My Thoughts On Conspiracies And Conspiracy Theories

[Kyle M]

Looking at the phenomenon from a lens of natural selection in human actions:

Conspiracies are Under Selective Pressures

 

[LeeRoyJenkins]

I'm curious what conclusions you draw from this article?

 

[Fetch]

That he wrote it?

 

[Kyle M]

That he wrote it?

lol

 

[DaveFoster]

I'm curious what conclusions you draw from this article?

That the Reptilians run everything, obviously.

 

[Travis]

The article does touch on the idea that many people will not believe a 'big lie.' That goes for something.

This here is a longer article on the subject.

 

[x-ray peat]

I think that the main points of the article are based on two false premises.

Karl Popper's Theory of Falsification was never intended to apply to questions of history but only to matters of science, and more appropriately to experimental science. But assuming that Falsification does apply, whether or not a particular conspiracy can be considered true or not will depend upon a careful examination of all the evidence, and like in a trial of facts, are based on the preponderance of evidence. If someone rejects your argument that a conspiracy isn't true because of "x," it isn't necessarily the case that they are not open to be proven wrong or "falsified," but rather because they have evaluated "x" and found it to be unpersuasive, or it is countered by other evidence. Controlled opposition, disinformation, limited hangouts, as well as many, many other tools of psychological warfare are all facts that need to be taken into account when studying a conspiracy.

I think you are also incorrect in applying the claim of survivorship bias in your analysis of conspiracy theories, and in particular the many examples of 9/11 predictive programming. The fact that there are hundreds of references to 9/11 in the media going back some 50 years is not an example of survivorship but rather real evidence of foreknowledge. The reason is simple, the shear number of references. For your theory of survivorship bias to hold, there would have to be several other examples of multiple references to other dates or future events that didn't come true. However there isnt. One reference to 5/15 and a couple references to 8/13 are not even remotely equivalent. The fact that references to 9/11 have appeared so many times and in so many brazen ways, makes this bit of evidence unique. There is no survivorship bias because there are no other potential survivors. Moreover, mocking the victim by telling him what you are doing to him or about to do to him, even on a subconscious level, is part of the Occult ritual. There is a reason for these events to be foreshadowed so often in the movies.

 

[Travis]

I think that the main points of the article are based on two false premises.

Karl Popper's Theory of Falsification was never intended to apply to questions of history but only to matters of science, and more appropriately to experimental science. But assuming that Falsification does apply, whether or not a particular conspiracy can be considered true or not will depend upon a careful examination of all the evidence, and like in a trial of facts, are based on the preponderance of evidence. If someone rejects your argument that a conspiracy isn't true because of "x," it isn't necessarily the case that they are not open to be proven wrong or "falsified," but rather because they have evaluated "x" and found it to be unpersuasive, or it is countered by other evidence. Controlled opposition, disinformation, limited hangouts, as well as many, many other tools of psychological warfare are all facts that need to be taken into account when studying a conspiracy.

I think you are also incorrect in applying the claim of survivorship bias in your analysis of conspiracy theories, and in particular the many examples of 9/11 predictive programming. The fact that there are hundreds of references to 9/11 in the media going back some 50 years is not an example of survivorship but rather real evidence of foreknowledge. The reason is simple, the shear number of references. For your theory of survivorship bias to hold, there would have to be several other examples of multiple references to other dates or future events that didn't come true. However there isnt. One reference to 5/15 and a couple references to 8/13 are not even remotely equivalent. The fact that references to 9/11 have appeared so many times and in so many brazen ways, makes this bit of evidence unique. There is no survivorship bias because there are no other potential survivors. Moreover, mocking the victim by telling him what you are doing to him or about to do to him, even on a subconscious level, is part of the Occult ritual. There is a reason for these events to be foreshadowed so often in the movies.

I was going to say the example in the article was weak, and that I have seen more convincing examples (i.e. Supertramp). As the world's most iconic buildings you would certainly expect them to appear in motion pictures, but I do find the magazine from the Simpson's cartoon somewhat troubling because $9 is far too expensive for a magazine—any magazine; you would think Matt Groening would have penciled a more realistic '$2' or '$3' . . . and the silhouette could just as well been the equally‐iconic Statue of Liberty (though admittedly more difficult to draw.)

 

[Kyle M]

Karl Popper's Theory of Falsification was never intended to apply to questions of history but only to matters of science, and more appropriately to experimental science. But assuming that Falsification does apply, whether or not a particular conspiracy can be considered true or not will depend upon a careful examination of all the evidence, and like in a trial of facts, are based on the preponderance of evidence. If someone rejects your argument that a conspiracy isn't true because of "x," it isn't necessarily the case that they are not open to be proven wrong or "falsified," but rather because they have evaluated "x" and found it to be unpersuasive, or it is countered by other evidence. Controlled opposition, disinformation, limited hangouts, as well as many, many other tools of psychological warfare are all facts that need to be taken into account when studying a conspiracy.

