication of that is that for 50+ years, perhaps, there's someone out there who knows a whole lot more about this than anyone else.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 5, 2020 06:21PM)
Has anybody ever duplicated the magic bullet shot?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 6, 2020 12:00AM)
[quote]On Sep 5, 2020, tommy wrote:
Has anybody ever duplicated the magic bullet shot? [/quote]
Yes quite often.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 6, 2020 04:18AM)
Have they ever been questioned?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 6, 2020 08:49AM)
Is this one of then there dublications of the magic bullet shot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZRUNYZY71g
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 11, 2020 10:10PM)
Plaintext:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
The teapot did it.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

* Perhaps the tapes were dublicated too. :D
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 12, 2020 04:16AM)
Http://22november1963.org.uk/bertrand-russell-16-questions-on-the-assassination

https://lehman.edu/faculty/rcarey/brs_am/abstracts2003.html
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 12, 2020 07:17AM)
You've proven conclusively that intelligence is no barrier against falling prey to conspiracy theories.

Russell wrote this when he was 91 years old. His mental faculties were clearly declining, and he published the article before the Warren Commission released their findings. Many of the questions and assertions made by Russell have been answered by the Warren Commission as well as the more recent HSCA.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 12, 2020 03:29PM)
Asking questions is not a conspiracy theory, despite what lone nuts may think and answers to questions are not necessarily truthful or satisfactory ones. The Warren Commission and the HSCA gave contradictory answers to one another and so one or both of them must be wrong.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 12, 2020 05:12PM)
Just because you can't understand an answer doesn't make it wrong.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2020 06:24PM)
Over a hundred years ago the word theory was claimed by those who provide accurate prediction. Using Newton's mechanics gets you some confident results in ballistics. However, magic bullets are plot devices in fantasy stories.

A story may satisfy some personal or social need. Practical wisdom has its merits. Don't be so quick to dismiss the Sophists.

Why use mixed language when offering an opinion? Available evidence and reliable methods of inference do or do not support a claim. But that's not such a great story. So, the teapot did it. Maybe Oswald knew he was an agent of the teapot. Maybe he didn't. Did anyone ask Ruby whether he had any interest in talking to Oswald about motivations? Looking at an interview transcript it sure seemed important ask whether he was a member of the Communist party. Would it have really mattered if he was? FYI: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-17.html

Is the teapot red?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 12, 2020 09:17PM)
[quote] Available evidence and reliable methods of inference do or do not support a claim[/quote]

Not quite as simple as a physics equation.

For example, what conclusions might be drawn from the following pieces of evidence:


''He was taught the Russian language when he was in the military. Do you think that is usual, that an ordinary soldier is taught Russian? Also, he got in and out of Russia quite easily, and he got me out quite easily,'' said the Russian-born [Marina Oswald]Porter. She had emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1961 after marrying Oswald, who had defected to the Soviets and then changed his mind and returned to the United States."

Marina's way of adding up that evidence was this:

Porter said that in retrospect, Oswald seemed professionally schooled in secretiveness, ''and I believe he worked for the American government.''

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKSoswald.htm
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Sep 12, 2020 09:45PM)
I studied Russian while in the military. Being fluent in another language could give you extra pay as well. I was interested in getting into OSI, but the cold war ended and learning Russian was no longer in demand as before. I have also known military members who have married Russian citizens. Not that rare of a thing.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 12, 2020 09:57PM)
Defectors who get in and out with ease?

And you hit the nail on the head why it was taught to you.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 12, 2020 11:45PM)
Got me wondering how long he had been working at the depository: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/S%20Disk/Shaw%20Clay%20Trial%20Defense/Item%2019.pdf

And when was a decision made to drive by his workplace. https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmntot.gif

Any thoughts on A. J. Hidell and O. H. Lee?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2020 10:16AM)
Science is not decided by a show of hands but criminal trials are and so criminal trials are not science are they?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 13, 2020 11:46AM)
Before the show of hands comes much fuss about oaths, rules, and then a ritual of accusations and pleadings, followed by more fuss about rules...
Folk wisdom has it that there is much truth in:
I want to see justice done-how much can you afford?
The case is almost entirely decided by the choice in name brand council/representative(s)

There was a quote in the New York Post (Hulk Hogan video vs Gawker) about single digit millionaires being unable to afford justice in the courts today.



Any clues about the teapot today?
Message: Posted by: Animated Puppets (Sep 13, 2020 12:28PM)
[quote]On Sep 12, 2020, landmark wrote:
Defectors who get in and out with ease?

And you hit the nail on the head why it was taught to you. [/quote]

I was actually teaching myself and not trained by the military. It later led me to a deep appreciation of Russian Literature.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2020 01:13PM)
The presumption of innocence is an American legal principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Since neither Oswald or the 9/11 accused got their day in court, they must be considered innocent unless you want to be unamerican about it. Once you throw that legal principle out of the window then what else have you got apart from theories and unamerican activities?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 13, 2020 05:45PM)
Who is throwing that principle out the window? Under the law, Oswald was never convicted of murder. That doesn't mean a subsequent investigation can't yield evidence of his involvement. It only means, that as a dead man, he can't be charged with a crime.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 13, 2020 05:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 13, 2020, Animated Puppets wrote:
[quote]On Sep 12, 2020, landmark wrote:
Defectors who get in and out with ease?

And you hit the nail on the head why it was taught to you. [/quote]

I was actually teaching myself and not trained by the military. It later led me to a deep appreciation of Russian Literature. [/quote]

Impressive!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2020 06:50PM)
Anybody who does not consider Oswald innocent, including you and the Warren Commission, is throwing out the presumption of innocence because he was never proven guilty. The Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden if evidence was produced against him but US the government said we do not negotiate with terrorists and instead went to war. Do you or have you ever considered Osama bin Laden innocent? The us government sets its self up as judge and jury, makes a hit list and sends out hit men to murder people in cold blood and then the people run around shouting USA. USA and you have the temerity to ask who is throwing out the presumption of innocence? All you have with these commissions and reports are theories and not very good ones neither.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 13, 2020 06:54PM)
Jonathan was right after all, it was Russell's teapot. Prove us wrong.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 13, 2020 07:22PM)
No need to prove Russell right or wrong. Russell stated some basic facts which addressed the underlying procedural issues and make up of the Warren Commission. None of that has been addressed. It's interesting that he stated them *before* the conclusions were printed. So he was not taking a side on the results, but indicating why it was a flawed process from the start.

For example, from a purely theoretical point of view, IF the CIA were involved, do you think a panel headed by Dulles might possibly ignore, omit, or fail to pursue other leads? Bodies investigating themselves don't tend to do well.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 13, 2020 08:29PM)
The problem with this line of thinking is it can be used for every criminal investigation ever conducted. Any investigation can generate a conspiracy theory about the investigators. Without evidence, however, it’s a hollow accusation.

This type of thinking also assumes that every investigating member of the CIA is more interested in protecting other CIA members than getting to the truth. That is also an assertion that would have to be demonstrated.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 13, 2020 08:32PM)
Look up the history of Allen Dulles.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2020 08:34PM)
The CIA was the brainchild of Reinhard Gehlen and John J. McCloy, you know that fella who sat in Hitlers box with all top Nazis at the Munich Olympics, who was made the boss of West Germany after the war, who freed a load Nazi war criminals so they could join the Gehlen organisation and who appointed Gehlen as head of the German intelligence service, despite the fact that Gehlen was a wanted war criminal, you know that John J. McCloy, who designed the Pentagon and so on, he was on the Warren Commission as well.

He did a great deal of work for corporations in Nazi Germany and advised the major German chemical combine I. G. Farben and so would you trust him with your cat?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 13, 2020 09:30PM)
Feeling a need to assign blame in proportion to how much a thing negatively affects social values is understandable. Vague language, stories about "they went that-a-way", and presuming others will chase at shadows are different matters. If such things save you from despairing about tomorrow; or feeling that you're hearing a tale told by an idiot - offering little in the way of explanation beyond disconnected details, so be it.

Consider a market in attention. The story sells books, gets movies made, and gets free advertising.

*So, is there conspiracy acting to prevent us from looking for the teapot? Same folks who keep the test results about frogs in hot water classified? :bunny2:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 13, 2020 10:13PM)
Vague language indeed. :)
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 14, 2020 06:35AM)
[quote]On Sep 13, 2020, tommy wrote:
The CIA was the brainchild of Reinhard Gehlen and John J. McCloy, you know that fella who sat in Hitlers box with all top Nazis at the Munich Olympics... [/quote]

The history of the CIA goes well beyond two people "cookin' up a good ol' fashion plot" against the US. The establishment of any agency is the product of hard work by thousands of dedicated people working together. But of course that doesn't sell books, does it.

This is exactly why conspiracy theories gain traction. Because it makes us feel better to think that every bad thing that happens in the world is due to bad actors making shady deals in back rooms, even when there is insufficient evidence on which to base such a claim.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 14, 2020 07:20AM)
[quote]...bad actors making shady deals in back rooms...[/quote]

Look up the history of the CIA. Then you might have a better grasp of why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 14, 2020 07:24AM)
Reinhard Gehlen is not two people. That is what happens you happen to partly redact quotes. The declassified Gehlen file is an interesting document.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 14, 2020 07:56AM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, landmark wrote:
[quote]...bad actors making shady deals in back rooms...[/quote]

Look up the history of the CIA. Then you might have a better grasp of why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories. [/quote]

The fact (Yes fact.) that this and many government agencies have a spotty history and a casual relationship with the truth does not however prove the conspiracies exist. It shows why people gravitate toward them.

Also it never ceases to amaze me that you constantly point out how bad version government agencies and actions are, yet you want to give them unlimited power and scope.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 14, 2020 08:14AM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, landmark wrote:

Look up the history of the CIA. Then you might have a better grasp of why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories. [/quote]

The underlying implication is that anyone that rejects assertions without evidence doesn't "really understand what's going on here." I reject that implication as the by-product of minds that are attempting to make sense of the world in the only way they know how.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 14, 2020 08:21AM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, landmark wrote:

Look up the history of the CIA. Then you might have a better grasp of why people gravitate towards conspiracy theories. [/quote]

The fact (Yes fact.) that this and many government agencies have a spotty history and a casual relationship with the truth does not however prove the conspiracies exist. It shows why people gravitate toward them...
[/quote]

Good point. Of course all our intelligence communities have had successes and failures. Since we're only focusing on the CIA we can point to things like the assassination plots and even large scale actions like MK Ultra. You know why I believe these bad things happened? Because there is sufficient evidence of their existence to warrant belief. At the risk of repeating Danny, the fact that bad things happen does not mean every evidence-less assertion is true. It just provides ammo for any conspiracy hack to forward yet another unfalsifiable theory.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 14, 2020 10:30AM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
...there is sufficient evidence of their existence to warrant belief. At the risk of repeating Danny, the fact that bad things happen does not mean every evidence-less assertion is true. It just provides ammo for any conspiracy hack to forward yet another unfalsifiable theory. [/quote]There is evidence of TLA fan fiction, a conspiracy community, and some confused thinking about choosing safety over freedom.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 14, 2020 11:11AM)
The intelligence services have a spotty history is putting it a bit mildly isn’t it? You must be out for a laugh if you think our intelligence services do not conspire to assassinate leaders and engineer coup d'états. The Reinhard Gehlen and Allen Dulles duo engineered the 1953 Iranian the coup d'état. They have a lot form as we say.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 14, 2020 12:17PM)
That spottiness (foreground versus background) was pondered in Miracleman issue 21 (spy story).

Service with a smile, a long trail of deniable tales.

In the words of our animated Bart: "I-didn't-do-it".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 14, 2020 12:26PM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, tommy wrote:
The intelligence services have a spotty history is putting it a bit mildly isn’t it? You must be out for a laugh if you think our intelligence services do not conspire to assassinate leaders and engineer coup d'états. The Reinhard Gehlen and Allen Dulles duo engineered the 1953 Iranian the coup d'état. They have a lot form as we say. [/quote]
I never said 5hey didn't conspire to kill leaders. I know for a fact they do.

I'll tell you this. The world is far more complicated than most believe. Judging them right or wrong on what little knowledge we have is a dangerous game.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 14, 2020 01:21PM)
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 14, 2020, tommy wrote:
The intelligence services have a spotty history is putting it a bit mildly isn’t it? You must be out for a laugh if you think our intelligence services do not conspire to assassinate leaders and engineer coup d'états. The Reinhard Gehlen and Allen Dulles duo engineered the 1953 Iranian the coup d'état. They have a lot form as we say. [/quote]
I never said 5hey didn't conspire to kill leaders. I know for a fact they do.

I'll tell you this. The world is far more complicated than most believe. Judging them right or wrong on what little knowledge we have is a dangerous game. [/quote]

This should be the subtitle of this thread.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 14, 2020 01:51PM)
[quote]The fact (Yes fact.) that this and many government agencies have a spotty history and a casual relationship with the truth does not however prove the conspiracies exist. It shows why people gravitate toward them.[/quote]

That's exactly right. Because people who know the history are aware it's a reasonable possibility. But indeed, not proof at all.

[quote]Also it never ceases to amaze me that you constantly point out how bad version government agencies and actions are, yet you want to give them unlimited power and scope.[/quote]

Exactly wrong. I've been defending Assange, Manning, and Snowden for years on these boards for their heroic actions uncovering agency surveillance abuse, much of the time to crickets here, or "Oh-they-didn't-go-through-the-right-channels"-ism. And it's not me who's been defending the biggest most powerful, most coercive arm of the government--the US military.

That's the problem with some conservatives: they get all excited about some stupid masks and the size of Slurppee sodas, or if the populace gets medical care and housing, but are silent when the real abuses occur. It's just a totally incoherent politics unless you finally realize that it has nothing to do with actual fear of government but everything to do with preserving and increasing elite wealth and power.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 14, 2020 01:54PM)
[quote]Since we're only focusing on the CIA we can point to things like the assassination plots and even large scale actions like MK Ultra. You know why I believe these bad things happened? Because there is sufficient evidence of their existence to warrant belief.[/quote]

Steven, I usually find your posts understandable even if I don't agree; but I confess I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Could you re-phrase that?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 14, 2020 05:00PM)
He is saying he believes whatever the government tells him enen when they tell him opposte things.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 15, 2020 06:10AM)
Jack, I only meant that in terms of abuses and overreaches, I would only cite CIA examples, as opposed to NSA, NGA, NRO, etc. as the CIA is the agency most familiar to people interested in this kind of thing.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 15, 2020 07:30AM)
Got you. Thanks.

I've often thought that the most important thing to come out of the whole Watergate escapade was catching Nixon's guys on tape talking about "the modified limited hangout."

"PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the — let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that —
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out."

So my basic premise is that what one knows about any of these agencies--if you've heard of them at all, as you point out--is a modified limited hangout when they're caught. The reality is almost always worse.

So James Clapper can lie through his teeth to Congress (evidently that now gets you a spot on cable tv as a national security analyst rather than five years in prison for perjury) and lie about everything else. Remember "it's just the metadata." Uh, no, it's not just the metadata. And even then, most people had no idea about what could be inferred from "just the metadata" when collected in bulk, and connected in bulk.

Anyway, my Conspiracy Theory theory (!) is that the rise in conspiracy theories, [i]irrational as some of them may be[/i], is not in itself an irrational response. It's a direct result of the public's awareness that they are being lied to every single day by the most powerful in society about very important matters. The secret intelligence agencies have eroded trust in any sense of democracy and a truly informed public.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 15, 2020 10:19AM)
[quote]On Sep 13, 2020, tommy wrote:
Anybody who does not consider Oswald innocent, including you and the Warren Commission, is throwing out the presumption of innocence because he was never proven guilty. The Taliban offered to hand over Osama bin Laden if evidence was produced against him but US the government said we do not negotiate with terrorists and instead went to war. Do you or have you ever considered Osama bin Laden innocent? The us government sets its self up as judge and jury, makes a hit list and sends out hit men to murder people in cold blood and then the people run around shouting USA. USA and you have the temerity to ask who is throwing out the presumption of innocence? All you have with these commissions and reports are theories and not very good ones neither. [/quote]

Nice trolling but absolutely wrong. The presumption of innocence is simply a GOVERNMENT requirement. NOT one the citizens must abide by. Oswald never got his day in court, because he simply was killed by another person. The presumption still existed, it was not thrown out.

The investigation was to see if further people needed to be rounded up and tried.

Bin Laden was NOT a case for US courts. It was a war crimes dealio which has much different rules of engagement now doesn't it? So you are comparing apples and hand grenades. But you know this already.

Again nice try, but swing and a miss.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 15, 2020 10:21AM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2020, landmark wrote:
Got you. Thanks.

I've often thought that the most important thing to come out of the whole Watergate escapade was catching Nixon's guys on tape talking about "the modified limited hangout."

"PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the — let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that —
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out."

So my basic premise is that what one knows about any of these agencies--if you've heard of them at all, as you point out--is a modified limited hangout when they're caught. The reality is almost always worse.

So James Clapper can lie through his teeth to Congress (evidently that now gets you a spot on cable tv as a national security analyst rather than five years in prison for perjury) and lie about everything else. Remember "it's just the metadata." Uh, no, it's not just the metadata. And even then, most people had no idea about what could be inferred from "just the metadata" when collected in bulk, and connected in bulk.

Anyway, my Conspiracy Theory theory (!) is that the rise in conspiracy theories, [i]irrational as some of them may be[/i], is not in itself an irrational response. It's a direct result of the public's awareness that they are being lied to every single day by the most powerful in society about very important matters. The secret intelligence agencies have eroded trust in any sense of democracy and a truly informed public. [/quote]

Not quite as true as you think but certainly part of the theory.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 15, 2020 10:41AM)
[quote]On Sep 15, 2020, landmark wrote:

...Anyway, my Conspiracy Theory theory (!) is that the rise in conspiracy theories, [i]irrational as some of them may be[/i], is not in itself an irrational response. It's a direct result of the public's awareness that they are being lied to every single day by the most powerful in society about very important matters. The secret intelligence agencies have eroded trust in any sense of democracy and a truly informed public. [/quote]

Where we disagree: As any good skeptic will tell you, it is always an irrational response to believe something absent sufficient evidence, regardless of past events.

Where we agree: Americans have had a mistrust of government as far as back as our founding. This mistrust has grown, however, with each governmental abuse of power that comes to light. So, I certainly agree with you as to why it happens, but I don't agree that it's a rational response.

People that believe these things aren't stupid or more gullible than everyone else, they just lack a broader understanding of how things actually work (particularly inside the intelligence community). Because of the required secretive nature of intelligence work, it automatically inspires fear because we fear the unknown. It's a self-preservation instinct to mistrust what we don't understand.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 15, 2020 11:01AM)
The Cold War was essentially two grand criminal conspiracies; the Capitalist and the Communist criminal conspiracies. With each set of conspirators conspiring to overthrow the other’s empire and with one grand criminal conspiracy coordinated by the CIA and the other by the KGB. Out of these two grand criminal conspiracies, many lesser related criminal conspiracies arose.

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/232413
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Sep 15, 2020 07:51PM)
[img]https://i.imgflip.com/4f3yxx.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 15, 2020 09:52PM)
[youtube]n0uni6j9NXg[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 15, 2020 10:20PM)
Thanks for that. That film, made the year after the Cuban missile crisis and the failed CIA attempts to murder Castro and overturn the revolution at the Bay of Pigs, confirms that the FBI, too, couldn't stand that JFK had successfully averted a nuclear war with the Russians over Cuba, and was determined to discount his genius in negotiating his way out of a terrible situation.

Of course what the film doesn't mention is the trade off with the Russians that averted catastrophe. The US had missiles stationed in Turkey aimed at the USSR, every bit as threatening to the USSR as the Russian missiles aimed at Florida were, and Kennedy and Khrushchev came to a secret agreement for both of them to withdraw their missiles.

An instructive example of how the US intelligence agencies have their own unaccountable agendas, apart from the leaders that the American people had elected.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 17, 2020 11:24AM)
I saw a little mention (9/10/20) of "qualified immunity". Interesting topic. So much so that it deserves two lines of distraction. Nothing to see - move along.

* There's a story about Hoover meeting RFK and some stress over prestige/tradition.
* Personal interests <> political interests <> economic interests <> institutional interests <> national interests
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 17, 2020 06:26PM)
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Philbrick

Okay, he said "godless". He must have been confused about unions, collective bargaining, and American diversity.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Sep 17, 2020 10:59PM)
[youtube]C-CG5w4YwOI[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2020 05:00AM)
[quote]On Sep 17, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Philbrick

Okay, he said "godless". He must have been confused about unions, collective bargaining, and American diversity. [/quote]

No American operation against the Soviet Union would be complete without its propaganda side: bringing the gospel to the heathen.


The JFK assassination and the gospel of Saint Warren.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2020 06:44AM)
"We must always remember Bertrand Russell’s profound unanswered question after he had received an advanced copy of the Warren Report."

https://jenniferlake.wordpress.com/tag/john-j-mccloy/

Russell's article was published two weeks to the day before the Report was presented to President Johnson. Much of it had been leaked and so everybody in effect had an advance copy of it.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2020 08:36AM)
Perhaps this would be a good time to put forth another Conspiracy Theory theory: one technique that the major intelligence services from all countries use to throw people off the track is to disseminate "conspiracy" theories that are so outrageously false or convoluted that they distract and discredit actual attempts to find the truth.

I believe that something like this has happened with 9-11 conspiracy theories. By promulgating easily disprovable theories, it distracted attention from actual politically embarrassing facts (e.g. the facts that the Bush Administration knew an attack was coming but incompetently ignored them; and the fact that the Bush family had many business ties with the Bin Laden family were highly embarrassing facts. Promulgating a theory that 9-11 was an "inside job" with thousands involved is easily dismissed by the lack of evidence; but with that dismissal is the flushing down the drain of the previously mentioned facts. We see this for example with UFO theories--most likely they're encouraged to distract away from various other secret military operations.

And one last point in a somewhat different direction.
The credibility of a theory often rests on the prior knowledge of the listener.
I will call this "The Memdeck Theory of Credibility."

Outline: When a layperson experiences a card trick that could only have been done through the application of a memorized deck, the spec is stumped. Because even if s/he figures out that the trick could have been done had the magician memorized every card in the deck, *they know that no one in their right mind would go to the obvious trouble of memorizing the order of a deck of cards*

But we know better, don't we?

So a literally incredible effect, becomes quite simply explained when one has that prior knowledge of the existence of memdeck practitioners.

Okay, here's the wrap-up: many "Conspiracy" theories seem incredible because the layperson's assumption is that no government would knowingly kill its own innocent people. But if you have prior knowledge that that has in fact occurred, then the incredible becomes a lot more credible.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2020 10:18AM)
Newsflash. No need to make up stupid conspiracies. People provide them all on their own.

To provide more cover would not be needed and would expose the agencies needlessly.

Indeed it is a conspiracy theory and in most cases simply is not needed.

Also you're just a bit disingenuous with the Bush administration knowing an attack was coming. Were they given an exact time and place for an attack and ignored it? It is a big country with lots of targets. Let's not pretend that they knew when and where and let it happen. It is not intellectually honest.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 18, 2020 11:27AM)
I didn't say they knew the exact time and place. They were told it was a high priority risk by the outgoing administration and they chose to play it down, despite further confirmations of the risk. They miscalculated the warnings' importance.

I'm not saying it was a nefarious plot, but it *was* a tremendous political mistake. And the entanglement with the Bush inner circle's businesses, especially the Carlyle Group, and the business interests of the Bin Ladens was another enormous embarrassment. They had no idea that that relationship was literally going to blow up in their faces.

As for people providing stupid theories all on their own--agreed, they certainly do. But I think we also both know that there is a huge presence of intelligence operatives from every major country online everyday, attempting to shape and influence social discourse one way and another. Rumor-mongering is stock in trade for such agencies.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 18, 2020 11:52AM)
The media does that online crap more to push their worldview.

And again you're blinded by hate of the Bush administration and a capitalist society so you want those things to be true.

What could have been done to prevent it given the information they had?

Now the RESPONSE was botched beyond belief! There is more meat on that bone than prior if you ask me.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 18, 2020 12:25PM)
Gentlemen don't read each others mail.
Poppies, red poppies, pinned on to remember.
Remember to forget China in 1900 and who makes the chips which route the mail.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 18, 2020 01:38PM)
Getting Italians in the USA to write letters to their relatives in Italy begging them not to vote for the communists proved very effective, among other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3zbDptbZIk
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 18, 2020 05:57PM)
[quote]On Sep 18, 2020, tommy did not write:
... its propaganda side: bringing the [good] to the [wanting]. [/quote]
Some people are taught that the benefits of their [belief] are [i]only[/i] available through the physical/personal [institution]. Could that be a necessary condition for asset/market bubbles and a language which presumes expansion as baseline and measures good in terms of expansion rate? hmmmm? ;)

Perhaps we are fortunate that no two of the the larger established brands of wealth management, faith, and science have successfully turned on the third.

* [not for Danny] does Conservative imply entitlement? [/not for Danny]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2020 07:02AM)
The cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 20, 2020 07:09AM)
Further Conspiracy Theory theory:

Elaborate Cover ups are no longer needed because of the high noise to signal ratio in the culture.

And...

because the naked display of (power, cruelty, injustice) is the point.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2020 07:11AM)
I have heard that the Magic Castle was a place where plots were hatched and cover-ups organized.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 20, 2020 10:59AM)
... and kept in secret notebooks that are copied by hand...
So far not so many stories about the hotel across the street.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2020 11:00AM)
"From the day in 1942 when GEHLEN first articulated to WESSEL his conviction that Germany's defeat in World War II would be followed by the emergence of two great power blocs headed by Russia and America, he has been an unwavering advocate of an Atlantic Community. To achieve this, he foresaw an absolute necessity for a Bonn-Washington alliance enjoying undisputed priority in the new German foreign policy. A German-French rapprochement as the basis for uniting Europe was granted undisputed second priority. Bringing the British into the European family was always regarded as an essential though difficult third step. Underlying. this formulation of the. new world in which Germany would arise from defeat was the oft-voiced conviction that "the National State" and "European Nationalism" would not be important in a world dominated by the immense power of Russia and the U.S."

Part of the the declassified Gehlen file.

So Gehlen not only came up with the idea for a CIA and NATO but also the EU.

Yet the Bilderberg got the credit for that.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 20, 2020 02:48PM)
[quote]On Sep 20, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:

So far not so many stories about the hotel across the street. [/quote]

If you insist:

https://jackshalom.net/2015/03/21/knights-of-the-magic-castle/

Steve Spill talks about Francis Carlyle at the Nirvana Hotel.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 20, 2020 10:00PM)
John Mulholland was an American magician, author, publisher and ... During the Cold War, Mulholland was paid by the CIA to write a manual on deception and misdirection, they say.

He was not German was he?
Message: Posted by: Roberto Juan (Sep 24, 2020 02:13AM)
[quote]On May 11, 2020, landmark wrote:

All too often the term is used to squash further discussion of certain issues... [/quote]

Amen. The implication is that people who believe in conspiracy theories are gullible and ignorant.

No discussion needed.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2020 12:01PM)
In most cases it is born out to be true.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2020 12:23AM)
The truth will out as they say. They normally let it out after a 101 years when nobody cares.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 25, 2020 06:20PM)
[quote]On Sep 20, 2020, tommy wrote:
...two great power blocs headed by Russia and America, he has been an unwavering advocate of ... [/quote]Realpolitik. Currently phrased as welcoming the new overlords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lcUHQYhPTE

Facts and relevant truths are not so satisfying as social confirmation or vindication.

Directly from The teapot
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 25, 2020 06:37PM)
Where did you get that enigma machine from?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 25, 2020 07:00PM)
Discussing confidence games - okay or no? For example, why "the hype" is demonstrated in three card monte.

There was a comment long ago about Kennedy getting elected; that his father did not want to buy any extra votes.

Conspiracy theory as acceptable substitute for direct discussion?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 26, 2020 12:33AM)
@tommy, rumor has it that he was more of a talker than a listener or manipulator.

Perhaps folks recall the song that ends "And I'm learning Chinese says Werner Von Brown"
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 26, 2020 03:32AM)
Misdirected discussion more like.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 26, 2020 07:49AM)
[quote]On Sep 26, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
@tommy, rumor has it that he was more of a talker than a listener or manipulator.

Perhaps folks recall the song that ends "And I'm learning Chinese says Werner Von Brown" [/quote]

"Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department
Says Werner Von Braun"
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 26, 2020 04:00PM)
Misdirection works. :) From topic to brand messages.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 26, 2020 05:26PM)
There's a criticism about information coming from personal observation versus a network of sources.

Here's something a little more current: https://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/77879263#p77890293
A whine about WINE or a legit concern that the product is likely vulnerable to buyout (or worse)?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 27, 2020 07:27AM)
Where is Alan Turing when we need him?

As we know, conspiracy theory as a phenomenon is defined as a populist tool for relocation of power among different political actors, which creates identities and boosts social cohesion and this interpretation of conspiracy theories helps us investigate how the media constructed the image of Pussy Riot. And we also know that General Gehlen, who lived in Martin Bormann’s old house after the war, asserted Bormann, who was one of Hitler's closest aides, had been a Soviet agent and escaped to the Russians when Berlin fell in 1945 and more recently, the Fourth Reich has risen in the Ukraine according to Angela Merkel.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 27, 2020 11:22PM)
That was a CIA criticism of Gehlen.
@tommy, your sources? Guesses below:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/pussy-riot-as-agent-provocateur-conspiracy-theories-and-the-media-construction-of-nation-in-putins-russia/707A30AA420079EA5E68211F43C20545
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/15/the-fourth-reich-is-here---without-a-shot-being-fired/

Why this fascination with debatable trivia or Germany around WWII? Does Pepsi dissolve teeth faster than Coke?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 28, 2020 08:35AM)
The Museum of Hoaxes:

http://hoaxes.org/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2020 10:50AM)
We all live in the New World Order created by German Intelgence Service after World War II and so it is current and relative to what is and has has been going on. It is superficial to look at what is going on today whithout looking back to see where it came from and the big picture. Not all but most Government plotss since World War II are related to what we call the Cold War. Whaat does Pepsi and Coke have to do with the price of fish?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2020 12:42PM)
Coke vs Pepsi is an example of fuss over a false dichotomy.
[quote]On Sep 20, 2020, tommy wrote:
"From the day in 1942 when GEHLEN first articulated to WESSEL his conviction that Germany's defeat in World War II would be .../quote]The last days of 1941 were interesting with the tide starting to turn. What did he have in mind that was novel? How much of that stuck while the war shifted into efforts in the Pacific?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2020 01:17PM)
Actually it was the CIA that wrote that not me.

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/GEHLEN%2C%20REINHARD%20%20%20VOL.%204_0013.pdf

How is it a false dichotomy exactly?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2020 03:00PM)
Ah, paragraph 11 - thanks. 22 makes a different point. We can look back and see the European Union was not part of his thinking. More recent opinion: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol16no3/html/v16i3a06p_0001.htm

I'm still missing what G presented that was novel. Was his information relevant after the war shifted focus into the Pacific?

I was equating buying into conspiracy stories [i]without source data[/i] to soda brand comparisons based solely upon advertising. A couple of generations ago it was Flash Gordon vs Tarzan. Last generation it was Superman vs Batman. Essentially, it sold comic books. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 28, 2020 04:54PM)
G may not have come up with the idea but he may have been privy to the plan that Tweedledum and Tweedledee came up with before they agreed to have a battle. We know that Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt were carving up the world long before the war ended and as a spymaster G might have got wind of it. In any event G was secretly flown to Washington a couple of weeks after Japan had surrendered, where he laid out his ideas which were accepted by Governments. Gs basic idea was that we in West must all work together to save western civilisation from communism. To this end we needed a CIA to coordinate the various intelligence services and so on. Leaders that came along afterwards who did go along with the G agenda were considered enemies.


JFK may have been one those enemies. The Soviets, according to the FBI, had infiltrated everybody in the USA; the government, the military, the intelligence, business, etcetera. With all these infiltrators then, the Soviets would have known if or not there had been a big conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Do you remember what the Soviets said on their state-controlled radio the day after the JFK assignation? I will tell what they said as I recall it; President Kennedy’s assassination they said was not the work of some lone radical but was the result of a large plot of racist fascists, opposed to President Kennedy’s policy of improving relations with the Soviet Union and carried out by a team of professionals and bells rang out all over the Soviet Union in honour of JFK. Moreover, the CIA had agents in Moscow reporting back that is just what the Russian government thought and so it was not just propaganda. This radio broadcast was reported on our news channels but I am sure about yours.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2020 06:49PM)
Thank you for recalling the events.

Late 1963 was a couple of years before "current events" gelled into personal narrative - reliably distinguishing events as recorded from those described or depicted.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 29, 2020 01:10PM)
While Russia waits for things to thaw... and before news spreads about methane and ancient microorganisms spreading.

Here's some evidence... but of what?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-09-24/harvard-economist-raj-chetty-creates-god-s-eye-view-of-pandemic-damage
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 29, 2020 04:35PM)
I knew that name Raj Chetty was familiar but I couldn't remember why. Then I remembered when I got to 3/4 or so of the way down. I knew his name because he had authored a study about teacher effects that was quite controversial. While some in the education field challenged the quality of his data, I thought what was much more troubling was the solution he had come to--based on no data at all. After concluding that skilled teachers improved the overall earnings of his or her students, "Chetty has suggested school districts hold on to skilled teachers by tying pay or bonuses to performance."

