Conspiracy Theories

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Hit3k
Posts: 1156
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:12 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Hit3k » Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:08 am UTC

The 9/11 conspiracy theories and the moon landing hoax are the ones that piss me off the most.

When people tell me they don't believe that man landed on the moon or that thousands of people were killed by their own government I usually react in many different ways. If it is someone I have recently met I argue with them for a long time and then I'll probably just not bring it up to them again.

However if it is someone I've known for a long time and I also thought was a reasonable person tells me they think the moon landing was fake I lose respect for them and consider them a less reasonable person than I once thought they were.

Everyone is free to have their own beliefs about conspiracy theories even if I may not like their beliefs about 9/11, the moon or lizard people at the end of the day they'll still be my friend/acquaintance/parent I'll still respect them just not as much as I used to.
Sungura wrote:My mom made me watch a star wars. Two of them , actually. The Death Star one and the one where the dude ends up in the swamp with the weird guy who talks funny.

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jan 12, 2010 7:37 am UTC

Hit3k wrote:The 9/11 conspiracy theories and the moon landing hoax are the ones that piss me off the most.

When people tell me they don't believe that man landed on the moon or that thousands of people were killed by their own government I usually react in many different ways. If it is someone I have recently met I argue with them for a long time and then I'll probably just not bring it up to them again.

However if it is someone I've known for a long time and I also thought was a reasonable person tells me they think the moon landing was fake I lose respect for them and consider them a less reasonable person than I once thought they were.

Everyone is free to have their own beliefs about conspiracy theories even if I may not like their beliefs about 9/11, the moon or lizard people at the end of the day they'll still be my friend/acquaintance/parent I'll still respect them just not as much as I used to.


As far as historical conspiracies go, the government orchestrating 9/11 would be pretty vanilla, as far as these things go. Consider the mad-cap theory that religious authorities merely made up the real and present threat that witches and an army of demons from Hell which everybody knew menaced Chistondom in the 1500s and 1600s. Everybody knew those skeptics were outright dangerous crazy.

Then there was that wild Spanish conspiracy theorist Bartelomeo Las Casas who claimed that far from bringing peace, civilization and the True Faith to the heathens, the traders and missions to the Americas were engaged in a brutal and avaricious campaign of murder and enslavement. Can you imagine someone so cynically abusing the good name of his country?

Or the conspiracy theorists who believed that the trial of Cpt. Dreyfus for treason by the French military was a sham, meant to incite anti-semetic hatred and cover up incompetence and treason by Catholic officers. Emile Zola and his crowd of socialist scum are clearly traitors or madmen or both.

The point is that many of the great revelations which shook the world seemed, in retrospect, so obvious. Of course there was no massive Satanic conspiracy to destroy Christendom, and of course the witchhunts were all a sham. Of course the story of the benevolent Spanish empire was a lie. Of course the Dreyfus trial was a sham.

But to state these facts, in retrospect so obvious to us, was to walk the line between the grossest betrayal of everything in which society believed and sheer paranoid lunacy.

That's how such conspiracies endure successfully for so long: the play into the core of the identity of the duped populace. To challenge the conspiracy is to demolish the core of one's identity and tear at the fundamental glue of society. To quote the good Senator Roark from Sin City: "When you tell a lie and get the whole world to lie along with you then you got them by the balls."

I doubt very much that 9/11 was orchestrated by the American government. There are easier ways to accomplish what the theorists claim were the goals of government involvement. I allow some leeway for a cover-up of negligence, but that's a different animal entirely. As for the moon landing, well, I don't trust the American government to tell me the time of day. But the key of keeping a conspiracy running is to limit the number of people who are "in" on the lie.

The problem with the Apollo conspiracy is that it is entirely plausible. Almost every aspect of the program could be run as though the whole thing worked. The people who made the rocket and equipment and who ran ground control could all be convinced that the thing was real. You'd only need a couple dozen people who were "in" on the thing, including a team to fake transmitions to ground control and teams to fake video and radio coverage, the astronauts themselves, a coordination team (including the President and a considerable number of political staff.)

I just don't see every single person keeping such a great story under wraps indefinately. It's just too juicy, and trying to keep up a coercive surveillance would only expand the network of people "in" on the secret, making it even less likely to keep quiet. Its pretty far fetched, but compared to conspiracy theories of the past which turned out to be right, its pretty vanilla.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

ianf
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby ianf » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:04 am UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:The problem with the Apollo conspiracy is that it is entirely plausible. Almost every aspect of the program could be run as though the whole thing worked. The people who made the rocket and equipment and who ran ground control could all be convinced that the thing was real. You'd only need a couple dozen people who were "in" on the thing, including a team to fake transmitions to ground control and teams to fake video and radio coverage, the astronauts themselves, a coordination team (including the President and a considerable number of political staff.)


