Conspiracy theories

[jonny777]

What I find rather worrying, is that this subject seems to appear in a thread every few weeks; and the same people make the same attempts to use it for reinforcing their own personal opinions (using less than humorous cliches), rather than make any effort to explain why they feel the need to do this. 

 

The current implication is that any hint of belief in a conspiracy theory makes someone a "whacko". 

 

Maybe this applies to William Shakespeare, because he was one of the instigators behind the Richard III conspiracy to have the princes in the tower murdered? 

 

Does this make Shakespeare a "whacko"?  

 

 

 

 

[kevinlms]

16 minutes ago, rocor said:

Conspiracy beliefs, the internet and YouTube.

 

Just because you are a total wacko. There is no reason that you cannot financially profit from your delusions.

 

But many of these hoaxes on the internet, make the writers lots of money, they actually don't care if what they write is the truth or not, as long as people 'do their own research', on websites, they provide the links too!

 

t was once considered that Wikipedia was the source of mistrust, now it seems to be an element of truth!

[Nearholmer]

47 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

Does this make Shakespeare a "whacko"?  

More an author of fiction, who knew how to write things that the influential might approve of, so possibly a very mild propagandist.

 

I guess the difference between a delusional nutter and a propagandist is that the former believes their nonsense, and the latter is cynical enough to publish what they don’t believe.

[Nearholmer]

3 hours ago, jonny777 said:

Don't worry, because there is a campaign to have lessons on 'how to spot fake news' taught in schools over the next few years. 

It already happens, and a blooming good thing too.

 

If there’s a prime skill that people need these days, it’s critical thinking, and how to spot falsehoods at a hundred paces, so the younger they learn, the better.

[jonny777]

4 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

It already happens, and a blooming good thing too.

 

If there’s a prime skill that people need these days, it’s critical thinking, and how to spot falsehoods at a hundred paces, so the younger they learn, the better.

 

I understand your point, but how can you spot a falsehood in a well argued conspiracy theory? 

 

Taking my previous example, Edward and Richard were condemned to the Tower Of London and subsequently vanished without a trace. Richard III declared himself king due their 'missing' status, and many people conclude Richard was the prime mover behind their disappearance. 

 

There are no falsehoods here, just a lack of vital evidence; but it is still a conspiracy theory. 

 

You have to be very careful when educating children to disbelieve what a majority consider to be falsehoods, because down that road lies brainwashing and indoctrination. 

[iL Dottore]

1 hour ago, jonny777 said:

… Mayb this applies to William Shakespeare, because he was one of the instigators behind the Richard III conspiracy to have the princes in the tower murdered? 

Does this make Shakespeare a "whacko"?  

Nope, more like a propagandist for Queen Elizabeth I and the Tudors. All his “history” plays (those not set in Ancient Rome or Athens), including Richard III (especially Richard III) were written to both put the Tudors in a good light and make the Tudors taking the throne as “inevitable”.

Writing plays that extol the virtues of the Tudor dynasty (whilst downplaying their many faults,) is hardly in the same league as denying that the coronavirus exists and is just a hoax to let Bill Gates take over the world.

Sadly, nowadays the greater your expertise in a subject the less likely you are going to be paid heed to. The nutters will always find reasons for ignoring competence and expertise (“in the pay of big Pharma“, “Secret UN forces” et cetera et cetera). Very much of a case of “my ignorance is just as good, no, actually better, then your expertise acquired through study and experience“

 

They are very much the Internet equivalent of those sad individuals that used to write incoherent and rambling missives to politicians and newspapers on lined paper in green crayon.

 

Unfortunately, as nowadays “we mustn’t offend people“, encouraging a rational and questioning approach to life has now become the province of a privileged few.

[MarkC]

Conspiracy theories are one thing, but to claim, as but one example, that the Moon landings didn't occur is simply weapons-grade hokum. Apart from the sheer numbers of folk who would have had to be "in" on it, the Soviet Union would have been all over the USA, had they not seen for themselves what was going on...

[jonny777]

Well, don't say I didn't try.....

 

 

[Nearholmer]

38 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

understand your point, but how can you spot a falsehood in a well argued conspiracy theory? 

Very often, a basic knowledge of logic, science, probability, and human nature is enough to start the whiskers twitching. Then things like the credibility of otherwise of any sources cited, the track record of the publication promulgating the tale etc.

 

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

58 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

There are no falsehoods here, just a lack of vital evidence; but it is still a conspiracy theory. 

So, a basic lesson is that absence of evidence is just that, not a good reason to fill the gap with supposition.