Well there's the pitfall of following these data gurus. The data [i]may[/i] be neutral (though it often is not) but the conclusions are often ideologically driven. Chetty was essentially re-hashing a false educational solution that has failed everywhere it has been tried--individual "merit pay." There's a lot of research on this--see Diane Ravitch--that "merit" pay does little to improve teacher quality. Why that's so is a whole other thread.
But the larger point is the number cruncher diagnosticians aren't always the best healers.

That is apparent too in his view of what's going on with COVID; he has lots of data that seems clear that the virus impacts lower income people much more than higher income people. And yet he comes to this conclusion: "“It’s not going to be a sustained recovery. There’s just no way,” he says. “We’re going to be stuck trying to go along and accept a fair number of Covid infections and deaths and muddle our way through until finally there’s a vaccine.”

Uh. No. That's not the only solution. That may be the only solution within the economic and political framework Chetty may function within (one evidently funded by Zuckerberg and Gates) but accepting tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths is not the only solution.

I'm not quite sure what any of this has to do with Conspiracy Theories, except to say that even massive amounts of data are often not the lever that change people's beliefs.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 29, 2020 04:42PM)
I don’t think he says anything there that we did not already know and what it has to do with conspiracy theories I don’t know.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 29, 2020 06:37PM)
Fish bite at worms. Cats chase mice. People follow relevant story.

I was going for an [b]easy[/b] example of conspiracy story on current events. Notice the call-to-action, claims of value based upon exclusivity ... and it looks like (in the genre of market tales) justification for selling puts.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 29, 2020 06:47PM)
Thank you for the clear explanation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2020 08:13AM)
If you are looking current affairs, my son influenced the USA election last night; he tweeted a comment that the president stole shortly afterwards, so they say.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 30, 2020 01:08PM)
What have we come to when "a little (blue) bird told me" is understood as word from the highest office?

Back to cabals, and conspiracy theories - from [url=https://onezero.medium.com/how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism-8135e6744d59]elsewhere[/url]: [quote]...it’s increasingly apparent that many of our official, evidence-based truth-seeking processes are, in fact, auctions for sale to the highest bidder.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2020 01:50PM)
Earth is getting flatter and flatter every day; as Earth spins it is pulled wider and wider at the equator and the North and South poles get closer and closer to one another. Before you know it, North and South will become a dilemma.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 30, 2020 06:22PM)
Thank you :) for the examples.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 30, 2020 07:13PM)
While geophysicists are baffled as to why, I am baffled as to why not.

Christopher Cox, a geophysicist contracted by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, says It was a complete surprise that the bulge at the Earth’s equator is now getting bigger. “It has taken a few years for us to convince ourselves that what we’re seeing is real.”

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2628-earth-getting-fatter-around-the-middle/#ixzz6ZZfNuvDe


Now who is rational and who is not?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 30, 2020 09:43PM)
[quote]On Sep 30, 2020, tommy wrote:
While geophysicists are baffled as to why, I am baffled as to why not.[/quote]How so?

Wonderful to see available data leading to surprising questions :).

If something is spinning around an axis you'd expect some force due to the acceleration away from that axis. Where we are does not seem to have such a large radius, low mass density, or high angular velocity.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 1, 2020 04:06AM)
Data has not necessarily been brought down from the mountain caved in stone; data can be true or false or an illusion which is a combination of both.

Ask not what data can do for you ask what you can do for data. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 1, 2020 02:21PM)
Palantir Police State Wizardry Goes Public and JTs old, old news psyop tactic, exposed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAHbjMXcz40
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 1, 2020 06:23PM)
"Its always good financial advice to invest in a CIA backed company~"

Most of them time, but sometimes they have to be disappeared.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 1, 2020 09:38PM)
Guess/test: AOC sour gripes announce PLTR going public. ?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 2, 2020 06:20AM)
Palantir has two segments: government, specifically U.S. and non-U.S. government agencies, and commercial customers. But Palantir won’t do business with just anyone. “We generally do not enter into business with customers or governments whose positions or actions we consider inconsistent with our mission to support Western liberal democracy and its strategic allies,” the company said in Tuesday’s filing. For example, Palantir said it does not work with the Chinese Communist Party and does not host its service in China.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/25/palantir-files-s-1-before-going-public.html

Pretty Gehlenesque of them.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 2, 2020 09:48AM)
They will. Just wait. Through the commercial side. "We generally..." not "We don't..."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 2, 2020 12:28PM)
Lest we forget punch-card technology.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-protesters-gathered-outside-peter-thiels-mansion-this-weekend
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 2, 2020 08:12PM)
Five Real Conspiracies You Need to Know About:

https://patternsofmeaning.com/2020/10/01/the-five-real-conspiracies-you-need-to-know-about/
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 3, 2020 06:05AM)
[quote]On Oct 2, 2020, landmark wrote:
Five Real Conspiracies You Need to Know About:

https://patternsofmeaning.com/2020/10/01/the-five-real-conspiracies-you-need-to-know-about/ [/quote]

This is again really stretching the use of the word conspiracy. The second one, "Conspiracy by transnational corporations to turn billions of people into addicts" sounds ominous, but only mentions two things:
[list]
[*] How cereal manufacturers get kids "addicted" to sugar. All food manufacturing is predicated on the idea that you sell your product. Is the fact that kids like sugar and manufacturers want to take advantage of that a conspiracy? How about McDonalds? They work to make sure there is the right balance of sugar and salt in their food so that you'll buy more than you actually need (or want). Are they also involved in the great food conspiracy, along with every other fast food restaurant and snack food manufacturer? Or is each company trying its best to get its product better positioned?
[*] How social media companies get us to spend more time on their platforms by using like and "thumbs up" buttons, and therefore get us "addicted". The upshot seems to be that anytime psychological principles are used to better position a product or service, it immediately becomes classified as a conspiracy, particularly if other companies copy a successful model. ALL sales use some form of psychological approach to make it more likely you'll buy their product or service. Read Robert Cialdini's book on influence for a detailed look at what these approaches are. Does this make every product being sold in America part of the great conspiracy because they are, at least in part, appealing to our psychological weaknesses?
[/list]

The title "Conspiracy by transnational corporations to turn billions of people into addicts" is not only sensationalized, it is misleading. This entire topic seems to be more an indictment of the free market. So what's the fix? Massive crackdowns by the government? If so, then you'd have even more people talking about the "Conspiracy by transnational governments to turn billions of people into [insert favorite descriptor]".

If you want to talk about issues related to truth in advertising, or what is a reasonable approach to regulate advertising, then OK, we can have that discussion. But to assert that every successful sales model (whether under-regulated or not) is a conspiracy is just fallacious. Each of the others are just as fallacious for different reasons.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 3, 2020 07:42AM)
One of the most important aspects of the kinds of conspiracies we're discussing is the hidden nature of the motives of the conspirators; moreover, their camouflaged nature: they appear to be what they are not.

The "free" market is not free, and yet tons of blather are written to hide that fact.

The "like" button is not simply a way to express your opinion, but a dedicated way to track your movements and actions across the internet in ways that you never suspected or signed up for. Even if you are not on Facebook, you are now tracked by every site that contains a like button. Whether you thought you consented to that or not.

The issue of added sugar is not a "sales" issue but a poison issue and lying about it. See sugar and other additives added to cigarettes to make them deliberately more addictive--do you know what additives are added to cigarettes? Here are 599 of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

"Tobacco companies were forced to publicly release scientific studies and internal documents in 1998. They have also been forced to publicly admit their strategies. In November 2017, tobacco companies began a court-ordered advertisement campaign admitting the variety of ways they manipulated the public, including that they designed cigarettes to be more addictive and lied about it."

https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/harmful-effects-tobacco/how-big-tobacco-made-cigarettes-more-addictive

As for solutions I have no idea where you get the idea that the author is claiming "massive crackdowns." Talk about sensationalism. He quite clearly says in the final paragraph:

"The good news is that, since they’re real conspiracies, there is something we can do about them. We can vote in politicians that promise to peel back the neoliberal nightmare; advocate for curbs on predatory corporate activities; support the Global South in changing the terms of international trade; declare a Climate Emergency in our community to turn around carbon emissions; and become active in the movement to transform our global society to an Ecological Civilization—one that is based on life-affirming principles rather than accumulating wealth."
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 3, 2020 09:19AM)
[quote]
The "free" market is not free, and yet tons of blather are written to hide that fact.
[/quote]

This is a platitude that does nothing to further your point. A legitimate criticism of capitalism is that it has proven to be susceptible to price fixing monopolies, which antitrust law works to mitigate, although I will grant it is imperfect. Therefore, government at times has to intervene to ensure competition, particularly in large and important industries. I have no idea how this maps to global conspiracies. Perhaps you can clarify the linkage here.

[quote]
The "like" button is not simply a way to express your opinion, but a dedicated way to track your movements and actions across the internet in ways that you never suspected or signed up for. Even if you are not on Facebook, you are now tracked by every site that contains a like button. Whether you thought you consented to that or not.
[/quote]

Yes. This is a real issue related to data privacy, not conspiracies. The fact that other companies are using the FB model does not mean a conspiracy exists. It simply means that they are all invading our privacy to improve their individual bottom lines. Do we need protection from these companies? Perhaps. Is it a global conspiracy? The evidence doesn't support the assertion, but I'm open to changing my mind given new evidence. (And yes, of course, I'm aware companies share this data with each other. This, too, does not make it a conspiracy, because information is simply treated as any other goods or services commodity. Meaning that the issue really maps to data privacy, which has nothing to do with conspiracies.)

[quote]
The issue of added sugar is not a "sales" issue but a poison issue and lying about it. See sugar and other additives added to cigarettes to make them deliberately more addictive--do you know what additives are added to cigarettes? Here are 599 of them:
[/quote]

Of course companies that lie about their additives should be held accountable. The bigger problem here is that all 599 of these chemicals are FDA approved as food additives. But the article you cited was specifically talking about sugar, which is also a legal substance under the law. The fact that companies use this legal chemical does not mean a conspiracy exists. It simply means more than one company wants to make money off of the addictive qualities of sugar. Should we ban sugar? Should we then ban foods with too much fat? Where does it end? These are questions for another time, but my main point is there is no demonstration of a conspiracy. This is term intentionally injected into seemingly any discussion to artificially increase the fear quotient.

[quote]
As for solutions I have no idea where you get the idea that the author is claiming "massive crackdowns." Talk about sensationalism. He quite clearly says in the final paragraph:

"The good news is that, since they’re real conspiracies, there is something we can do about them. We can vote in politicians that promise to peel back the neoliberal nightmare; advocate for curbs on predatory corporate activities; support the Global South in changing the terms of international trade; declare a Climate Emergency in our community to turn around carbon emissions; and become active in the movement to transform our global society to an Ecological Civilization—one that is based on life-affirming principles rather than accumulating wealth."
[/quote]

I didn't claim the author was saying that. It was a rhetorical question about how to go about fixing the problem. It is humorous to note that all of the author's fixes relate to policies designed to mitigate what he sees as existing flaws. That is a good thing. If it was truly a conspiracy, wouldn't something be mentioned about catching the conspirators? He mentions nothing about that. Why? Because the things he cites aren't conspiracies. It is just a word he uses to psychologically manipulate his readers. Does that make him a conspirator?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 3, 2020 10:01AM)
[img]https://i.imgflip.com/4f3yxx.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 5, 2020 01:19AM)
I thought the video was pretty flawed. What he calls a "commonly regarded explanation" isn't always "commonly regarded". He used Jeffrey Epstein as an example of a source of "conspiracy theories". This is a perfect example of why people would try to solve a mystery where what he calls the "commonly accepted explanation" is SO WEAK that reasonable people would say "I don't buy it". From the 1990s to this day, the FBI has covered up evidence in this powerful pedophilia ring. The FBI seized all of the Epstein evidence OVER ONE YEAR AGO and they have not made a single arrest of any of the powerful individuals alleged by multiple victims to be perpetrators in pedophilia crimes. Bill Clinton lied about how many times he was on the Lolita Express. He lied about whether he was on Pedophile Island. He has lied about his proclivities for being a sexual predator in the past. His history is that when he lies about evidence that might involve him, it is because he is REALLY INVOLVED. However, instead of there being an honest pursuit of justice, people are told things like: "We asked Bill and he said he knows nothing about it", so nothing to see here. Or, how about: "We have asked Prince Andrew if he wouldn't mind cooperating, and so far he hasn't. Oh well, maybe one day he will change his mind". If you can't see that obviously Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were involved in a pedophilia ring, then you need your head examined! what about Leslie Wexner's involvement in this pedophilia ring? Are we going to continue pretending that he wasn't a key player in this? There hasn't been a single word on his highly suspect actions in this case because he is a powerful CEO... Well, former CEO now.

Don't blame people who are trying to figure out what really happened. Instead of calling them "crazy conspiracy theories", why don't you just call them "theories to be investigated", given many of these issues have not been investigated properly. BTW, in the case of Epstein, obviously someone other than the FBI needs to be doing the investigating, and someone needs to investigate the FBI to find out why they covered up evidence regarding this ring that could have saved hundreds of victims

Who is being naive now?

KJ
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 5, 2020 06:54AM)
How do we define a non-conspiracy theorist?

What is the difference between a non-conspiracy theorist and a Soviet citizen, who toes the part line, never questions his government, parrots’ whatever officials tell him and who, when being murdered by Stalin’s men, naively shouts, long live Stalin?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 5, 2020 09:15AM)
[quote]On Oct 5, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
I thought the video was pretty flawed. What he calls a "commonly regarded explanation" isn't always "commonly regarded". He used Jeffrey Epstein as an example of a source of "conspiracy theories". This is a perfect example of why people would try to solve a mystery where what he calls the "commonly accepted explanation" is SO WEAK that reasonable people would say "I don't buy it". From the 1990s to this day, the FBI has covered up evidence in this powerful pedophilia ring. The FBI seized all of the Epstein evidence OVER ONE YEAR AGO and they have not made a single arrest of any of the powerful individuals alleged by multiple victims to be perpetrators in pedophilia crimes. Bill Clinton lied about how many times he was on the Lolita Express. He lied about whether he was on Pedophile Island. He has lied about his proclivities for being a sexual predator in the past. His history is that when he lies about evidence that might involve him, it is because he is REALLY INVOLVED. However, instead of there being an honest pursuit of justice, people are told things like: "We asked Bill and he said he knows nothing about it", so nothing to see here. Or, how about: "We have asked Prince Andrew if he wouldn't mind cooperating, and so far he hasn't. Oh well, maybe one day he will change his mind". If you can't see that obviously Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were involved in a pedophilia ring, then you need your head examined! what about Leslie Wexner's involvement in this pedophilia ring? Are we going to continue pretending that he wasn't a key player in this? There hasn't been a single word on his highly suspect actions in this case because he is a powerful CEO... Well, former CEO now.

Don't blame people who are trying to figure out what really happened. Instead of calling them "crazy conspiracy theories", why don't you just call them "theories to be investigated", given many of these issues have not been investigated properly. BTW, in the case of Epstein, obviously someone other than the FBI needs to be doing the investigating, and someone needs to investigate the FBI to find out why they covered up evidence regarding this ring that could have saved hundreds of victims

Who is being naive now?

KJ [/quote]

Here is the pricked encapsulated very well. When this with no experience in investigating start to believe they do and then just keep at it.

Any investigative body with their salt never discusses active elements of an ongoing investigation. Period.

The presumption of innocence is petty important. Being on that island alone is no crime. Being on it many times is no crime. You can not just assert without proof these guys were involved in a crime. At least not get a conviction in America that way.

I am no fan of president Clinton. I have my beliefs about what he was and want involved with. This is no substitute for the rule of law and proof being required to do something about it. Not just "knowing".