1) A conspiracy theory isn't a question of history, or rather it doesn't have to be. A conspiracy is an explanation of an observation. Example: The reason for the tariff on imported sugarcane is because of lobbying by domestic beet sugar producers that are suffering from foreign sugarcane competition. This isn't a scientific hypothesis in the sense that you can set up an experiment in the lab, but it is scientific in the sense that you can gather data to be used as evidence and apply your reason to it to determine the most likely explanation.

Now, in that case, you can find information such as instances of literal beet sugar-employed lobbyists lobbying for the tariff, payments from those producers to politicians that sponsor the legislation, etc.

This is where you go from being a conspiracy theorist to some kind of scholar, when you gather information and use it with reason, weighing the sides, rather than just focusing on what supports your theory and applying little to no skepticism of it.

2) The problem with your last sentence about controlled opposition is that this, too, is a theory. I know that there are verified cases, but many conspiracy theorists use it all over the place as a "hand waving" gesture to dismiss accounts that go against their theory. This is what I mean in point #1, just because it's possible that some whistle blower is controlled opposition doesn't mean that it's a foregone conclusion you can rely on. This is the razor that divides quacks from intellectuals. I am confident that there is a neural circuitry explanation of how some people cannot apply skepticism to certain topics, whereas another group cannot overcome skepticism on certain topics. It's obvious when talking to people that they are doing this, they are somehow shutting down that part of their brain in an effort to defend their existing position. See religious faith under fire and many political beliefs for more examples of this phenomenon.

I think you are also incorrect in applying the claim of survivorship bias in your analysis of conspiracy theories, and in particular the many examples of 9/11 predictive programming. The fact that there are hundreds of references to 9/11 in the media going back some 50 years is not an example of survivorship but rather real evidence of foreknowledge. The reason is simple, the shear number of references. For your theory of survivorship bias to hold, there would have to be several other examples of multiple references to other dates or future events that didn't come true. However there isnt. One reference to 5/15 and a couple references to 8/13 are not even remotely equivalent. The fact that references to 9/11 have appeared so many times and in so many brazen ways, makes this bit of evidence unique. There is no survivorship bias because there are no other potential survivors. Moreover, mocking the victim by telling him what you are doing to him or about to do to him, even on a subconscious level, is part of the Occult ritual. There is a reason for these events to be foreshadowed so often in the movies.

1) I should restate this point, because I think you missed it. I'm saying that "predictions" of events in media seem like predictions when the events happen, but "predictions" that *would* seem like predictions if the events did happen, but the events didn't, *don't* seem like "failed predictions." Does that make sense?

It's like, if I called my shot in baseball like Babe Ruth, everyone sees that as a correct prediction. If 100 baseball players call their shots, and don't make them, none of those predictions are seen as equally incorrect to the correct of Ruth's. You could say that 101 baseball players called their shots, and 1 made it, making the calls on average statistically meaningless. But the public *focuses* on the ONE shot that is made as per prediction, and throws out the rest.

I believe if you could watch ALL of the media from the past 50 years and write down anything that is demonstrated as future, foreshadowing, etc., you could come up with a nearly endless list of potential future events that could be predicted. But you cannot see them as such because the events didn't happen.

Have you ever listened to a song or seen a movie, liked it, and discussed it with a friend, only for them to say "the meaning of X (lyrics or a scene or whatever) is Y" and you didn't think that before? Now, that could mean that the artist or director indeed intended there to be an esoteric meaning to their art, or that they unconsciously planted an esoteric meaning through some mystical principle of art itself, OR it could be a made up narrative by art critics who make a living on writing "explanations" of art.

This is the same thing with conspiracies.

2) I don't dispute that occult rituals involve telling the victim and all of that, but that doesn't mean that every little thing that seems to line up with a real event is that phenomenon. To see everything that way belies to me a paranoia, since there is no evidence that any of these cartoons or comic books were produced by whatever shadowy entity did 9/11. If that evidence could be produced, then you have something.

Furthermore, the definition of predictive programming is always shifting. Sometimes people say, as you say, that it's 100% intentional to demoralize the public. Other times people say it's part of some psychic connection all people have to each other and to history. These flimsy explanations and definitions don't do any favors to the concept.