 

Alongside that goes “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

 

58 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

You have to be very careful when educating children to disbelieve what a majority consider to be falsehoods, because down that road lies brainwashing and indoctrination.

Maybe I’m not explaining well: the idea is not to tell kids what is and isn’t true, which would be an impossible task given the rate at which news and nonsense are both produced. The idea is to equip children with the mental tools that help them to differentiate between things that are probably true, and those that may well be lies or pure nonsense.

 

TBH, a lot of adults could do with the same lessons!

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Nearholmer

[jonny777]

You're moving the goalposts. 

 

Just because something may be lies or pure nonsense doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. 

 

If you wish to go down the road of labelling everyone a conspiracy theorist, simply because they believe something which could be lies or pure nonsense, you may have a problem with church-goers on a Sunday. 

 

Edit... And I should have added, even more of a problem with party political broadcasts; but that might be one too far for the mods. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by jonny777

[johnofwessex]

I;m a great believer in c**k up theories

 

There is some sort of (very small) number and if you involve more than that number of people the story will get out.

 

Also of course as a writer of a book on the Masons pointed out, yes Tom, Dick & Harry may well be masons but they are also relatives, in the same business/whatever so its in their interest to cover each others backs

[Ozexpatriate]

My dad used to say when his children squabbled or engaged in horseplay, "It'll all end in tears, I just know it."

[Nearholmer]

32 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

Just because something may be lies or pure nonsense doesn't make it a conspiracy theory. 

Indeed not.

 

But, conspiracy theories fall within the larger set ‘lies or nonsense’ (other than the tiny, tiny proportion exposing real conspiracies), so an ability to spot lies or nonsense is perfect for spotting conspiracy theories, as well as other lies and nonsense.

 

So, if it appears to carry the hallmarks of lies a or nonsense, and describes or relies upon the existence of a conspiracy, it probably is a duck.

[Andy Kirkham]

13 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Indeed not.

 

But, conspiracy theories fall within the larger set ‘lies or nonsense’ (other than the tiny, tiny proportion exposing real conspiracies), so an ability to spot lies or nonsense is perfect for spotting conspiracy theories, as well as other lies and nonsense.

 

So, if it appears to carry the hallmarks of lies a or nonsense, and describes or relies upon the existence of a conspiracy, it probably is a duck.

 

One characteristic of many nonsense conspiracy theories is that they would require an unfeasibly large number to be "in" on the conspiracy and for not a single one of them to blow the whistle on it.

 

e.g. how many operatives would it have taken to engineer the collapse of the Twin Towers?

 

And if there was any plausibility in some of the anti-vaxxers' assertions, they would require the co-ordinated connivance of almost the entire medical profession worldwide.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Andy Kirkham

[Ozexpatriate]

16 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

One characteristic of many nonsense conspiracy theories is that they would require an unfeasibly large number to be "in" on the conspiracy and for not a single one of them to blow the whistle on it.

...

And if there was any plausibility in some of the anti-vaxxers' assertions, they would require the co-ordinated connivance of almost the entire medical profession worldwide.

The steady drumbeat of people trying to delegitimize science* is part of the problem.

 

* Climate science in particular. There is vast consensus, but media outlets with an opposing political position will line up "experts" who claim to debunk scientific consensus. Then it devolves to "trusted sources".

 

This sort of thing isn't new. See The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (1925).

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Ozexpatriate

[BoD]

13 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

e.g. how many operatives would it have taken to engineer the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Just Fred Dibnah and his mate.

[jonny777]

38 minutes ago, Andy Kirkham said:

 

 

e.g. how many operatives would it have taken to engineer the collapse of the Twin Towers?

 

 

 

 

Would it have taken that many? 

 

A number of people dressed as contract workers, and appearing at night and weekends for a few weeks would probably do the trick. 

 

Would anyone worry about men in overalls carrying large boxes while appearing to work on lift shafts? Any vast lengths of cabling could be easily passed off as fibre optic upgrades to the internet system. 

 

Once everything had been installed, I'm sure operating the remote control would take even less people. 

 

I'm not saying that is what happened, just that it is possible over a period of time with not that many people. 

[Nearholmer]

Didn't a chap called Occam point out hundreds of years ago the folly of accepting explanations based on multiple assumptions, when an explanation based on few or none is available?

[Andy Kirkham]

12 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

Would it have taken that many? 

 

A number of people dressed as contract workers, and appearing at night and weekends for a few weeks would probably do the trick. 