And you claim many issues have not been investigated "properly ". Please let us know your experience in FBI investigating techniques. Because you seem to be upset with maligned people who believe conspiracy theories, but don't mind ripping the FBI and calling them at the least incompetent and at worst complicit.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 5, 2020 12:36PM)
FBI conspiracies are hard to prove because they seize all the evidence, like they did in Dallas and flush embarring things down the toilet.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 5, 2020 02:12PM)
[quote]On Oct 5, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
I thought the video was pretty flawed. What he calls a "commonly regarded explanation" isn't always "commonly regarded". He used Jeffrey Epstein as an example of a source of "conspiracy theories". This is a perfect example of why people would try to solve a mystery where what he calls the "commonly accepted explanation" is SO WEAK that reasonable people would say "I don't buy it". From the 1990s to this day, the FBI has covered up evidence in this powerful pedophilia ring. The FBI seized all of the Epstein evidence OVER ONE YEAR AGO and they have not made a single arrest of any of the powerful individuals alleged by multiple victims to be perpetrators in pedophilia crimes. Bill Clinton lied about how many times he was on the Lolita Express. He lied about whether he was on Pedophile Island. He has lied about his proclivities for being a sexual predator in the past. His history is that when he lies about evidence that might involve him, it is because he is REALLY INVOLVED. However, instead of there being an honest pursuit of justice, people are told things like: "We asked Bill and he said he knows nothing about it", so nothing to see here. Or, how about: "We have asked Prince Andrew if he wouldn't mind cooperating, and so far he hasn't. Oh well, maybe one day he will change his mind". If you can't see that obviously Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were involved in a pedophilia ring, then you need your head examined! what about Leslie Wexner's involvement in this pedophilia ring? Are we going to continue pretending that he wasn't a key player in this? There hasn't been a single word on his highly suspect actions in this case because he is a powerful CEO... Well, former CEO now.

Don't blame people who are trying to figure out what really happened. Instead of calling them "crazy conspiracy theories", why don't you just call them "theories to be investigated", given many of these issues have not been investigated properly. BTW, in the case of Epstein, obviously someone other than the FBI needs to be doing the investigating, and someone needs to investigate the FBI to find out why they covered up evidence regarding this ring that could have saved hundreds of victims

Who is being naive now?

KJ [/quote]

Here is the pricked encapsulated very well. When this with no experience in investigating start to believe they do and then just keep at it.

Any investigative body with their salt never discusses active elements of an ongoing investigation. Period.

The presumption of innocence is petty important. Being on that island alone is no crime. Being on it many times is no crime. You can not just assert without proof these guys were involved in a crime. At least not get a conviction in America that way.

I am no fan of president Clinton. I have my beliefs about what he was and want involved with. This is no substitute for the rule of law and proof being required to do something about it. Not just "knowing".

And you claim many issues have not been investigated "properly ". Please let us know your experience in FBI investigating techniques. Because you seem to be upset with maligned people who believe conspiracy theories, but don't mind ripping the FBI and calling them at the least incompetent and at worst complicit. [/quote]

Problem, not pricked.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 18, 2020 10:55AM)
[quote]On Oct 5, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
I thought the video was pretty flawed. What he calls a "commonly regarded explanation" isn't always "commonly regarded". He used Jeffrey Epstein as an example of a source of "conspiracy theories". This is a perfect example of why people would try to solve a mystery where what he calls the "commonly accepted explanation" is SO WEAK that reasonable people would say "I don't buy it". From the 1990s to this day, the FBI has covered up evidence in this powerful pedophilia ring. The FBI seized all of the Epstein evidence OVER ONE YEAR AGO and they have not made a single arrest of any of the powerful individuals alleged by multiple victims to be perpetrators in pedophilia crimes. Bill Clinton lied about how many times he was on the Lolita Express. He lied about whether he was on Pedophile Island. He has lied about his proclivities for being a sexual predator in the past. His history is that when he lies about evidence that might involve him, it is because he is REALLY INVOLVED. However, instead of there being an honest pursuit of justice, people are told things like: "We asked Bill and he said he knows nothing about it", so nothing to see here. Or, how about: "We have asked Prince Andrew if he wouldn't mind cooperating, and so far he hasn't. Oh well, maybe one day he will change his mind". If you can't see that obviously Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were involved in a pedophilia ring, then you need your head examined! what about Leslie Wexner's involvement in this pedophilia ring? Are we going to continue pretending that he wasn't a key player in this? There hasn't been a single word on his highly suspect actions in this case because he is a powerful CEO... Well, former CEO now.

Don't blame people who are trying to figure out what really happened. Instead of calling them "crazy conspiracy theories", why don't you just call them "theories to be investigated", given many of these issues have not been investigated properly. BTW, in the case of Epstein, obviously someone other than the FBI needs to be doing the investigating, and someone needs to investigate the FBI to find out why they covered up evidence regarding this ring that could have saved hundreds of victims

Who is being naive now?

KJ [/quote]

You seem to be conflating suspicion with guilt. You provide a string of evidence free assertions and you fill in the blanks with what you believe happened. That is never a means at arriving at the truth. It’s just a fun pastime for people to engage in wild speculation.

And, as mentioned in the video, engaging in conspiracy theories is a way to meet our psychological need to have someone to blame, or some group to blame, for all the bad things that happen that we don’t understand.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 18, 2020 11:41AM)
If You Are Not A Conspiracy Theorist Then You are an Idiot

a) A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains some event or events as due in
part to a conspiracy, that is, to a secret plan to influence events by partly
secret means.

b) Every historically and politically literate person employs the strategy of
sometimes believing (and sometimes being prepared to believe) conspiracy
theories.

c) Every historically and politically literate person is a conspiracy theorist.

d) The only way not to be a conspiracy theorist is to be historically and
politically illiterate that is to be, in the Greek sense of the word, an idiot.

f) Therefore if you are not a conspiracy theorist then you are an idiot.

The lecture will be followed by a wine reception.


Charles Pigden, MA (1983)(Cambridge) PhD (1985)(La Trobe), is Director of Philosophy Politics and Economics (PHPE or PPE) at University of Otago. He has edited Russell on Ethics (1999) (winner of the Bertrand Russell Society Book Award for 2000), contributed the chapter on ethics to the Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell and written the entry on Russell’s Moral Philosophy for the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/events/25140
Message: Posted by: Francois Lagrange (Oct 18, 2020 11:44AM)
Conspiracy theory? A collective chewing gum of which everyone is healthier to stay away from.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 18, 2020 12:18PM)
The 9/11 Commission Report is a conspiracy theory. A collective chewing gum of which everyone is healthier to stay away from.

The only people not impaled on the horns of this dilemma are idiots in the Greek sense of the word.
Message: Posted by: Francois Lagrange (Oct 18, 2020 12:48PM)
Well, pal, enjoy being impaled and keep chewing. I hope your teeth won’t decay.

Redefining the meaning of “Conspiracy Theory” to ad hominem attack people, strikes me as dishonest.

Anyway, I might be an idiot (falsifiable statement), but in my work, I have enough scientific hypothesises to work on.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 18, 2020 01:31PM)
It is not an ad hominem attack: it is an, if the cap fits wear it attack.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 18, 2020 03:34PM)
In criminal law, a conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act. The 9/11 Commission theorised that at least 19 people agreed to commit the unlawful act that took place on 9/11. Therefore, then the 9/11 Commissions Report is a conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commission did not theorise that each of the 19 alleged hijackers was a lone nut. If anybody is dishonestly redefining what a conspiracy theory is, it is you, lone-nut theorists, to get off the horns of this dilemma. Anybody that thinks the 9/11 attacks were not the result of a conspiracy is an idiot and not only in the Greek sense.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2020 07:08PM)
Giving the game away there. More a play bow for inclusion than a rope of reason.
Gorgias for casual conversation. :)

Or so the teapot wants us to believe.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 18, 2020 07:21PM)
Since it was a criminal conspiracy, it is only right and proper to use the legal definition of conspiracy, as opposed to some idiotic, tautological, definition of conspiracy that was dreamt up by the CIA and adopted by the indoctrinated lone nuts.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 19, 2020 07:46AM)
Redefining the common usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in order to legitimize otherwise indefensible positions is intellectually dishonest.

SIDE NOTE: The CIA did not invent the term "conspiracy theory" in order to discredit those people critical of the Warren commission report. The term has been in use since 1870, and even during the 1960's the term "conspiracy theory" did NOT have the negative connotations we associate with it today. That didn't happen until the 1980's.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2020 09:29AM)
Redefining the common usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in order to legitimize otherwise indefensible positions is intellectually dishonest. That is true and so why do yo lone nuts do it?

SIDE NOTE: No one said the CIA invented the term "conspiracy theory" so your side note is a straw man.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 19, 2020 09:37AM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
Redefining the common usage of the term "conspiracy theory" in order to legitimize otherwise indefensible positions is intellectually dishonest.

SIDE NOTE: The CIA did not invent the term "conspiracy theory" in order to discredit those people critical of the Warren commission report. The term has been in use since 1870, and even during the 1960's the term "conspiracy theory" did NOT have the negative connotations we associate with it today. That didn't happen until the 1980's. [/quote]

You will never be able to use logic move someone from a position they didn't use logic to get into in the first place. This is what is the largest asset of the conspiracy theory.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2020 10:10AM)
Conspiracy (n.)
mid-14c., "a plotting of evil, unlawful design; a combination of persons for an evil purpose," from Anglo-French conspiracie, Old French conspiracie "conspiracy, plot," from Latin conspirationem (nominative conspiratio) "agreement, union, unanimity," noun of action from past-participle stem of conspirare "to agree, unite, plot," literally "to breathe together" (see conspire).
Earlier in same sense was conspiration (early 14c.), from French conspiration (13c.), from Latin conspirationem. An Old English word for it was facengecwis.

theory (n.)
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theōria "contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, spectacle, things looked at," from theōrein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theōros "spectator," from thea "a view" (see theater) + horan "to see," which is possibly from PIE root *wer- (3) "to perceive."

Earlier in this sense was theorical (n.), late 15c. Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art" (rather than its practice) is first recorded 1610s (as in music theory, which is the science of musical composition, apart from practice or performance). Sense of "an intelligible explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Thus, a “conspiracy theory” is somebodies “view” that a “plot” exists or existed to do an evil, unlawful act.
Note: however, that not all conspirators are of the view that their plot is evil and are often not unlawful at all and they are quite open about what they aspire to bring about. These are called open conspiracies.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2020 10:14AM)
Https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29969.The_Open_Conspiracy
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 19, 2020 10:25AM)
[quote]On Oct 18, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
[quote]On Oct 5, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
I thought the video was pretty flawed. What he calls a "commonly regarded explanation" isn't always "commonly regarded". He used Jeffrey Epstein as an example of a source of "conspiracy theories". This is a perfect example of why people would try to solve a mystery where what he calls the "commonly accepted explanation" is SO WEAK that reasonable people would say "I don't buy it". From the 1990s to this day, the FBI has covered up evidence in this powerful pedophilia ring. The FBI seized all of the Epstein evidence OVER ONE YEAR AGO and they have not made a single arrest of any of the powerful individuals alleged by multiple victims to be perpetrators in pedophilia crimes. Bill Clinton lied about how many times he was on the Lolita Express. He lied about whether he was on Pedophile Island. He has lied about his proclivities for being a sexual predator in the past. His history is that when he lies about evidence that might involve him, it is because he is REALLY INVOLVED. However, instead of there being an honest pursuit of justice, people are told things like: "We asked Bill and he said he knows nothing about it", so nothing to see here. Or, how about: "We have asked Prince Andrew if he wouldn't mind cooperating, and so far he hasn't. Oh well, maybe one day he will change his mind". If you can't see that obviously Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton were involved in a pedophilia ring, then you need your head examined! what about Leslie Wexner's involvement in this pedophilia ring? Are we going to continue pretending that he wasn't a key player in this? There hasn't been a single word on his highly suspect actions in this case because he is a powerful CEO... Well, former CEO now.

Don't blame people who are trying to figure out what really happened. Instead of calling them "crazy conspiracy theories", why don't you just call them "theories to be investigated", given many of these issues have not been investigated properly. BTW, in the case of Epstein, obviously someone other than the FBI needs to be doing the investigating, and someone needs to investigate the FBI to find out why they covered up evidence regarding this ring that could have saved hundreds of victims

Who is being naive now?

KJ [/quote]

You seem to be conflating suspicion with guilt. You provide a string of evidence free assertions and you fill in the blanks with what you believe happened. That is never a means at arriving at the truth. It’s just a fun pastime for people to engage in wild speculation.

And, as mentioned in the video, engaging in conspiracy theories is a way to meet our psychological need to have someone to blame, or some group to blame, for all the bad things that happen that we don’t understand. [/quote]

Sorry, I am not. Involvement and "guilt" are two different things. First, there is undisputed evidence that Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew had some involvement. I am not going to go into the litany of evidence, you can easily look it up. Guilty? Perhaps. Second, they both lied about their involvement. Evidence of involvement they are trying to conceal? Yes. Third, when there are highly powerful people involved, the FBI handles things differently. It wouldn't take over a year with no arrests (I am referring to the elites) if the individuals involved were not elite. Finally, if anyone doesn't realize that the FBI and CIA have a long history of illegal and immoral activity, then you just don't know your history very well.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2020 11:22AM)
“Engaging in conspiracy theories is a way to meet our psychological need to have someone to blame, or some group to blame, for all the bad things that happen that we don’t understand.” - Steven Keyl

Engaging in that common old ploy is bit naff:

Https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGCTA-2.pdf
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 19, 2020 12:55PM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2020, tommy wrote:
“Engaging in conspiracy theories is a way to meet our psychological need to have someone to blame, or some group to blame, for all the bad things that happen that we don’t understand.” - Steven Keyl

Engaging in that common old ploy is bit naff:

Https://philpapers.org/archive/PIGCTA-2.pdf [/quote]

Thank you for sharing this. I completely agree that there is a prevalence of the notion that "conspiracy theories" should be neither believed nor investigated. In fact, the opposite is generally true.
It seems that the term "conspiracy theory" is often used to designate something were justice may not have been carried out accurately or thoroughly, and it is a way to say: "This is off limits". "If you question it, then there must be something wrong with your brain". I like that the article talks about how most times, the subjects of "conspiracy theories" need additional honest investigation.

I think that the most significant reason people engage in what others call "conspiracy theories" is that people have an innate need for truth, justice, and complete honesty.

KJ
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 19, 2020 01:22PM)
Under Steve’s video on YouTube he puts a link to a book for further reading and this link takes one to a book called “Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History by David Aaronovitch.

Now here is something about Aaronovitch, the anti-conspiracy theory book writer, that readers might find interesting:

“Aaronovitch gave strong support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Since the invasion he has taken the view that it liberated Iraqis, and has played down the significance of Iraq's putative weapons of mass destruction. However, he wrote in 2003: "If nothing is eventually found, I – as a supporter of the war – will never believe another thing that I am told by our government, or that of the US ever again.”

See Wiki
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 19, 2020 09:42PM)
Yes, speaking of Iraq, it would have been nicer had he addressed himself to the conspiracy theories that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents: the conspiracy lies that Iraq had WMDs, the conspiracy lies about yellow cake and aluminum tubes presented by conspiracy-theorist Colin Powell to the UN; the conspiracy theory lies of the President that Saddam Hussein had supported the Al Qaeda operation; the conspiracy lies that New York Times "journalist" Judith Miller--whose name will go down in the annals of craven government stenography--told, whose work has been totally discredited.

Somehow Aaronovich missed denouncing those conspiracies. I wonder why.

See the thing is, when a person gets on YouTube and claims the moonlanding was a hoax, yeah, you can laugh and make fun of him or her, but he's basically harmless. But when the government spouts their conspiracy lies, hundreds of thousands of innocent people get bombed, lose their lives, or their homes. False conspiracy theories about immigrants, "Antifa" "socialists" are far more important to dissect and dismantle. An intellectually honest approach to understanding conspiracy theories would address the conspiracy theories which cause the largest harm. What is *their* origin, and what sectors of society benefit from *those* disseminations?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 19, 2020 10:26PM)
HUGE difference in a "conspiracy theory" and something like telling lies to go to war.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 19, 2020 11:15PM)
They didn't just tell lies. They wove a conspiracy theory about Iraq that was supposed to paint them with WMDs and the capability and will to use them. It was as much a nonsensical conspiracy theory as any "Paul is Dead" theory. But infinitely more dangerous and destructive. That is the difference.

Imagine..."Paul is Dead"..."you killed him"... "we will destroy your country." The additon of the latter two parts doesn't make it more acceptable or less of a conspiracy theory.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 20, 2020 05:46AM)
No one is saying that governments never lie to their people. That is not a conspiracy theory, it is an actual conspiracy. So what's the difference? A "conspiracy theory" is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Appealing to a conspiracy theory is generally based on prejudice, fear or insufficient evidence.