There was a programme here in the UK a few years ago called "Space Cadets", which tried to convince a group of members of the public that they were going up into space. There were taken to an army base in the UK and told they were in a Russian space training camp. They were then given training and I seem to recall some even went on a fake space trip.

My recollection is that the majority of the people involved were actually fooled. And this is a low budget TV programme, where a lot of the things they were trying to convince people of were deliberately humourous and difficult to believe.

Interestingly, there were a couple of actors planted into the group, to make things easier for the programme makers. And these actors also clearly believed at times that it was all real despite actually knowing it was all fake.

And to show that there's no limit to the appetite for conspiracy theories, as the series went on viewers started to express the theory that everyone involved knew it was fake and the "general public" involved were actually actors who were pretending to be the general public in order to play a big trick on the viewers.

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby stevey_frac » Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:46 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:The problem with the Apollo conspiracy is that it is entirely plausible. Almost every aspect of the program could be run as though the whole thing worked. The people who made the rocket and equipment and who ran ground control could all be convinced that the thing was real. You'd only need a couple dozen people who were "in" on the thing, including a team to fake transmitions to ground control and teams to fake video and radio coverage, the astronauts themselves, a coordination team (including the President and a considerable number of political staff.)


Other then the fact that you can see the stuff we left on the moon? Or the rock samples that were returned and circulated throughout the scientific community? Or the radio beacons that are still there, and turned on? That observatories still see? Or that fact that the Russians who had the most to gain from claiming America faked it, didn't?

The 9/11 conspiracy holds more weight then the Apollo one. And the 9/11 is pure bogus. But at least with 9/11, I can't go and see direct evidence that the government didn't blow up the towers.
__Kit wrote:
Also, who the fuck wants to be normal? You got one lifetime, why be like everyone else?

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:03 pm UTC

stevey_frac wrote:
Le1bn1z wrote:The problem with the Apollo conspiracy is that it is entirely plausible. Almost every aspect of the program could be run as though the whole thing worked. The people who made the rocket and equipment and who ran ground control could all be convinced that the thing was real. You'd only need a couple dozen people who were "in" on the thing, including a team to fake transmitions to ground control and teams to fake video and radio coverage, the astronauts themselves, a coordination team (including the President and a considerable number of political staff.)


Other then the fact that you can see the stuff we left on the moon? Or the rock samples that were returned and circulated throughout the scientific community? Or the radio beacons that are still there, and turned on? That observatories still see? Or that fact that the Russians who had the most to gain from claiming America faked it, didn't?

The 9/11 conspiracy holds more weight then the Apollo one. And the 9/11 is pure bogus. But at least with 9/11, I can't go and see direct evidence that the government didn't blow up the towers.


As I said, the two are quite implausable. Still, by historical standards, measured against conspiracy theories which turned out to be true, they're still quite vanilla.

The radio communications could be faked, as might moon rocks but I think you're right; the ability to see objects left behind on the moon would place the conspiracy beyond the threshold. There'd need to be far, far too many people "in" on it to pull off.

On another note, the most interesting conspiracy to watch right now is the climate-change deniers. While I do understand how climate change itself makes for an inviting target for conspiracy theories (though it would require a level of organisation that would make the witch-craze look like a class prank), the deniers conspiracy is easier to identify and to understand.

It most clearly follows the Roark Rule for the Big Lie of any active conspiracy, getting the world to lie along with you. It depends on the vested interests of many ordinary people to move forward, as it depends upon so many clearly obvious lies (for example, that scientific investigations have had inconclusive results; peer-reviewed scientific investigations appraoch statistical 100% unanimity that anthropogenic climate change is a real and pressing concern.)

However, since so many want the lie to be true, they want the science to be ambiguous to shirk responsibility, they go along with the lie. At that moment, they are vested in it; their honour is linked to its social acceptance and it has entered the world of identity politics. This is why its such a great case study. While other assertions of the conspiracy can be maintained by an appeal to skepticism, the conspiracy has tied itself to a verifiable lie, making it easy for those on the outside to understand how it works.