 

[Kyle M]

I was going to say the example in the article was weak, and that I have seen more convincing examples (i.e. Supertramp). As the world's most iconic buildings you would certainly expect them to appear in motion pictures, but I do find the magazine from the Simpson's cartoon somewhat troubling because $9 is far too expensive for a magazine—any magazine; you would think Matt Groening would have penciled a more realistic '$2' or '$3' . . . and the silhouette could just as well been the equally‐iconic Statue of Liberty (though admittedly more difficult to draw.)

Why does the magazine price bother you? Hasn't the New Yorker always been one of the most expensive magazines on the market? All glossy n' ***t.

 

[Such_Saturation]

 

[Travis]

Why does the magazine price bother you? Hasn't the New Yorker always been one of the most expensive magazines on the market? All glossy n' ***t.

I think you're right. All the New Yorker's I've had were outdated by a few years, so were basically free, but I wouldn't doubt that they would sell for about $9 right now.

I'm not bothered by the price of a fictional magazine, but troubled by the fact that it's a somewhat convincing example of foreknowledge. Obviously, the $9 news‐stand price is what determines the putative foreshadowing in this case, yet this is not a realistic 1990s magazine price. I really doubt that you'd find any other examples of $9 magazines in '90s cartoons.

 

[x-ray peat]

@kyle, so do you think 9/11 was an inside job or not?

 

[michael94]

 

[x-ray peat]

I think you're right. All the New Yorker's I've had were outdated by a few years, so were basically free, but I wouldn't doubt that they would sell for about $9 right now.

I'm not bothered by the price of a fictional magazine, but troubled by the fact that it's a somewhat convincing example of foreknowledge. Obviously, the $9 news‐stand price is what determines the putative foreshadowing in this case, yet this is not a realistic 1990s magazine price. I really doubt that you'd find any other examples of $9 magazines in '90s cartoons.

Dont get into the game of debating one cherry picked fact or another. It is the the totality of the evidence that needs to be evaluated. But just restricting our discussion to media foreshadowing, any one media mention can be dismissed as a coincidence. However when you have close to a hundred foreshadowings of 9/11 then you have to conclude that something besides cooincidence is at work. Despite what Kyle would have us believe, there are no other instances of such coordinated hidden media messaging for any other historical or non-historical event.

 

[Ell]

Don't forget, the creation of the US by the "founding fathers" was the result of a conspiracy against the English. Conspiracies abound everywhere as a part of evolution - first a ruling group makes "laws", which creates enmity among some who may then band together to un-do iniquities created by the laws of the ruling group. For every conviction in state and federal court of a conspiracy charge, remember, the prosecutor must have at some point formulated a theory that a conspiracy existed. The truly un-realistic people are those who deny the existence of conspiracies.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Perhaps its some sort of archaic jungian archetype. People see tall buidings and they instantly think what if a low flying plane ran into them

 

[Travis]

This is certainly bizarre. On one hand: you have a wide array of images depicting destruction of these buildings, far more examples than that of similar iconic structures such as the Eiffel Tower and the Seattle Space Needle. On the other hand: these were the World's tallest buildings set in the centre of Manhattan existing as a pair—a totally unique situation. Even if people in Hollywood had wanted to either: abuse the psyche of The Public, get psychopathic kicks from doing such, or were merely trying to make the event seem more realistic—and perhaps even expected—when the time had come, you'd still probably expect other producers down the street to be foreshadowing the event quite unintentionally by making films and cartoons of their own. This is why I think focusing on one or two of the stronger examples could be more constructive than focusing on all of them, together; these were completely unique towers and you'd expect some unintentional foreshadowing concurrent with any intentional foreshadowing—should that have occurred. I can certainly see the cookie monster eating a tower in a no‐cookie situation, but I have a hard time imagining how Matt Groening and Crew would pencil an unrealistically‐high $9 price on a magazine circa 1997.

 

[Kyle M]

@kyle, so do you think 9/11 was an inside job or not?

Absolutely

 

[Kyle M]

I think you're right. All the New Yorker's I've had were outdated by a few years, so were basically free, but I wouldn't doubt that they would sell for about $9 right now.

I'm not bothered by the price of a fictional magazine, but troubled by the fact that it's a somewhat convincing example of foreknowledge. Obviously, the $9 news‐stand price is what determines the putative foreshadowing in this case, yet this is not a realistic 1990s magazine price. I really doubt that you'd find any other examples of $9 magazines in '90s cartoons.

Foreknowledge of what, price inflation that had already been steadily occurring throughout the entire 20th century? This would be like a 1920s cartoon showing the price of a loaf of bread at a dollar when looking 50 years in the future.