The time to believe something is when the weight of the evidence supports such a belief. Choosing to believe in something absent sufficient evidence invariably leads to confirmation bias, the observer effect and expectation bias. This type of thinking has never shown to be a reliable pathway to the truth.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 20, 2020 05:59AM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2020, tommy wrote:

...No one said the CIA invented the term "conspiracy theory" so your side note is a straw man. [/quote]

This idea is a well known trope among conspiracy theorists, so it's clearly not a straw man. Example: https://www.topsecretwriters.com/2018/02/cia-invented-term-conspiracy-theory-discredit/

You seemed to be implying same, so I included it as a point of clarification, not as a rebuttal to anything you said. My apologies for not making that clearer.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 20, 2020 06:27AM)
Jack, another point of note. I don't think that all crazy fringe theories are harmless. Case in point, QAnon.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-republican-voters-took-qanon-mainstream/ar-BB1abB1W?ocid=spartan-ntp-feeds

It's a good example to show how far our biases can take us away from rational belief. And in cases like these, while some may laugh at them, these types of ideas are far from harmless.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 20, 2020 06:27AM)
Lone nut rules of the game:

Rule One: It is OK to believe official conspiracy theories but not OK to believe conspiracy theories that contradict official conspiracy theories.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 20, 2020 06:57AM)
Now THAT is a great example of a straw man. Well done, Tommy.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 20, 2020 07:26AM)
If one were in Iraq before the war it would have been OK to believe the official line there, namely that Saddam was not conspiring with Al-Qaida and not conspiring to hide weapons of mass destruction from the weapons inspectors and if one posited such a conspiracy theory there then one would have been called a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nut. On the other hand, if one were in England before the war, one could posit such conspiracy theories about Saddam, as such were posited by Tony Blair and the Government here, and be called a sensible boy and a patriot.

Is that is a straw man, then you can call me a scarecrow.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 20, 2020 10:40AM)
[quote]A "conspiracy theory" is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Appealing to a conspiracy theory is generally based on prejudice, fear or insufficient evidence. [/quote]

Steven, that's *exactly* what the run-up to the Iraq War was. Exactly. I couldn't have put it better. The explanation for the situation surrounding 9/11 was that there were sinister and powerful groups, often political in nature, RUN BY IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN--[i]not Saudi Arabia as actual evidence would have suggested.[/i] That was a conspiracy theory deliberately run out of the White House, which Dick Cheney then went on to the CIA to have them manufacture more "evidence" for that conspiracy theory.

Re QAnon: agreed, they're lunatics. But again, most widespread conspiracy theories have their roots in actual hidden levers of power being manipulated. Anyone who takes even a cursory look at the Epstein doings--including his tap on the wrist punishment earlier on--knows something is not kosher there. So yes, there are lunatics who take these things in bizarre directions. But they are often based on something real. It's interesting that these kinds of operations are useful to distract from what the real meaning of these events might be.

BTW, I'm not super familiar with the origins of the QAnon operation. Do we know how it first began and who amplified it?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 20, 2020 11:03AM)
Most of the Iraq War stuff is not a conspiracy theory. It is fact.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 20, 2020 11:21AM)
Now it is official, that those conspiracy theories that were posited by Tony Blair and his Government back then about Saddam Hussein, were false, it is, of course, OK to disbelieve them here in England, even in polite company.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 20, 2020 09:06PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2020, landmark wrote:
[quote]A "conspiracy theory" is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. Appealing to a conspiracy theory is generally based on prejudice, fear or insufficient evidence. [/quote]

Steven, that's *exactly* what the run-up to the Iraq War was. Exactly. I couldn't have put it better. The explanation for the situation surrounding 9/11 was that there were sinister and powerful groups, often political in nature, RUN BY IRAQ AND SADDAM HUSSEIN--[i]not Saudi Arabia as actual evidence would have suggested.[/i] That was a conspiracy theory deliberately run out of the White House, which Dick Cheney then went on to the CIA to have them manufacture more "evidence" for that conspiracy theory.

Re QAnon: agreed, they're lunatics. But again, most widespread conspiracy theories have their roots in actual hidden levers of power being manipulated. Anyone who takes even a cursory look at the Epstein doings--including his tap on the wrist punishment earlier on--knows something is not kosher there. So yes, there are lunatics who take these things in bizarre directions. But they are often based on something real. It's interesting that these kinds of operations are useful to distract from what the real meaning of these events might be.

BTW, I'm not super familiar with the origins of the QAnon operation. Do we know how it first began and who amplified it? [/quote]

Thank you for pointing this out. Let's focus on "conspiracy theories" that had major impact. Bush/Cheney got us into a war with two countries over a hoax. Obama/Biden campaigned against Bush, using that hoax against Bush/Cheney, and then what did Obama/Biden do once elected? They escalated the war from two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) to seven (adding Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria)! Obama/biden ran out of bombs to kill people in these wars! Peel back all the bull****, and these wars are about profit! And, not just profit, but profit for the 1% of the 1%! 99.9% of people paid the price, either in trillions of dollars or worse, with their lives, while one tenth of 1% reaped in billions. Yet, nobody is allowed to say anything negative about Obama or Biden or it is a "conspiracy theory". I stand by what I said, the term "Conspiracy theory" is used to say: "This bit of horrendous corruption is off limits". Writing articles that punch down at people questioning the "official narratives" instead of punching up to the people who are killing millions for profit is despicable.

KJ
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 20, 2020 10:15PM)
It is also despicable to try to lump every conspiracy theory together, like chemtrails and Kennedy, or flat earth and middle east wars. I don't think the word conspiracy theory should even be used 90% of the time. Unfortunately, we live in times where extremely powerful people get away with heinous acts for profit. Unfortunately, they also control the media, Congress, CIA, FBI, etc. People should be allowed to question things that don't make sense, and people like you shouldn't punch down to them. Most people who are lumped into the category of "conspiracy theorists" aren't even claiming a theory at all. Typically, they are just questioning the evidence. Examples you lumped in to baseless conspiracy theories:

Epstein: I don't know if he killed himself of not, but I do know that the FBI is covering up evidence, I do know that it is unbelievably suspicious that in housing the most high profile captive of the century, both guards fell asleep and all of the cameras conveniently failed. Does that seem normal to you? I also know that there is ample evidence that Bill Clinton was involved and some evidence that Trump was involved. Are they guilty? I don't know. I also know that Clinton lied about his involvement. Does that make him more suspicious? Yes, HIGHLY.

Covid: I don't know what Bill Gates intentions are, and that is not even close to the biggest issue with covid. I do know that countries like Japan and others didn't shut down the economy at all and had very low death rates. I also know that a year ago if someone had terminal cancer and died of the flu virus, they called it a cancer death. Today, if a terminal cancer patient tests positive for covid and dies, they call it a covid death. I do know that Dr Fauci lied to the American people when he told us NOT to wear masks. I also know that his reasoning was a lie. He said that they needed masks for medical staff. I know that they can re-route any supplies needed within a matter of hours and that they could have done so and then told people to go out and buy any that weren't being rerouted or make one. A few months later (too late), the surgeon general went on TV to tell people how to make a perfectly fine mask with a bandana and two rubber bands. I also know that the CDC has NOT recommended early treatment. I also see that Trump, a 74 year old morbidly obese high stress individual recovered quickly from early treatment. I also know that there are some doctors who claim that early treatment with meds that are available to anyone lower the death rates in a huge way. I also know that after Trump talked about hydroxychloroquine (HQ) there was an immediate huge study by Tenent with 95,000 participants. It concluded that hydroxychloroquine was not only not effective, but dangerous. Multiple studies a few months later concluded that the Tenent study was fraudulent and the Tenent study was pulled. On average, they gave HQ 7 days too late. They also used dosages that were up to ten times higher than recommended. So, they medicated patients WAY too late and way too much. I also know that HQ and other similar meds have been around for decades and for decades doctors have known that these meds need to be administered early. I also know that the media gave this virtually no coverage, especially the mainstream media.

JFK: I don't know who killed JFK, but I do know that the Dallas forensics concluded that Lee Oswald didn't fire a gun that day. I also know that evidence like the limo was destroyed. I also know that the motorcade broke dozens of their own protocol that day. I also know that JFK had ****ed off the CIA, FBI, Federal Reserve, Mafia, just to name a few. I also know that the mafia couldn't pull this off including cover ups after the fact. See, I don't know exactly what happened, but I can tell you that the evidence points to the Warren Report being a complete and fraudulent cover up.

Maybe you think I am wasting my time, but I was able to retire in my thirties because I pay attention to what is going on around me. I will likely make a small fortune from events going on right now. Why? Because I know that the handling of covid is destroying small business. This will create investment opportunities if you know when and where to look. I also know that some 60 million people losing their income will cause millions of people to lose their homes. This will create investment opportunities if you know when and where to look.

You punch down at "conspiracy theorists" while people are devastated by these illegal and immoral actions and the media and others cover for them, so that it can be done over and over again. In fact you are covering for them in your own strange way. Also, you couldn't do it at a worse time, in the middle of a pandemic when people are suffering the most and when this is the time people should be questioning things. You do realize that this will create a massive transfer of wealth, ALL of it from people with little to their names to people with billions, right? Why don't you focus your attention on who is REALLY DOING THE HARM? Instead, you punch down to lowly people who are just trying to make sense of the endless media lies and just trying to make a better world for their kids.

Now I wish I hadn't re-watched the video, it is sickening.

KJ
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 21, 2020 12:48AM)
I think is it wiser when researching to never reach a conclusion because new evidence is always arising which can change one's point of view. Better to present one’s evidence and let the jury make of it what they will.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 21, 2020 01:07AM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, tommy wrote:
I think is it wiser when researching to never reach a conclusion because new evidence is always arising which can change one's point of view. Better to present one’s evidence and let the jury make of it what they will. [/quote]

Yes, the world needs to be open top new questions and evidence, not to stifle people under the pretense of "they are crazy conspiracy theorists".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 21, 2020 10:29AM)
Evidence yes. But not just things people believe. Evidence is a very specific term.

You say you know so much about the Kennedy assassination. Where did you learn all this?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 21, 2020 11:25AM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, tommy wrote:
I think is it wiser when researching to never reach a conclusion... [/quote]Items found in research are consistent with [i]a[/i] theory or not (meaning not [i]that[/i] specific theory). Experimental data produce evidence (within confidence limits) that support a theory or not. There's an interesting book which argues Thomas Paine wrote the Declaration of Independance... by repeating the claim along with some pretty good evidence that others were busy writing on that subject at the time. :) https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Paine-Author-Declaration-independence/dp/B0007DMH7O

Science has dogma about reality existing apart from observers, object persistence, ...

As to whether some evidence presented makes a persuasive case for some argument, or presents a compelling situation where a reasonable person would be expected to... well you get the outline of the problem.

At the time I believed that but what does that mean about today? ;)
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 21, 2020 03:49PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
Evidence yes. But not just things people believe. Evidence is a very specific term.

You say you know so much about the Kennedy assassination. Where did you learn all this? [/quote]

I didn't say how much I know about JFK, but to answer your question, I have read the full Warren Report, not a fun read, and I have read around a dozen books on the subject, watched several documentaries, and I have read newspapers from around the world at the time of the murder. It is quite fascinating. Our world would likely have been EXTREMELY different if Kennedy had lived to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces", and make major changes to the FBI and the Federal Reserve, just to name a few.

KJ
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 21, 2020 03:58PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, tommy wrote:
I think is it wiser when researching to never reach a conclusion... [/quote]Items found in research are consistent with [i]a[/i] theory or not (meaning not [i]that[/i] specific theory). Experimental data produce evidence (within confidence limits) that support a theory or not. There's an interesting book which argues Thomas Paine wrote the Declaration of Independance... by repeating the claim along with some pretty good evidence that others were busy writing on that subject at the time. :) https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Paine-Author-Declaration-independence/dp/B0007DMH7O

Science has dogma about reality existing apart from observers, object persistence, ...

As to whether some evidence presented makes a persuasive case for some argument, or presents a compelling situation where a reasonable person would be expected to... well you get the outline of the problem.

At the time I believed that but what does that mean about today? ;) [/quote]

You know that old saying: "History is written by the victors"? It doesn't only apply to wartime. History is being written every day, including comissions and omissions.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 22, 2020 01:01PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
Evidence yes. But not just things people believe. Evidence is a very specific term.

You say you know so much about the Kennedy assassination. Where did you learn all this? [/quote]

I didn't say how much I know about JFK, but to answer your question, I have read the full Warren Report, not a fun read, and I have read around a dozen books on the subject, watched several documentaries, and I have read newspapers from around the world at the time of the murder. It is quite fascinating. Our world would likely have been EXTREMELY different if Kennedy had lived to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces", and make major changes to the FBI and the Federal Reserve, just to name a few.

KJ [/quote]

Best part about a good conspiracy is the promise of "what might have been".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 22, 2020 01:02PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2020, tommy wrote:
I think is it wiser when researching to never reach a conclusion... [/quote]Items found in research are consistent with [i]a[/i] theory or not (meaning not [i]that[/i] specific theory). Experimental data produce evidence (within confidence limits) that support a theory or not. There's an interesting book which argues Thomas Paine wrote the Declaration of Independance... by repeating the claim along with some pretty good evidence that others were busy writing on that subject at the time. :) https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Paine-Author-Declaration-independence/dp/B0007DMH7O

Science has dogma about reality existing apart from observers, object persistence, ...

As to whether some evidence presented makes a persuasive case for some argument, or presents a compelling situation where a reasonable person would be expected to... well you get the outline of the problem.

At the time I believed that but what does that mean about today? ;) [/quote]

You know that old saying: "History is written by the victors"? It doesn't only apply to wartime. History is being written every day, including comissions and omissions. [/quote]

Ahh yes the overpowering omnipresent "them" or "they". An integral part of any good conspiracy.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 22, 2020 04:43PM)
Often I will question the official conspiracy theory being posited and be called a conspiracy theorist without me having posited conspiracy theory of my own.

If the official, or unoficial, conspiracy theory being posited does not convince me then I will research the subject to try and find truth without having a theory.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 22, 2020 04:53PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2020, 1KJ wrote:

Epstein: I don't know if he killed himself of not, but I do know that the FBI is covering up evidence, I do know that it is unbelievably suspicious that in housing the most high profile captive of the century, both guards fell asleep and all of the cameras conveniently failed. Does that seem normal to you? I also know that there is ample evidence that Bill Clinton was involved and some evidence that Trump was involved. Are they guilty? I don't know. I also know that Clinton lied about his involvement. Does that make him more suspicious? Yes, HIGHLY.[/quote]

How does “suspicious” activity surrounding Epstein translate to “I do know that the FBI is covering up evidence”? You need more – a LOT more – than suspicion to declare that you KNOW something with such conviction. FWIW, I think there are legitimate questions about Epstein’s death and I’m all for an investigation. However, I’m not ready to claim that I KNOW about any coverups.

[quote]

Covid: I don't know what Bill Gates intentions are, [/quote]

Other than having long warned people about the dangers of pandemics and being an advocate for vaccinations, what does Bill Gates’s “intentions” have to do with Covid?


[quote]

I do know that countries like Japan and others didn't shut down the economy at all and had very low death rates.[/quote]

Japans relatively low case rate probably results from the combination of the lack of extensive testing plus their culture and customs—wearing masks during the winter months, greeting one’s colleagues with a bow rather than a handshake, sitting at restaurant counters side-by-side rather than face-to-face, regularly washing one’s hands, and removing shoes in homes. It’s also been theorized that the prevalent strain in Japan has mutated to a less deadly form of the virus.

That being said, Japan did announce a “state of emergency” early on that lasted until May 31. And although it’s not the same thing as a mandated lockdown in the U.S., the Japanese are generally more compliant than their defiant and individualistic U.S. counterparts.


[quote]
I also know that a year ago if someone had terminal cancer and died of the flu virus, they called it a cancer death. Today, if a terminal cancer patient tests positive for covid and dies, they call it a covid death.[/quote]

This is mainly about payments to hospitals, but it addresses the “overcounting” of Covid deaths:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-posts/Fact-check-Hospitals-COVID-19-payments/

"Very unlikely that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money to do so."

"There are strict policies for reporting and, quite frankly, healthcare workers are only focusing on helping their patients and doing as much as they can with little resources," said Aultman, who is director of the medical ethics and humanities program at Northeast Ohio Medical University. "Ohio is reporting confirmed and suspected cases and so this is how our providers are responding to their patients -- they are being very transparent about confirmed versus suspected."

Indications of COVID-19 undercounts...

As for the suggestion that there is an overcount of COVID-19 cases, "the data has suggested that, in fact, there’s a significant undercount of deaths due to COVID," Jennifer Kates, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of global health & HIV policy, told PolitiFact.
Here are some of those indications:

Strict federal definition: Until April 14, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted as COVID-19 deaths only those in which the coronavirus was confirmed in a laboratory test — even as testing was not widely available; now, CDC counts probable cases and deaths. The day the change was announced, New York City’s COVID-19 death tally soared by more than 3,700 when it included in its total the deaths of people who were suspected of having COVID-19 but were never tested.

Surge in total deaths: The Economist reported on "excess mortality," which is the gap between the total number of people who died from any cause during a given period, and the historical average for the same place and time of year. In New York City, for the four-week period ending March 28, there was an excess of about 1,400 deaths, compared with 1,100 official COVID-19 fatalities.