In a society that has summarily rejected history, climate change denial is probably the best case-study for an active conspiracy available today (though the cigarette company conspiracy to supress evidence of the danger of their products is a close second.)
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Zamfir » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:10 pm UTC

Leibniz, I am not sure most of those things you mention are conspiracies. The core element of a conspiracy is that there is some limited group of people who do know the truth, who are consciously lying to others about it.

In the case of the witches and Dreyfus, there were more then enough people who really believed in their actions to make it happen. There might have been others who were involved without believing in the cause, but without them things would have gone pretty much the same.

The conquistadores seem to me a different case again. People will easily believe stuff that benefits them is also morally good or at least acceptable, but that's hypocrisy, not conspiracy. There were probably more than enough Spaniards who knew all the facts available, and still considered the conquest ethically completely ok. There might well be things in the world right now that you and I think acceptable, but that future will consider horrible crimes, without any conspiracy involved.



I personally think Iran-contra is the prime example of a real-life succesful conspiracy, and the interesting thing about it is that its collapse didn't hurt its goals. Everything achieved stayed achieved, and no one was punished more deeply than getting fired. So for the people involved, secrecy was a good gamble: as long it was secret, the plan continued, and when found out it was embarassing but clearly forgivable. I don't doubt there are more than enough plans like this that stay secret for decades or forever after they are ended.

Compare this to supposed Apollo or 9/11 hoaxes: here discovery would destroy whatever was gained in the first place (especially for 9/11 it unclear what was supposed to be achieved anyway), and that makes it a much less interesting gamble to start with.

User avatar
mypsychoticself
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 11:07 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby mypsychoticself » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:56 pm UTC

ianf wrote:There was a programme here in the UK a few years ago called "Space Cadets", which tried to convince a group of members of the public that they were going up into space. There were taken to an army base in the UK and told they were in a Russian space training camp. They were then given training and I seem to recall some even went on a fake space trip.

My recollection is that the majority of the people involved were actually fooled. And this is a low budget TV programme, where a lot of the things they were trying to convince people of were deliberately humourous and difficult to believe.

Interestingly, there were a couple of actors planted into the group, to make things easier for the programme makers. And these actors also clearly believed at times that it was all real despite actually knowing it was all fake.

And to show that there's no limit to the appetite for conspiracy theories, as the series went on viewers started to express the theory that everyone involved knew it was fake and the "general public" involved were actually actors who were pretending to be the general public in order to play a big trick on the viewers.

That reminds me of Asch's conformity experiments.

The thing about conspiracy theories, for me, is that a lot of them seem somewhat plausible. For example, it's reasonable to think that maybe your doctor doesn't know everything about the human body. For years, doctors prescribed hormone therapy to post-menopausal women, not realizing that it caused cancer. It's reasonable to think that teachers aren't necessarily teaching accurately.

But where do we draw the line? What, exactly, is the difference between "reasonable" and "crazy conspiracy theory"? I think that the difference is in acceptance of evidence. Even when presented with photographs and/or data, conspiracy theorists refuse to change their minds. Reasonable people might present a logical counterargument backed by their own evidence.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, so I'm going to stop now.
I knew that we had suffered each as other,
And could have grasped your hand and cried, "My brother!"

guyy
Posts: 610
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 3:02 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby guyy » Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:55 pm UTC

mypsychoticself wrote:For example, it's reasonable to think that maybe your doctor doesn't know everything about the human body.


They don't. But they know a lot more about it than the average person, so though sometimes a doctor will give you bad advice (usually unintentionally) that hurts you, on average you're better off getting a doctor's help with medical problems than just hoping they aren't serious. And as someone else already said, you just can't maintain a conspiracy with a very large number of people; there are too many doctors in the world for them all to be in on some evil plot to poison everyone.

A "reasonable" conspiracy theory would have to involve a very small number of "in" members, plausible reasons why they would want to do the conspiracy at all, and, most importantly, legitimate evidence that some things we're being told can't be true. No popular conspiracy theory I know of has even two of those three things (most of them are just the second one plus lots of paranoia).

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:14 pm UTC

guyy wrote:
mypsychoticself wrote:For example, it's reasonable to think that maybe your doctor doesn't know everything about the human body.

They don't. But they know a lot more about it than the average person, so though sometimes a doctor will give you bad advice (usually unintentionally) that hurts you, on average you're better off getting a doctor's help with medical problems than just hoping they aren't serious. And as someone else already said, you just can't maintain a conspiracy with a very large number of people; there are too many doctors in the world for them all to be in on some evil plot to poison everyone.