 

Would anyone worry about men in overalls carrying large boxes while appearing to work on lift shafts? Any vast lengths of cabling could be easily passed off as fibre optic upgrades to the internet system. 

 

Once everything had been installed, I'm sure operating the remote control would take even less people. 

 

I'm not saying that is what happened, just that it is possible over a period of time with not that many people. 

OK not hundreds, but there would have been the people that devised the plot and the World Trade Centre management would have had to be in on it in order to instruct the genuine WTC maintenance staff not to challenge the interlopers.

[Ozexpatriate]

14 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

Would it have taken that many? 

They tried it in 1993. It didn't work then. Hence the attack by air.

[The Johnster]

48 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

The steady drumbeat of people trying to delegitimize science* is part of the problem.

 

What he said. 

 

There were people in school, you remember them, who were either too bored or too stupid to take any notice of what was going on, or both.  Some of them just kept quiet and stared at cloud formations (I may or may not have been one of these) but many realised that they were depriving themselves of an opportunity to learn things.  So, in order to level the playing field, they made it as hard as possible for anybody who actually wanted to learn things by playing around and causing distractions. 

 

When these people grew up, I mean older, having missed out on higher education and never been *rsed to find out things for themselves, they became resentful of those who had learned things and made something of their lives.  The standard media depiction of scientists, embodied by the likes of Patrick Moore, was of somebody who was a bit mad, socially inept, and not the sort of person you wanted to associate was pounced on by them gleefully as an easy means of expressing their contempt for those who had tried to improve themselves by learning things ('people who think that learning things is an attempt to suggest that you are better than we are').  They want to level the playing field and it is easier for them to try to bring us down to their level than for them to make the effort to bring themselves out of the tabloid/channel 5 documentary/Britain's Got Talent (debateable)/MOTD morass they live in. 

 

These guys love conspiracy theories.  Belief in them proves that they know something that the rest of us don't, and are therefore cleverer than us despite the level of knowledge we may have obtained by actually studying and learning.  The dishevelled mad scientist still lurks in the media presentation of people who have learned things that took some time or trouble, but they are now included in the category of nerds, which includes us as modellers; anyone who has a hobby other than fishing, cars, or football is at risk of being defined in such a way by the lazy media, though things have improved a little during my lifetime.

 

Conspiracy theorists are arrogant enough to think that the CIA/Illuminati/Space Lizards/whoever is in fashion for it that week cabal that secretly rules the world is interested enough in them to track their emails, monitor their dull activities, or control their minds with beams neccssitating foil hats.  They want to feel as if they are important, and they are deluded enough and stupid enough to think it will work.

 

Of course, I could be an agent of the CIA/Illuminati/Space Lizards etc. trying to discredit those who are the guardians of the personal freedoms that are so threatened.

 

I respectfully suggest that you make your own mind up.

 

Sunday rant over...

[Colin_McLeod]

RMweb does not have thousands of members. There are only a dozen or so, and all the posts are written by Andy York and the moderators to fool us.

[woodenhead]

6 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

RMweb does not have thousands of members. There are only a dozen or so, and all the posts are written by Andy York and the moderators to fool us.

Careful, I already think I might be a product of my wife's imagination, now your telling me that I'm not actually writing this but Andy York is.

 

I think though that Andy York is actually Phil Parker, using Andy as as means of collecting two salaries, Andy these days looks looser in the skin - perhaps a suit that Phil dons when he wants to appear as Andy.

[jonny777]

49 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Didn't a chap called Occam point out hundreds of years ago the folly of accepting explanations based on multiple assumptions, when an explanation based on few or none is available?

 

 

Ok, I'll bite (which is what this thread seems to have been started for - to pour scorn on folk who trust no one in power and don't believe everything the media tell them to believe). 

 

Tell Occam to cut these down to a conclusion based on no assumptions....

 

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of controlled demolition.

 

Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration

 

Improbable symmetry of debris distribution

 

Extremely rapid onset of destruction

 

Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes

 

Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally

 

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

 

1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found

 

Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front

 

Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame

 

Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises

 

Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples

 

Evidence of explosives found in dust samples

 

WTC 7 also exhibited characteristics of controlled demolition.

 

Rapid onset of collapse

 

Sounds of explosions

 

Symmetrical structural failure

 

Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance

 

Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint

 

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

 

Corroboration from Danny Jowenko, a European controlled demolition professional

Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

 

The three high-rises exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

 

Slow onset with large visible deformations

 

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

 

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

 

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed

 

 

 

And all that is before we get to the fact that  live BBC TV rolling news announced the collapse of WTC7 24 minutes before it happened.