[quote]

I do know that Dr Fauci lied to the American people when he told us NOT to wear masks.[/quote]

This article clarifies Dr. Fauci’s statements:

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6


[quote]
I also see that Trump, a 74 year old morbidly obese high stress individual recovered quickly from early treatment.[/quote]

According to an NIH study, hydroxychloroquine does no harm, but provides no benefit.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine

Furthermore, Trump is not a good example for three reasons… 1) as the POTUS he presumably receives the BEST care with round the clock attention, 2) he was administered a cocktail of medications thereby making it difficult to pinpoint what works and what doesn’t, and 3) it may be premature to declare him “cured”, as we are still figuring out the disease and there have been cases where people relapse or have lingering side effects.

[quote]

I also know that the media gave this virtually no coverage, especially the mainstream media.[/quote]

Which media [I]did[/I] give it coverage?

[quote]

JFK: I don't know who killed JFK, but I do know that the Dallas forensics concluded that Lee Oswald didn't fire a gun that day. I also know that evidence like the limo was destroyed. I also know that the motorcade broke dozens of their own protocol that day. I also know that JFK had ****ed off the CIA, FBI, Federal Reserve, Mafia, just to name a few. I also know that the mafia couldn't pull this off including cover ups after the fact. See, I don't know exactly what happened, but I can tell you that the evidence points to the Warren Report being a complete and fraudulent cover up.[/quote]

More suspicion, but not much in the way of solid evidence. Regarding the limo, it was rebuilt and remained in service at the White House until 1977. It’s currently on exhibit at The Henry Ford History museum in Dearborn Michigan. So it doesn’t appear that the limo was “destroyed.” And once again, I too am curious about the circumstances surrounding the assassination, but I see nothing that makes me doubt the official version of events. Yet. And given that almost 60 years have passed, I doubt that any new bombshell evidence will come to light.

The bottom line for any conspiracy theory is that lots of weak evidence (and speculation) don’t add up to good evidence. And that’s the sort of thing we tend to see.

Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 22, 2020 05:37PM)
Https://www.corbettreport.com/gates/
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 22, 2020 07:43PM)
[quote]On Oct 22, 2020, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 20, 2020, 1KJ wrote:

Epstein: I don't know if he killed himself of not, but I do know that the FBI is covering up evidence, I do know that it is unbelievably suspicious that in housing the most high profile captive of the century, both guards fell asleep and all of the cameras conveniently failed. Does that seem normal to you? I also know that there is ample evidence that Bill Clinton was involved and some evidence that Trump was involved. Are they guilty? I don't know. I also know that Clinton lied about his involvement. Does that make him more suspicious? Yes, HIGHLY.[/quote]

How does “suspicious” activity surrounding Epstein translate to “I do know that the FBI is covering up evidence”? You need more – a LOT more – than suspicion to declare that you KNOW something with such conviction. FWIW, I think there are legitimate questions about Epstein’s death and I’m all for an investigation. However, I’m not ready to claim that I KNOW about any coverups.

Maybe you aren't, but I am. "suspicious" activity has NOTHING to do with FBI cover up. The FBI coverup is that multiple victims have testified that they took evidence to the FBI as far back as the 1990s. It also has to do with how the FBI seized "ALL" of the Epstein evidence from "ALL" of the properties over a year ago and have not made a single arrest beyond Maxwell. In similar cases where elites were not involved, they have made arrests within days. And, why the f#ck are you fighting a lowly person who reads a lot, is your head in the sand? Why don't you hold source like the FBI and the media to the same level of scrutiny?

[quote]

Covid: I don't know what Bill Gates intentions are, [/quote]

Other than having long warned people about the dangers of pandemics and being an advocate for vaccinations, what does Bill Gates’s “intentions” have to do with Covid?

That is my point, the author of the video is dragging Gates into the conspiracy. He purposely chose to pick the most ludicrous, out there thing to use as a reason to punch down at anyone questioning evidence or decisions.


[quote]

I do know that countries like Japan and others didn't shut down the economy at all and had very low death rates.[/quote]

Japans relatively low case rate probably results from the combination of the lack of extensive testing plus their culture and customs—wearing masks during the winter months, greeting one’s colleagues with a bow rather than a handshake, sitting at restaurant counters side-by-side rather than face-to-face, regularly washing one’s hands, and removing shoes in homes. It’s also been theorized that the prevalent strain in Japan has mutated to a less deadly form of the virus.

That being said, Japan did announce a “state of emergency” early on that lasted until May 31. And although it’s not the same thing as a mandated lockdown in the U.S., the Japanese are generally more compliant than their defiant and individualistic U.S. counterparts.

I won't address your self acknowledged speculation regarding testing. As for The "culture" argument, with all due respect, that is b.s. If Fauci had not lied to us and multiple parties including both Dems and Reps, the media, and state Governors had done their job, they could have enforce "no mask, no service" on every business and public facility and culture would have had nothing to do with anything. If the Americans are less compliant, then a simple "no mask, no service" sign would have solved that problem.


[quote]
I also know that a year ago if someone had terminal cancer and died of the flu virus, they called it a cancer death. Today, if a terminal cancer patient tests positive for covid and dies, they call it a covid death.[/quote]

This is mainly about payments to hospitals, but it addresses the “overcounting” of Covid deaths:

I don't know or care what politifact says, they have proven to not be a reliable source, but it seems like you agree with me on this one. Yes, it was about money for hospitals, but
it was a huge mistake to implement it that way because it made reporting grossly innacurate.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/21/facebook-posts/Fact-check-Hospitals-COVID-19-payments/

"Very unlikely that physicians or hospitals will falsify data or be motivated by money to do so."

"There are strict policies for reporting and, quite frankly, healthcare workers are only focusing on helping their patients and doing as much as they can with little resources," said Aultman, who is director of the medical ethics and humanities program at Northeast Ohio Medical University. "Ohio is reporting confirmed and suspected cases and so this is how our providers are responding to their patients -- they are being very transparent about confirmed versus suspected."

It's not about what honest doctors and nurses are doing, it is about how hospital administrators and amoral attorneys manipulate the records within the boundaries of the laws. The laws were flawed that allowed this misrepresentation of the figures.

Indications of COVID-19 undercounts...

As for the suggestion that there is an overcount of COVID-19 cases, "the data has suggested that, in fact, there’s a significant undercount of deaths due to COVID," Jennifer Kates, the Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of global health & HIV policy, told PolitiFact.
Here are some of those indications:

Strict federal definition: Until April 14, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention counted as COVID-19 deaths only those in which the coronavirus was confirmed in a laboratory test — even as testing was not widely available; now, CDC counts probable cases and deaths. The day the change was announced, New York City’s COVID-19 death tally soared by more than 3,700 when it included in its total the deaths of people who were suspected of having COVID-19 but were never tested.

That is NOT true. The opposite is true. Medical professionals were allowed to diagnose as covid even if tests were not administered. If they had covid symptoms, they were allowed to diagnose them with covid without tests.

Surge in total deaths: The Economist reported on "excess mortality," which is the gap between the total number of people who died from any cause during a given period, and the historical average for the same place and time of year. In New York City, for the four-week period ending March 28, there was an excess of about 1,400 deaths, compared with 1,100 official COVID-19 fatalities.


[quote]

I do know that Dr Fauci lied to the American people when he told us NOT to wear masks.[/quote]

This article clarifies Dr. Fauci’s statements:

https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-because-doctors-shortages-from-the-start-2020-6

Again, this is b.s. What they are NOT telling you is that health and political organization are able to re-route ANYTHING THEY NEED within hours. They can take shipments that are already in route to end consumers and re-route them to a hospital as needed. That is why that argument is total b.s. Fauci could have ordered re-routing of any equipment needed and once that was in process, he could have then instructed the American people on why it is CRITICAL to wear a mask, and then he or the surgeon general could have instructed people on how to make a perfectly functional mask from items already available in most every household.

[quote]
I also see that Trump, a 74 year old morbidly obese high stress individual recovered quickly from early treatment.[/quote]

According to an NIH study, hydroxychloroquine does no harm, but provides no benefit.

That is interesting because multiple studies after the Lancet study have concluded that the use of HQ would have saved thousands of lives. Additional studies have shown that other anti-inflammatories would have saved thousands of lives. These meds, in conjunction with anti-viral meds that were always available, in some cases steroid that were also available, and in some cases other medications that were also available, would have saved lives. These sorts of meds were used early in countries like Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and others. Last I checked, around a week ago, the CDC was still not recommending these protocols. They were recommending pain relievers and sending people home unless critical.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine

Furthermore, Trump is not a good example for three reasons… 1) as the POTUS he presumably receives the BEST care with round the clock attention, 2) he was administered a cocktail of medications thereby making it difficult to pinpoint what works and what doesn’t, and 3) it may be premature to declare him “cured”, as we are still figuring out the disease and there have been cases where people relapse or have lingering side effects.

I don't know if Trump is the best example, but he is a very good example. Plus, he is not the ONLY example. Take a look at the work of Dr Bartlett in Texas. He has treated hundreds of covid patients, including people with significantly compromised immune systems and hasn't lost a single patient. He talks extensively about the importance of early treatment, something that the CDC has not subscribed to.

[quote]

I also know that the media gave this virtually no coverage, especially the mainstream media.[/quote]

Which media [I]did[/I] give it coverage?

Minimal coverage. Look it up yourself.

[quote]

JFK: I don't know who killed JFK, but I do know that the Dallas forensics concluded that Lee Oswald didn't fire a gun that day. I also know that evidence like the limo was destroyed. I also know that the motorcade broke dozens of their own protocol that day. I also know that JFK had ****ed off the CIA, FBI, Federal Reserve, Mafia, just to name a few. I also know that the mafia couldn't pull this off including cover ups after the fact. See, I don't know exactly what happened, but I can tell you that the evidence points to the Warren Report being a complete and fraudulent cover up.[/quote]

More suspicion, but not much in the way of solid evidence. Regarding the limo, it was rebuilt and remained in service at the White House until 1977. It’s currently on exhibit at The Henry Ford History museum in Dearborn Michigan. So it doesn’t appear that the limo was “destroyed.” And once again, I too am curious about the circumstances surrounding the assassination, but I see nothing that makes me doubt the official version of events. Yet. And given that almost 60 years have passed, I doubt that any new bombshell evidence will come to light.

The bottom line for any conspiracy theory is that lots of weak evidence (and speculation) don’t add up to good evidence. And that’s the sort of thing we tend to see.

Ron [/quote]

The bottom line is that there is a reason why people are not satisfied that justice is being served in a proper and timely manner in cases such as JFK, 911/Middle East wars, Covid, and Epstein.

Let's focus on Epstein. Whose GD side are you on? Maybe Steven is your friend, but this is NOT about Steven. This is about how we CLEARLY have two sets of justice and two sets of communication systems. Do you not realize that there are hundreds of victims of this elite pedo ring? And there are hundreds of elite alleged perpetrators of pedophilia. People like Jimmy Savile were covered up their entire lives because they were in the elite crowd. Perhaps many of the victims were snuffed out. The GD apathy for these victims is staggering! And, the reason why there are increasing people being accused of "conspiracy theories" is because more and more of these cases are not adequately addressed.
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 22, 2020 10:42PM)
Why the desperate need to defend the handling of JFK? You said the Limo was "rebuilt". EXACTLY! the evidence of multiple bullet holes that were described by many witnesses was DESTROYED in that "rubuilding"! It was said they needed the limo... b.s. LBJ never used that limo again. The limo should have been left EXACTLY as it was that day for evidence. In fact the laws at that time and today REQUIRE THAT IT BE LEFT AS IS.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 23, 2020 08:33AM)
[quote]On Oct 22, 2020, 1KJ wrote:

The bottom line is that there is a reason why people are not satisfied that justice is being served in a proper and timely manner in cases such as JFK, 911/Middle East wars, Covid, and Epstein.[/quote]

And there is also a reason why people are not satisfied with alternative conspiracy theories. Namely, a lack of solid evidence.

[quote]

Let's focus on Epstein. Whose GD side are you on? [/quote]

This is just the sort of thinking that’s problematic. The idea that one has to take a “side.” At any rate, my “side” is wherever the preponderance of credible evidence lies. Subject to change in light of new and compelling information.


[quote]
Do you not realize that there are hundreds of victims of this elite pedo ring? And there are hundreds of elite alleged perpetrators of pedophilia. [/quote]

OK, are we talking about pedophilia or the circumstances of Epstein’s death? For the record, I am strongly opposed to pedophilia. And I agree that there is ***ing evidence against Epstein regarding underage sexual practices. But regarding his death, suicide seems to be the best explanation so far. But I concede there are still questions [I]and I am all for a continued and vigorous investigation into both his death and his activities with Maxwell, et al.[/I] Let’s see what we learn going forward.


[quote]

Perhaps many of the victims were snuffed out. [/quote]

Perhaps. What evidence (beyond speculation) is there for that?


[quote]

The GD apathy for these victims is staggering! And, the reason why there are increasing people being accused of "conspiracy theories" is because more and more of these cases are not adequately addressed. [/quote]

I think that if a “staggering apathy” for sexual victims were true, we wouldn’t be seeing anywhere near the coverage of the Epstein story as we have. This is one of the biggest – if not THE biggest – stories to dominate the news over the past year and a half.

What would it take, in your opinion, to “adequately address” the Epstein story?


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 23, 2020 08:37AM)
[quote]On Oct 22, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
Why the desperate need to defend the handling of JFK? [/quote]


What makes you think I have a “desperate need” to handle JFK? I don’t. I have no vested interest in whether he was killed by Oswald, the Mafia, the CIA, the FBI, Elvis, or space aliens. But it seems YOU have a desperate need for anomaly hunting.


[quote]

You said the Limo was "rebuilt". EXACTLY! the evidence of multiple bullet holes that were described by many witnesses was DESTROYED in that "rubuilding"! It was said they needed the limo... b.s. LBJ never used that limo again. The limo should have been left EXACTLY as it was that day for evidence. In fact the laws at that time and today REQUIRE THAT IT BE LEFT AS IS. [/quote]

See:
https://www.houstonpress.com/news/what-happened-to-jfks-assassination-car-6749059

[I]"The limo was shipped back to Washington D.C., [b]where it was inspected by investigators for weeks before being released to the White House[/b], where employees were given instructions to do "whatever was necessary" to remove all traces of blood and gore from the car. The vehicle was returned to service and [b]used by Johnson[/b], Nixon, Ford and Carter before finally being retired in 1977."[/I]


Ron
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 23, 2020 08:41AM)
[quote]OK, are we talking about pedophilia or the circumstances of Epstein’s death? For the record, I am strongly opposed to pedophilia. And I agree that there is ***ing evidence against Epstein[/quote]

I said "damming" evidence for those wondering (I can't even spell it correctly here).

Ron
Message: Posted by: 1KJ (Oct 23, 2020 10:33AM)
Ron,

I'm sorry, there is no defense for the destruction of the evidence on the JFK limo. That "investigation" you are referring to didn't even produce photos or video of the vehicle. There was no NEED to "rebuild" that vehicle. It doesn't really matter if anyone used it or not after that. I have read several accounts of how LBJ refused to ever ride in that limo. The rebuilding of the limo was a clear coverup of evidence that could have shed a lot of light on many things, including perhaps more information on how many shots were fired that day.

We could go on and on about evidence and the handling of things. I think it is FAR more destructive for people to PUNCH DOWN at people who question how things are handled. We can quibble over whether they are doing it exactly the way they should, but that would be a mistake.

The bottom line is that most of the events that people question were devastating to humanity and justice. For example, millions of people in the middle east have been killed in wars like the hoax war for weapons of mass destruction that never existed, and instead of individuals responsible for that hoax being brought to justice, the next Administration, Obama/Biden expanded the war from two countries to seven countries, killed a million more people, and we actually ran out of bombs!

Yet, in spite of that, people opt to PUNCH DOWN on lowly people who question these actions.

DESPICABLE.

That's all I have to say on the subject.

Adios, I'm checking out to get back to more entertaining discussions about magic.

KJ
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 23, 2020 10:43AM)
A clear cover up? What experience do you have in investigation of any sort?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 23, 2020 11:25AM)
All roads lead to Rome. So, if one is interested in the sexual predilections of the men and women up the on the hill, all one needs to do is watch the movie Caligula.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 23, 2020 04:21PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
Ron,

I'm sorry, there is no defense for the destruction of the evidence on the JFK limo. That "investigation" you are referring to didn't even produce photos or video of the vehicle. There was no NEED to "rebuild" that vehicle. It doesn't really matter if anyone used it or not after that. I have read several accounts of how LBJ refused to ever ride in that limo. The rebuilding of the limo was a clear coverup of evidence that could have shed a lot of light on many things, including perhaps more information on how many shots were fired that day.[/quote]

What evidence on the limo got destroyed, and how do you know that? And even if there was evidence that was ultimately “destroyed” it doesn’t mean the evidence wasn’t first taken into account during the investigation.

And yes, the investigation did produce photos:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-05-04-mn-53696-story.html

Graphic J.F.K. Assassination Car Photos, Records Released

[I]“The documents also feature numerous photos of a crack on the inside of the limousine’s windshield, a piece of evidence investigators used to help conclude that Kennedy had been killed by bullets fired from the rear.”[/I]


The rebuilding of the limo is simply common sense. Obviously, you’d want to make it more secure going forward.

https://www.thehenryford.org/collections-and-research/digital-resources/popular-topics/kennedy-limo/

[I]“Following the assassination of President Kennedy, a committee was formed (originally comprised of thirty people) of six people representing the Secret Service, Army Materials Research Center, Hess & Eisenhardt and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company. The White House approved a plan for a revamp of the X-100 around December 12, 1963. Work was completed May 1, 1964 and extensive testing was performed in Cincinnati, Ohio and Dearborn, Michigan before the car was delivered to the White House in June. Costs have been estimated to exceed $500,000 and were shared by Ford Motor Company, some Ford suppliers and the federal government.
Basic elements of the revamp included:

•Complete re-armoring of rear passenger compartment
•Addition of permanent non-removable top ("greenhouse") to accommodate transparent armor
•Replacement of engine with hand-built, high compression unit, providing approximately 17 percent more power
•Addition of second air conditioning unit in trunk
•Addition of certain electronic communication devices
•Reinforcement of some mechanical and structural components, e.g. front wheel spindles and door hinges, to accommodate additional weight
•Complete re-trimming of rear compartment, eliminating damage resulting from the assassination
•New paint treatment, "regal Presidential Blue Metallic with silver metallic flakes that glitter under bright lights and sunshine" (May 1, 1964 report by Willard C. Hess of Hess & Eisenhardt)”[/I]

And yes, LBJ did (albeit reluctantly) ride in it again.


[quote]
We could go on and on about evidence and the handling of things. I think it is FAR more destructive for people to PUNCH DOWN at people who question how things are handled. We can quibble over whether they are doing it exactly the way they should, but that would be a mistake.[/quote]

It’s one thing to question how things are handled, but it’s a whole other thing to make baseless and counterproductive assertions. Gap-filling is tempting, but it’s often not justified. Occam’s razor is a good guiding principle. And when there are no clear answers, just go with “I don’t know” for the time being.

[quote]

The bottom line is that most of the events that people question were devastating to humanity and justice. For example, millions of people in the middle east have been killed in wars like the hoax war for weapons of mass destruction that never existed, and instead of individuals responsible for that hoax being brought to justice, the next Administration, Obama/Biden expanded the war from two countries to seven countries, killed a million more people, and we actually ran out of bombs![/quote]

It appears that in 2015/2016 our stockpiles of PGMs began to run low, but I could not find any source that supports your claim that “we actually ran out of bombs!” See:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/18/president-trumps-claim-that-when-i-came-we-had-no-ammunition/


Ron
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 23, 2020 07:43PM)
Apart from David Blaine, have any other magicians performed at Epstein’s homes?

Does anything describe the tension between what we know and what we suspect about Jeffrey Epstein's crimes better than Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut"?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 24, 2020 08:15AM)
It seems that a lot of the posts here are taking the same syllogistic form:

1) The government has lied about things in the past
2) The government could be lying about things in the present
3) Therefore, I have a rational justification in holding any position, regardless of the evidence for or against

This type of reasoning is not a pathway to truth, and in fact, falls victim to several logical fallacies. It is a way for people to cherry pick more fanciful stories in the absence of sufficient evidence. There is a difference between not believing a proposition and believing its negation. This seems to be tripping people up.

Side note: I've said it several times now and I'll say it again...when bringing up Epstein in the video, I was NOT implying there wasn't anything suspicious. The point is that claiming his death is connected to the "Clinton crime network", an FBI coverup, or as a result of him being "too connected" to too many power players who were afraid he'd talk ARE conspiracy theories because they are just assertions without evidence.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 24, 2020 08:44AM)
Stephen: totally agreed, speculation is not evidence.

But your video is about *why* people believe conspiracy theories. And your video, best I remember, leaves out the key reason--exactly premise number one in your above post. [i]The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.[/i]

When your significant other has a history of cheating on you, and then you find lipstick on their collar and strange underwear in the bed, yes then people will *rationally* conclude that something is up. They might not have jumped to that conclusion had their partner not repeatedly cheated on them.

Now people jump to unwarranted conclusions sometimes--I grant you that. But rather than condemn them, let's have a little more curiosity and find out what's leading them in that direction, rather than discounting their intuition and suspicions.

It's the difference between, "Hey you know, that is too much of a coincidence to swallow," and "Nothing to see hear, you're stupid, move along."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 24, 2020 09:51AM)
The problem is some people watch an episode of Criminal Minds and two Law and Order episodes and suddenly think they are investigators.

Investigation is a skill. It is a learned skill and believe it or not has less to do with "common sense" than most want to believe. It takes years to develop this skill and years of training.

So forgive me if an armchair conspiracy guy who watched JFK 218 times falls low on my list of people I would take seriously about an opinion of that event.

Most conspiracy theorists tend to read things they agree with. Not really the best Investigation technique.

So no. Not everyone gets to play. Not everyone needs to be taken seriously. Not every opinion matters and not everyone needs to have others assuage their feelings. There are opinions that are ridiculous on their face and should be ignored. Not all opinions have equal merit no matter how strongly people feel them.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 24, 2020 10:52AM)
[quote]On Oct 24, 2020, landmark wrote:
Stephen: totally agreed, speculation is not evidence.

But your video is about *why* people believe conspiracy theories. And your video, best I remember, leaves out the key reason--exactly premise number one in your above post. [i]The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.[/i][/quote]


But there are conspiracy theories that don’t necessarily involve government. For example, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers who simply reject the science. And conspiracies surrounding the deaths of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, Bruce Lee, etc. So although lying doesn’t help, people will still gravitate towards the sensational over the mundane – even though the mundane explanations may be more plausible.

Ron
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 24, 2020 10:52AM)
Jack, I agree that we need a healthy dose of skepticism for ANY truth claim, whether that claim comes from some government agency, FOX news, CNN, wherever...

The key is to apportion our belief to the strength of the evidence.

I have no problem with someone being skeptical of what they're being told. The problem arises, as Danny rightfully brings up, when people think they can Google their way from skepticism about some particular event to a very specific (and groundless) claim using nothing more than wild speculation and unfounded assertions.

Here's where we differ. You said,
[quote]
The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.
[/quote]

A couple of thoughts here:
[list]
[*] This is a claim that would need to be demonstrated. Given that "the government" provides us such a massive amount of information, you'd have quite a task ahead of you to make your case.
[*] Intelligence agencies rarely communicate anything with the public directly. Their job is to provide the best intelligence possible to the people responsible for making the decisions. Whether those decision-makers distort or misrepresent what they were told by the IC has no bearing on the accuracy of the intelligence data itself. So, once again, this is a claim that would need to be demonstrated.
[*] The viability of a conspiracy is quite low, given the number of people involved and the long time span. For example, if the moon landing was faked, it would have required 400,000 NASA employees to pull it off and keep quiet about it for the last 50 years. Not likely. Here's an interesting research paper that discusses this very thing. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
[*] Given the high-tech, interdependent world we live in today, it is HARDER, not EASIER, for large groups of people to conceal the truth. Look at Wikileaks. They have hundreds of thousands of documents and texts. If the world still moved on paper, they wouldn't be able to get a fraction of that.
[/list]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 24, 2020 11:28AM)
How exactly is believing the earth is flat a conspiracy theory?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 24, 2020 02:33PM)
Granted, there are probably many flavors of conspiracy theory regarding flat earth, but generally speaking, they believe that:

[list]
[*] World governments and the scientific elite know the truth but have kept it from us for centuries
[*] All photographic evidence is faked
[*] GPS devices are rigged to make pilots think they are flying in straight lines around a sphere when they are actually flying in circles above a disc
[*] The motive for world governments' concealment of the true shape of the Earth is unknown, but it is probably financial
[/list]

There's probably a bunch more if you checked out their web sites. There are A LOT of them.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 24, 2020 03:06PM)
So it is not a conspiracy theory to believe the earth flat but it is a conspiracy theory to posit that somebody is trying to make us think it is not by deception.

So, in reality, are the flat earthers the real conspirators?

Perhaps our primary aim ought to be to reach the children before the flat earther convince them that the Earth is flat.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2020 12:20PM)
[quote]On Oct 24, 2020, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 2020, landmark wrote:
Stephen: totally agreed, speculation is not evidence.

But your video is about *why* people believe conspiracy theories. And your video, best I remember, leaves out the key reason--exactly premise number one in your above post. [i]The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.[/i][/quote]


But there are conspiracy theories that don’t necessarily involve government. For example, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers who simply reject the science. And conspiracies surrounding the deaths of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, Bruce Lee, etc.

Ron [/quote]

That's a fair point. But I think you're wrong about anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Whether one agrees with them or not, they are all about the government in adherents minds: supposed overreaching environmental regulations and medical regulations.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 25, 2020 12:45PM)
I would also argue that the fundamental mistrust of government is baked into our DNA. Even Montesquieu in the 18th century talked about how much mistrust Americans have of their own elected government. So I would argue that the mistrust of government stems from our desire to enforce a limited government based on our history with unchecked centralized power. The subsequent abuses of governmental power certainly added fuel to the fire, but the fire was already raging.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 25, 2020 12:51PM)
[quote]Here's where we differ. You said,
Quote:

The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.



A couple of thoughts here:


[1] This is a claim that would need to be demonstrated. Given that "the government" provides us such a massive amount of information, you'd have quite a task ahead of you to make your case.
[2]Intelligence agencies rarely communicate anything with the public directly. Their job is to provide the best intelligence possible to the people responsible for making the decisions. Whether those decision-makers distort or misrepresent what they were told by the IC has no bearing on the accuracy of the intelligence data itself. So, once again, this is a claim that would need to be demonstrated.
[3]The viability of a conspiracy is quite low, given the number of people involved and the long time span. For example, if the moon landing was faked, it would have required 400,000 NASA employees to pull it off and keep quiet about it for the last 50 years. Not likely. Here's an interesting research paper that discusses this very thing. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl.......0147905
[4]Given the high-tech, interdependent world we live in today, it is HARDER, not EASIER, for large groups of people to conceal the truth. Look at Wikileaks. They have hundreds of thousands of documents and texts. If the world still moved on paper, they wouldn't be able to get a fraction of that. [/quote]

[1] Gosh, I think you'd have a much harder time demonstrating that those in the government *don't* serially lie. The documents from Wikileaks, Snowden (thank you for your service, genuine heroes), The Church Committee, Watergate hearings, Iran-Contra hearings, and on and on prove over and over again *serial* lying by the executive, military and intelligence branches of the government. And we are at the point where they barely try to cover up their lies. Evidently those in power now feel it's more effective to lie blatantly and taunt others to do something about it. They know they will not be held accountable. What is the Washington Post tally up to these days? Last time I looked it was 20,000 or something like that? I'm not suggesting that this is at all new. After all, I come from a generation who was used to hearing every three months for ten years like clockwork that "The generals tell us we are turning the tide, there's light at the end of the tunnel," regarding the Vietnam War. Thank you, General Westmoreland.

[2] In plain sight: James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, perjured himself before Congress. Before the very committee that is supposed to provide oversight for intelligence matters. He should be behind bars for five years, not a "consultant" for CNN. And all the other CIA opertaions that Dulles and his succesors blatantly lied about: the murder and overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatamala, Syria, Indonesia, The Congo, lying about the U-2 incident, The Dominican Republic, The Bay of Pigs, Burma, Laos, Brazil, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Chile. That's just a cursory view of *one* intelligence agency. The chemical and biological experimentation on home turf by various branches of the military was well-documented by Seymour Hersh and others, etc., etc.

[3] Yes, for some conspiracies it would require many to be quiet about it. But the thing is, sometimes they're not, and that's part of why we know what we know. See Phillip Agee, Victor Marchetti and other ex-CIA agents.

[4] Yes it is harder, not easier for large groups of people to conceal the truth. Much of the awful things that are done in the world, are done under our noses, and the documentation is there for those who care to look (see items 1,2,3). The question is whether we *will* look and whether we *will* hold them accountable for their crimes. Many many Americans feel powerless to do anything in the face of it and so are naturally suspicious of *all* government communications. That, to get back to the original question, is one major reason conspiracy theories flourish. Because people know that those in power lie all the time to them, so they seek other explanations.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 25, 2020 12:58PM)
Anybody that reads the 9/11 Commission Report can see that it posits a conspiracy theory throughout

i.e.

“The operational leader of the 9/11 conspiracy, Mohamed Atta, went on line from Hamburg Germany to research U.S. flight schools.” - The 9/11 Commission Report

Not only does the 9/11 Commission Report posit a conspiracy theory but posits a conspiracy theory based on a pack of lies:

The chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
Message: Posted by: R.S. (Oct 25, 2020 03:11PM)
[quote]On Oct 25, 2020, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 2020, R.S. wrote:
[quote]On Oct 24, 2020, landmark wrote:
Stephen: totally agreed, speculation is not evidence.

But your video is about *why* people believe conspiracy theories. And your video, best I remember, leaves out the key reason--exactly premise number one in your above post. [i]The government and intelligence agencies lie all the time. Serially.[/i][/quote]


But there are conspiracy theories that don’t necessarily involve government. For example, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, and climate change deniers who simply reject the science. And conspiracies surrounding the deaths of Elvis, Marilyn Monroe, Jimmy Hoffa, Bruce Lee, etc.

Ron [/quote]

That's a fair point. But I think you're wrong about anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers. Whether one agrees with them or not, they are all about the government in adherents minds: supposed overreaching environmental regulations and medical regulations. [/quote]

I see your point. But I think the government's involvement here is secondary to proponents of these conspiracy theories. I think that if you removed any connection to government whatsoever, you'd still have people claiming climate change is a hoax and that vaccines cause autism. Adding the government to the equation just adds icing to the conspiracy cake.

Ron
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 25, 2020 06:17PM)
Well, here's a new one that's started circulating;

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/donald-trumps-america/300142133/that-aint-her-new-photo-of-melania-trump-ignites-fake-melania-body-double-conspiracy-theory-again
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 25, 2020 09:51PM)
Have a look back at Freud's comments about sanity and society, then need for compromise and the internal conflicts generated by living with those compromises.

As a notion, the effect of more than other can be construed as a conspiracy.

Stir in a few generations of force multiplied quotations out of context - for example: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ctamj

And you've got a recipe for ... something the MMPI probably already has a scale for. ;) :D
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2020 12:35AM)
Hmm... that kind of example is more likely over-correction to previously neglected phenomena than conspiracy. It makes people feel smart to learn something new: "non-verbal communication!" and it becomes an all-purpose explanation. A bit harder to argue for knowing collusion, although I had to admit the thought of Dr Phil telling Larry King that 93% of all communication was non-verbal when they've both famously made millions from talking (not their good looks!) made me laugh. A conspiracy to keep others out of their racket? Well...
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 06:16AM)
I would agree but that would be a conspiracy by Steven's definition.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2020 08:03AM)
Next conspiracy: Conflating public interest as expressed by individual voters with interests of wealth as expressed to elected representatives in the form of donations, sponsorships, inertia/tradition...

* By the way, have you looked at the ancient history of the African region called Nubia?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 08:13AM)
I feel sorry for the Government because they have to believe their own propaganda in order to get the “luxuries" they are offered in exchange for their loyalty to the state.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2020 08:14AM)
[quote]Next conspiracy: Conflating public interest as expressed by individual voters with interests of wealth[/quote]

Those sorts of conspiracies fall under the esteemed sub-category of "urinating on us and telling us it's raining" conspiracies.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 08:21AM)
Isn’t the Newspeak Dictionary online now?
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Oct 26, 2020 08:59AM)
The Illusory Pattern Perception (citations below) is strong in several members here.

Cute and harmless, on the one hand; lamentable and lethal, on the other.

Unsusceptible to logic, fact, or rational argument because Illusory Pattern Perception is a cognitive anomaly.

Advice for those not beset with it:

"As infuriating as it may be to find yourself up late having an internet fight with a conspiracy theorist, remind yourself that they actually see the world differently, and might even be feeling lonely."

https://www.sciencealert.com/conspiracy-theory-beliefs-illusory-pattern-perception-cognitive-science

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.2331
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 09:05AM)
Is Newspeak, the A vocabulary, that which we use to explain magic experiments?

“It was intended only to express simple, purposive thoughts, usually involving concrete objects or physical actions.”