Right. And even if the overall medical consensus did turn out to be in favor of something harmful (like a therapy that later is found to cause cancer), you'd have a hard time proving or even providing reasonable evidence for an actual malicious conspiracy, rather than simple ignorance. (After all, it's not like it's alt-med conspiracy theorists who showed hormones can cause cancer or that thalidomide can lead to birth defects. It was those same real medical doctors, doing real medical science.)

A "reasonable" conspiracy theory would have to involve a very small number of "in" members, plausible reasons why they would want to do the conspiracy at all, and, most importantly, legitimate evidence that some things we're being told can't be true. No popular conspiracy theory I know of has even two of those three things (most of them are just the second one plus lots of paranoia).

Well that's partly because times when there is legitimate evidence for a small number of people with a vested interest in keeping the secret, we don't really call it "a conspiracy theory" any more, so much as "a conspiracy".

But it's not even the lack of strong evidence supporting a conspiracy that bothers me about many of the "theories". Rather, it's the continued belief despite loads of strong evidence against it. Believing something without evidence is just faith, believing it despite evidence to the contrary is denial. While I'd like to see less of both of these, it's the denialism that's most concerning, because I don't know of any way to convince someone who has already decided to reject every bit of evidence that comes before them.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby drunken » Thu Jan 14, 2010 12:57 am UTC

Many people here have said that even when presented with photographs and/or data, conspiracy theorists refuse to change their minds or words to that effect. I think this is a generalisation that needs a qualifier. A simple use of the word 'some' or even 'most' would temper the argument and make it much more true. I am undeniably a conspiracy theorist, it is sort of a hobby for me, I treat the entire subject like sudoku or any other form of puzzle done for mental excercise. I do not refuse to change my mind when presented with evidence. I can be extremely bloody minded in terms of what I will except as 'hard' evidence, but even stuff that doesn't make that cut gets added to the against column for that conspiracy. Even if I am the only conspiracy theorist in the world who accepts counter evidence the statement that conspiracy theorists dont accept evidence is false.

I would also like to reiterate what gmalivuk said, that evidence for a conspiracy theory is not neccessary, that's what makes it a theory. Obviously evidence against it makes it a weak or implausible theory, and some circumstantial and inconclusive evidence for it is probably required to even form a coherent theory. The lack of hard evidence supporting it is not a reason to doubt the theory. If the conspirators are doing their job properly there should be no evidence and if you believe conspiracies ever happen you must also accept that the conspirators will do anything in their power to hide the evidence.

stevey_frac wrote:Other then(sic) the fact that you can see the stuff we left on the moon?

When I play devils advocate for the moon landing conspiracy theory (which I am highly skeptical about, 97% sure it is wrong) I often ask people why NASA doesn't simply produce large numbers of observatory pictures showing this stuff. Maybe my internet search skills and those of the moon landing theorists I have met are simply too pathetic. If this is the case I would love it if you could provide a link for me, that would surely add a couple more percent to my skepticism.

Edit: PS. I am still obsessed by the JFK assassination, mainly the question about why US citizens aren't more concerned about it.
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby stevey_frac » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:54 am UTC

drunken wrote:When I play devils advocate for the moon landing conspiracy theory (which I am highly skeptical about, 97% sure it is wrong) I often ask people why NASA doesn't simply produce large numbers of observatory pictures showing this stuff. Maybe my internet search skills and those of the moon landing theorists I have met are simply too pathetic. If this is the case I would love it if you could provide a link for me, that would surely add a couple more percent to my skepticism.



That you can see stuff we left on the moon is actually an error on my part. Hubble would have a resolving power of about 87 meters on the moon, much larger then the largest objects we left there. The best you can do is see a small but distinct black mark on a picture of the sea of tranquility where one of the missions (I believe Apollo 15?) touched down.

However, there are experiments that we left there still running such as this one
__Kit wrote:
Also, who the fuck wants to be normal? You got one lifetime, why be like everyone else?

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby mosc » Thu Jan 14, 2010 6:02 am UTC

There will always be conspiracy theories as long as a small cause results in a large effect. People are uncomfortable with actions being considerably smaller than their resultants (or vice versa) so we naturally "balance" the equasion by adding conspiracy.

Of course, many simple things have huge results and many extremely large projects result in hard to grasp results. When an angry ex-soldier with a rifle manages to kill the most important man in the world, we have to inflate the cause side of the equasion to balance the importance of the figure's death. When we spend billions to go to the moon but you can't touch anything tangible, you come up with more reasonable ways that money was spent in your mind. In 9/11, we saw a very underfunded, poorly equipped, and loosely coordinated group of people bring the entire free world to it's knees. As a result, we have to come up with additional causes to balance the equation. This behavior continues.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Indon » Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:24 pm UTC

Vo2max wrote:One that I'm on the verge of uncertainty about is about doping in a particular sport. The theory is in three parts:
1. (Almost) all professional participants in this sport are doping.
2. The authorities are fully aware of this and generally turn a blind eye, with only occasional busts to project an image of trying to stop it.
3. The authorities are selecting which athletes to protect or bust based on politics, back-handers and a sporting narrative.

My problem is that I know points 1 and 2 to be true from personal experience but point 3 feels like 'tin-foil hat' territory. But points 1 and 2 would have felt like 'tin-foil hat' territory even a few years ago. And point 3 was put to me by a reliable source that would have at least some idea of the truth of the matter (without any accompanying evidence.) Hmmm, I'd believe it in a second if I wasn't bombarded by people on internets with new crazy ideas every 20 seconds...


This sounds fairly credible, to be honest. I mean, given 1 and 2, and the fact that athletes are still getting busted occasionally, something has to be determining which of those athletes are being busted. And the answer is probably something along the lines of 'they're abusing their power over the players of the sport'. Abuse of power - and we can infer from 1, 2, and continued busts that there is abuse of power - needs to be directed by some person or group of persons, albeit not necessarily all towards a common goal.

drunken wrote:Edit: PS. I am still obsessed by the JFK assassination, mainly the question about why US citizens aren't more concerned about it.


If I had to say, I'd say it's because it got talked about so much that it occupies now a special place in the American psyche. I imagine many Americans simply assume there was some form of conspiracy going on - perhaps that JFK angered a mafioso and a hitman was sent after him, for instance - but that the conspiracy was not of meaningful import.

Some conspiracies are given and for some reason or another are considered fairly irrelevant. For instance, we know corporations are buying laws in the US legislature. That's a conspiracy fact. Why isn't it getting more talk than all the other conspiracy theories out there combined, then? Because everyone already knows.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 14, 2010 4:14 pm UTC

drunken wrote:I would also like to reiterate what gmalivuk said, that evidence for a conspiracy theory is not neccessary, that's what makes it a theory.

No, that makes it a hypothesis. To be a theory, you do need at least some minimum of evidence that supports the conspiracy over a simpler explanation.

I often ask people why NASA doesn't simply produce large numbers of observatory pictures showing this stuff. Maybe my internet search skills and those of the moon landing theorists I have met are simply too pathetic. If this is the case I would love it if you could provide a link for me, that would surely add a couple more percent to my skepticism.

Observatories here couldn't resolve the Moon to that kind of resolution. However, the LROC took loads of pictures of landing sites.

There's also the fact that there are mountains of evidence against the Moon landing conspiracy theory. Any "grand" conspiracy theory has evidence against it in the form of the implausibility of thousands of people remaining silent about it for decades. And the moon theory is even worse off, since there are amateur radio operators who heard some of the chatter by pointing their antennas to the moon, along with hundreds of pounds of rocks that couldn't have formed on Earth. Plus video that can only be explained by special effects that weren't developed until the last 10 years or so, or a soundstage in vacuum and lower than Earth gravity.

Faking the moon landing would have been orders of magnitude harder than just going there.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

drunken
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 5:14 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby drunken » Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:29 am UTC

Thanks Gmalivuk, those pictures are good to have.

Slashdot reported this today which seems to be relevant to our discussion.
***This post is my own opinion and no claim is being made that it is in any way scientific nor intended to be construed as such by any reader***

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7602
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Zamfir » Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:25 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Observatories here couldn't resolve the Moon to that kind of resolution. However, the LROC took loads of pictures of landing sites.

So, NASA claims to have an orbiter that takes pictures of the landings NASA claims happened. And that proves what exactly?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jan 16, 2010 5:36 am UTC

Well it adds a few thousand more people to the list of ones that are staying quiet for some pointless reason.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Chicostick
Posts: 410
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:19 am UTC
Location: The boonies of Maine

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Chicostick » Sat Jan 16, 2010 6:36 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Observatories here couldn't resolve the Moon to that kind of resolution. However, the LROC took loads of pictures of landing sites.

So, NASA claims to have an orbiter that takes pictures of the landings NASA claims happened. And that proves what exactly?