- G.O.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2020 09:07AM)
It's basically a useless term, like "terrorism" and "freedom fighter" which means whatever the speaker wants it to mean--and often hides the speaker's presumptions behind a mask of neutrality.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 09:15AM)
As infuriating as it may be to find yourself up late having an internet fight with conspiracy theorists, like the 9/11 Commission, remind yourself that they actually see the world differently, and might even be feeling lonely.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Oct 26, 2020 10:05AM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, tommy wrote:
As infuriating as it may be to find yourself up late having an internet fight with conspiracy theorists, like the 9/11 Commission, remind yourself that they actually see the world differently, and might even be feeling lonely. [/quote]

The intractability of Illusory Pattern Perception on display.

Not that they would actually read the cited studies (and many more) of this cognitive anomaly and risk the self-reckoning that could result.

Nah, dismiss science and evidence-based insight as another sinister "they" conspiring against you, and continue to promulgate nonsense.

In their defense, it isn't a choice, as the cited studies note.

Alas.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 11:33AM)
"Not that "they".

Who is this sinister "they"?
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Oct 26, 2020 12:28PM)
The pronoun "they" in the sentence, "Not that they would actually read the cited studies . . . ." refers to persons posting in this thread that exhibit the cognitive anomaly known as Illusory Pattern Perception or its first cousin, Conspiracy Theory Ideation.

A sinisterly disposition is neither a qualifying nor excluding condition of persons with Illusory Pattern Perception or Conspiracy Theory Ideation.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 26, 2020 12:42PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, E.S. Andrews wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, tommy wrote:
As infuriating as it may be to find yourself up late having an internet fight with conspiracy theorists, like the 9/11 Commission, remind yourself that they actually see the world differently, and might even be feeling lonely. [/quote]

The intractability of Illusory Pattern Perception on display.

Not that they would actually read the cited studies (and many more) of this cognitive anomaly and risk the self-reckoning that could result.

Nah, dismiss science and evidence-based insight as another sinister "they" conspiring against you, and continue to promulgate nonsense.

In their defense, it isn't a choice, as the cited studies note.

Alas. [/quote]

You actually made my next point. It certainly isn't a choice.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 12:47PM)
The 9/11 Commission posited that 9/11 attacks were the result of a conspiracy and “they” the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that “they” were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. “They” also confirm that “they” were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

It is “they”, the conspiracy deniers, the idiots in the Greek sense, who see the 9/11 Commission report as something which it is not, who are finding meaning in the clouds (the Illusory Pattern Perception) and spouting their pseudo-profound BS about it.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Oct 26, 2020 01:29PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, E.S. Andrews wrote:
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, tommy wrote:
As infuriating as it may be to find yourself up late having an internet fight with conspiracy theorists, like the 9/11 Commission, remind yourself that they actually see the world differently, and might even be feeling lonely. [/quote]

The intractability of Illusory Pattern Perception on display.

Not that they would actually read the cited studies (and many more) of this cognitive anomaly and risk the self-reckoning that could result.

Nah, dismiss science and evidence-based insight as another sinister "they" conspiring against you, and continue to promulgate nonsense.

In their defense, it isn't a choice, as the cited studies note.

Alas. [/quote]

You actually made my next point. It certainly isn't a choice. [/quote]

Yep. Those with IPP and CTI don't choose to be that way. They just are.

There is no reasoning with Conspiracy Theorists or talking them down because their cognition is simply wired differently than the norm.

As the studies I cited note, Illusory Pattern Perception is driven by the pattern-seeking instincts and abilities of homospiens that allowed us to evolve as a species.

In persons with IPP, though, the pattern-seeking instinct is in constant overdrive, turbocharged to the point of delusion.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 02:34PM)
If You Are Not A Conspiracy Theorist Then You are an Idiot

a) A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains some event or events as due in
part to a conspiracy, that is, to a secret plan to influence events by partly
secret means.

b) Every historically and politically literate person employs the strategy of
sometimes believing (and sometimes being prepared to believe) conspiracy
theories.

c) Every historically and politically literate person is a conspiracy theorist.

d) The only way not to be a conspiracy theorist is to be historically and
politically illiterate that is to be, in the Greek sense of the word, an idiot.

f) Therefore if you are not a conspiracy theorist then you are an idiot.

The lecture will be followed by a wine reception.


Charles Pigden, MA (1983)(Cambridge) PhD (1985)(La Trobe), is Director of Philosophy Politics and Economics (PHPE or PPE) at University of Otago. He has edited Russell on Ethics (1999) (winner of the Bertrand Russell Society Book Award for 2000), contributed the chapter on ethics to the Cambridge Companion to Bertrand Russell and written the entry on Russell’s Moral Philosophy for the Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

What is the use of reasoning with idiots like you?
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 26, 2020 02:41PM)
Logical fallacies appearing in the previous post:
[list]
[*] Ad Hominem
[*] Equivocation fallacy
[*] Hasty Generalization fallacy
[*] Appeal to Authority fallacy
[/list]

One of the best ways to learn how to make compelling arguments is to learn what makes a bad argument. Reading up on the most common logical fallacies and cognitive biases is a great place to start.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 26, 2020 02:45PM)
For those interested, I did a video some time ago on the 5 most common logical fallacies...only one of which was mentioned above.

[youtube]9goY-6hWPkc[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 02:53PM)
If that is what you think is a reasonable argument I would not be surprised.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2020 03:22PM)
@tommy, it's just a different flavor of bait. It's still gaslighting.

Paranioa is not the same as delusions or pareidolia but they do work well together.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 03:47PM)
Gaslighting, they say, is a form of emotional abuse that's seen in abusive relationships. It's the act of manipulating a person by forcing them to question their thoughts, memories, and the events occurring around them. A victim of gaslighting can be pushed so far that they question their own sanity. I am not familiar with the term but it rings a bell and seems to fit the bill. When I was a kid, we still had gas lights and I recall an old film along those lines, perhaps of that name.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 26, 2020 04:19PM)
Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not gaslighting.

Appeals to gaslighting are just a convenient way to dismiss all criticism. Whatever helps you cope, man.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 26, 2020 04:29PM)
Yes then the inevitable attacking from those who suffer so badly. Science be darned, THEY themselves have the truth and you just must be an idiot not to see it.

Generally it is sad. But then it is shooting and turns into the trolling so often in display here. Great
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 26, 2020 04:49PM)
[quote]Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not gaslighting. [/quote]

I've seen awfully little evidence-based argument here. It's mainly been imputing motive, always dangerous when you don't know the individuals involved. Let's stick to debating evidence and facts.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 26, 2020 04:59PM)
I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting that it's wrong to point out the flaws in reasoning when someone says things like:

[quote]
-If You Are Not A Conspiracy Theorist Then You are an Idiot

-Every historically and politically literate person is a conspiracy theorist.

-The only way not to be a conspiracy theorist is to be historically and
politically illiterate that is to be, in the Greek sense of the word, an idiot.
[/quote]

Or am I misunderstanding what you meant?
In any event, your phrase, "I've seen awfully little evidence-based argument here" should be the motto for most of this forum! I appreciate your point of view, even when we disagree, and am glad you're participating in this thread. Cheers.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 05:05PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:
Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not gaslighting.

Appeals to gaslighting are just a convenient way to dismiss all criticism. Whatever helps you cope, man. [/quote]

It seems to me you have not pointed out any flaws in the argument in question.

You have merely asserted that the argument in question contains the sort of flaws you describe.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 26, 2020 05:52PM)
Well, I guess there are formal definitions of what a reasonable argument is but I will say that a reasonable argument at least gives some explanation, some reason, for why one believes something to be true. An assertion I will say is merely a statement of what one believes, which lacks the why of it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2020 06:03PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, landmark wrote:
[quote]Pointing out the flaws in an argument is not gaslighting. [/quote]

I've seen awfully little evidence-based argument here. ... [/quote]Enough evidence to see a pattern? A familiar pattern, perhaps? ;)

If you like your conspiracy theories served with a steaming side of denial: https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-2/mmpi-2-non-k-corrected-scores

Same site, much more spooky https://uminnpressblog.com/2020/05/20/false-profits-and-finding-meaning-in-life/ <<-- trigger warnings
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 26, 2020 06:28PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2020, 1KJ wrote:
...people opt to PUNCH DOWN on lowly people who question these actions.[/quote]The shadow of our problem seems to grown with each "they" and "them" we post. :(

However, given two equally workable and valid theories we can choose the simpler.
So... the teapot did it.
Whether or not the teapot itself or just some faction of its followers want you to imagine otherwise ... thanks to Occam we can enjoy telling stories. And tea. :)
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 27, 2020 08:34AM)
Https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-did-some-research-now-its-angry-about-what-it-found/?ftag=COS-05-10aaa0h&utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3A9wjsyvOI3ng-q4UTKdHjhjRjA358R7oRH0XM07Cp6UKvp_DKZgoJxxs

look at the ads
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 27, 2020 08:53AM)
We can follow Occam--or a more complex decision procedure....
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Oct 27, 2020 09:59AM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, tommy wrote:
Well, I guess there are formal definitions of what a reasonable argument is but I will say that a reasonable argument at least gives some explanation, some reason, for why one believes something to be true. An assertion I will say is merely a statement of what one believes, which lacks the why of it. [/quote]

Agreed.

Reasons alone, however, aren't sufficient for a reasonable argument. They need to be "good" reasons--meaning valid, logically sound, etc.

The problem is we all think our reasons are compelling, otherwise we wouldn't hold the belief. In situations where opinions are diametrically opposed, then at least one party's (if not both) conclusions are erroneous. How then do we come up with a mechanism for understanding reality? What is the epistemological basis of our search for truth?

Not everyone's answers to these questions are going to provide equally reliable results.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 27, 2020 11:03AM)
If you want to see criminal conspiracy theories proven, then take a trip to the law courts. They are open to the public because justice not only has to be done but seen to be done. I used to work for the court and I have seen many conspiracy theories/cases proven. Moreover, I have been convicted of conspiracy myself.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 27, 2020 11:30AM)
[quote]How then do we come up with a mechanism for understanding reality? What is the epistemological basis of our search for truth? [/quote]

The elephant and the six blind men story long appealed to me. Or at least kept me comforted. Until Derek Del Gaudio asked, "Yes, but what about the elephant? How does s/he feel about being defined by others?"
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 27, 2020 12:26PM)
See this is the problem isn't it? In a factual zoological sense the elephants feelings are simply not relevant.

Most conspiracy theories are about someone feeling something deeply. But it is not relevant relevant. The only relevant part is the facts.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 27, 2020 01:39PM)
Yes! However, even policemen have feelings, hunches and suspicions. which can lead them to uncovering firm evidence.
Message: Posted by: Tim Snyder (Oct 27, 2020 02:26PM)
[quote]On Oct 26, 2020, Steven Keyl wrote:

In any event, your phrase, "I've seen awfully little evidence-based argument here" should be the motto for most of this forum! [/quote]


:coolspot:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 27, 2020 04:39PM)
One can prove a story is false when the story would violate the laws of physics if true. To believe such a story one would have to believe in magic. Such stories are what we might find in magic patter where the magician makes some incredible assertion of some sort or another, or what we find in the 9/11 Commission report for example.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 27, 2020 06:37PM)
Something has to engage a sentiment to discuss while not provoking direct action - or basic skeptical dismissal (the teapot did it, again).
[quote]On Oct 27, 2020, tommy wrote:
One can prove a story is false when the story would violate the laws of physics if true. To believe such a story one would have to believe in magic. ...[/quote]
Yet people do. Stories of frogs in heated water pots, atheists in foxholes, elephants learning to fear sunglasses, or just watching people check their horoscopes. Usually a balance between sense and nonsense. If you look from a little further away you can see some trends in stories of their time.

Notice the lack of experimental data about frogs and elephant touching.

So are some people more psychic when presented with red backed ESP (Rhine) cards? :) /* Derren Brown did a great job using photographs and Out of This World :) */
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 28, 2020 06:04PM)
Lemurs are social animals and live in mini-communities of around 10-25 members. As a result of this, they often work together, or 'conspire' to outwit predators using a technique called 'mobbing'. Of course, only we conspiracy theorist’s belief that conspiracies of Lemurs exist.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 28, 2020 10:09PM)
Let's distinguish conspire and cooperate... just to mess with landmark ;)

Invitation to conspiracy? -> https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 28, 2020 10:15PM)
The idiot who supposes that historical events are not sometimes due to conspiracy and supposes that a tinfoil hat will appear upon the head of anyone who dares to posit such a conspiracy theory is clearly not only an idiot but superstitious one. My theory is, that such superstitious idiots are members of some brainwashed indoctrinated cult.

Do governments and corporations routinely conspire to deceive people or do they merely cooperate with each other to do so?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 29, 2020 12:37AM)
Yea Tommy it is everyone else.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 29, 2020 04:49AM)
:angrypirate: Cons-Piracy :pirate:
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 29, 2020 09:01AM)
With governments and corporations constantly getting into bed with one another and getting up to no good, it is uniquely or strikingly similar to Fascism.

“I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of the racket all the time. Now I am sure of it.”

Smedley Butler Major General US Marine Corps

https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/major-general-smedley-butler?fbclid=IwAR1qUU4yGt3T9tbsRhYXoJYeWTVKLmcssBOxVmroiFfGiw_kLRIkzPSSIUY
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 29, 2020 04:15PM)
[quote]On Oct 28, 2020, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Let's distinguish conspire and cooperate... just to mess with landmark ;)

Invitation to conspiracy? -> https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/ [/quote]

Jon, not so difficult to parse the difference: conspiracy implies hidden agenda, while co-operation implies transparency.

Would that the ability to distinguish human motive were as easy to distinguish as the difference in word connotation.

That's why knowing past history of the players involved is so important. Danny implies that only the expert forensic detectives are qualified to make judgements. I would argue that equally important, maybe more so, are historians and sociologists who know and/or can find evidence of motive of not only individuals but institutions.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Nov 1, 2020 06:39AM)
Like most words in English, "conspiracy" has different meanings. It's impossible to debate when differing sides are using different definitions.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Nov 1, 2020 09:14AM)
Agreed. Moreover, "Conspiracy theory" means something very different from the term "conspiracy", and there seems to be an equivocation of those two terms happening throughout this thread.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 1, 2020 09:22AM)
Of course there is. It is about making what one "thinks" relevant in spit of the facts.

Most of what landmark is posting is genuine conspiracies.
Message: Posted by: ThoughtThief (Nov 1, 2020 10:03AM)
[error]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Nov 1, 2020 03:00PM)
Intention which includes the interests of collaborators and the opposition.

A wheel to spin which won't damage the machinery. ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 1, 2020 03:05PM)
That conspiracy reads, "collaborators=opposition." Or at least, faux opposition. Plenty of that cosplay for sure.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Nov 1, 2020 06:39PM)
We already know the game* "let's you and me team up against him". Take a step back. Consider that when you listen to A, it's all about B and C conspiring. That makes you D in the game. As far as A is concerned it's juggling three pronouns. ;)

Take a second step back and consider what tends [i]not[/i] to be in those stories. Nobody talks about the **ffeepot.

* that's not what's in "Games People Play" ;)
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 2, 2020 03:37AM)
It is possible to conspire to do the impossible.
Message: Posted by: Steven Keyl (Nov 21, 2020 08:55PM)
How easy is it for people to buy into conspiracy theories? At last check, 41% of the US population thinks the last election was fraudulent. And all it took was allegations without evidence. Allegations repeated over and over in the hopes that they would be believed--and they have been.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 22, 2020 01:11AM)
It depends on what you mean by evidence. Evidence, in a legal sense, is anything which tends to persuade one of a fact in issue. Note the word tends. It comes in the form of testimony, exhibits and so on.

To say there no evidence is some claim.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 22, 2020 10:25AM)
6) Those who live by the network die by the network.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 22, 2020 11:02AM)
We don't have a choice to live off the network. If you are an owner, you depend on the labor of others for survival; if your labor power is being bought by others you are dependent on them for survival. If you are "self-employed," you are dependent on consumers for survival. As for those supposedly self-sufficient folks, off the grid, raising their own food--whose land is it, Kay?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 22, 2020 04:44PM)
7, Own nothing control everything
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 22, 2020 05:33PM)
While it's true that controlling access to resources is less costly than actual ownership of the resources, that control ultimately derives from the power of owning other resources.

I would say the 21st century version of what you're saying is more like "Buy once, and then rent out forever." Rent out your money, rent out your real estate, rent out your land, rent out your software, and so on. Never actually sell *anything*. That's why manufacturing is in the toilet these days--there's more profit in creating scarcity and then renting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 23, 2020 12:33AM)
[quote]and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[/quote]

It's actually a little breathtaking how specific those words are.

But that's another thread.