This argument is sort of a shaky one. I could ask the same question of Australia. Sure, I've seen pictures of Australia, and I've met people who claim to be from Australia, but I have never been there to prove that it actually exists. Who's to say it is even there right now? How can you know without being there?

There's a point where you can draw a line between what is improbable and what is true. If there's a huge volume of pictures, video, and people who've actually been to a place, you can start to treat that place as real. Especially when there's still experiments being run using equipment that was left there. If the mountain of evidence out there that proves we landed on the moon isn't enough, than I can't see the people who believe in this theory can believe in countries like Mongolia. I mean I've never been to Mongolia. Sure there's pictures and lots of people who claim to have lived there and such, but who's to say they aren't just lying to me?

zac
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:52 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby zac » Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:44 am UTC

what i dont get is why a government (or whoever) source of conspiracy theories allows that information to be globally circulated and distributed on mass scale if the conspiracy is true. for example in china government censorship means no information is accessible online about Tianaman Square.

also there are so many crazy conspiracy theories out there that even if there were some true it makes it less credible and who could make it up must have a vivid imagination and i dot understand the motive because some people believe the crazy stuff like my friend and e said he actually believes everything.

i guess what i am asking is what is the intent behind conspiracy theories as a genre.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby PeterCai » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:52 pm UTC

zac wrote:what i dont get is why a government (or whoever) source of conspiracy theories allows that information to be globally circulated and distributed on mass scale if the conspiracy is true. for example in china government censorship means no information is accessible online about Tianaman Square.

also there are so many crazy conspiracy theories out there that even if there were some true it makes it less credible and who could make it up must have a vivid imagination and i dot understand the motive because some people believe the crazy stuff like my friend and e said he actually believes everything.

i guess what i am asking is what is the intent behind conspiracy theories as a genre.


To keep a secret, it's always more efficient to discredit an information than to conceal it. For example, in China, Tiananman Square is a taboo and a national shame, contrary to the intention of censorship.

Just to give you an example of a credible conspiracy theory.

The Ottowa Initiative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Initiative

FlareHunter76
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 2:52 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby FlareHunter76 » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:22 am UTC

you know, something is not a conspiracy theory if it's based on facts.

there were 2 planes on 9/11. 3 buildings fell. supposedly WTC Building 7 fell due to fires and debris from the other towers. but heres the thing:

OFFICE FIRES CAN'T MELT STEEL.

they say the jet fuel in the planes caused the steel to weaken and collapse in WTC Buildings 1 and 2. but jet fuel doesn't even burn hot enough to weaken steel. plus, most of the jet fuel in the planes was burned up instantly when the planes hit.

and how about the time it took for them to collapse? WTC towers 1 and 2 each came down in approximately 11 seconds. that's free-fall speed. what that means is that the top of the building followed the path of least resistance; there was nothing to support the columns. only by removing all of the columns with explosives can a building come down at free-fall speed.

WTC 7 also came down at free-fall speed. it was a 47 story building and it came down in 6.5 seconds. think. do fires and debris cause a 47 story building to come down in 6.5 seconds?

and what about the explosive residue found in the dust at ground zero? chemical evidence shows that a high-grade explosive called nano-thermite was present in several samples of the dust. nano thermite CAN melt steel, unlike jet fuel. in fact, nano-thermite can burn to about 4500 degrees F . jet fuel, even with optimal oxygen content, which, by the way, was not present in the towers, can only burn to 1800 degrees F . steel melts at about 2800 degrees F . do the math. jet fuel can't melt steel. nano-thermite can. and another thing, nano-thermite is not something that can be made by terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan. it can only be produced in a high-tech laboratory.

you may be thinking, how could nano-thermite be put into these maximum security buildings without anyone noticing? well, nano-thermite can actually be painted on walls. people who were painting the building might actually have been painting nano-thermite, and they might not even know it.

http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov11.htm

please watch the video above if you have the time. i know it's long, 2 hours actually, but it will explain so much more than i did. have a good day.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby BlackSails » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:29 am UTC

FlareHunter76 wrote:
OFFICE FIRES CAN'T MELT STEEL.


Ive shown in other threads that the gravitational collapse of the building gave more than enough energy to vaporize steel.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Postby Azrael » Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:37 am UTC

You know what, I really don't need to have to keep tabs on another magnet for internet stupid. Locked.


Also: Merged with the identically titled predecessor. Holy crap look at all the purple.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests