Favorite conspiracy theories

Mikey B said:
Reminds me of Capricorn One, which IIRC featured O.J. Simpson. So bonus conspiracy connections there!
Click to expand...
I especially appreciated the Stearman and helicopter chase scenes at the end!
Anthony
 
6d2.jpg
 
My former barber would go on at length about how the entire world was controlled by a secret cabal with the Rothschild family at the top... Freemasons, bankers, FEMA, you name it and "they" were in on it. I wanted to engage, or at least ask him why he and I were apparently the only ones not in on the whole deal, but you know -- I look bad in a bowl cut.

271015.jpg
 
DaleB said:
My former barber would go on at length about how the entire world was controlled by a secret cabal with the Rothschild family at the top... Freemasons, bankers, FEMA, you name it and "they" were in on it. I wanted to engage, or at least ask him why he and I were apparently the only ones not in on the whole deal, but you know -- I look bad in a bowl cut.

271015.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Seems like people are conflating "myth" with "conspiracy theory."
 
There is an abundance of evidence that points towards collusion.
 
I learned about a new conspiracy the other day. "Tartarian Empire". Basically adherents believe that the elaborate building of the Beaux-arts, Art Deco, Classical and Neo empire style were built by an ancient civilization, "Tartaria" which also built the pyramids and other ancient structures. Tartaria was wiped out in a series of disasters including a "mud flood" as little as 100 years ago. There is a conspiracy by the modern governments to wipe out any knowlege of this great empire and in fact the two world wars were actually cover to destroy evidence of the remnants of this civilization.

As far as conspiracies go, this one is pretty out there... There was a recent article about this on Bloomberg.com. (I cant post links yet).
 
I see it like a function generator. Inputs are: noise, imagination, fears, dreams, historical events, scientific evidence, random observations. Filters are distortion, more noise, personal biases. Then you set it to create whatever you want: myth, religion, manifesto, conspiracy theory, scientific proof, rumor, trend. Feed a little bit of the output back to the input. Like a 1970's analog synth. But it never sounds as good as a Hammond B3.

Changing my answer on favorite conspiracy theory. Nuclear Winter. It's not a theory, from what I understand Carl Sagan admitted in later life that he just made it up. The math wasn't right, and subsequent events have proven it silly, but he justified that made up science was OK as long as the result was good. For a relatively bright guy to fall for ends justify the means logic should be surprising, but it's not.

Good conspiracy theories, like any good lie, have a little bit of truth in them.
 
They don’t. They beat the air into submission.
 
Fun for me because I knew one VERY successful hoaxer. He pulled off several UFO hoaxes.

He was also a genius. Was the librarian for a LARGE shipbuilding company. He memorized the Dewey decimal system, and knew just a little about EVERY subject, and could lead you to the authoritarian book. (before the internet)

He LOVED to laugh about his hoaxes, some of which were written up in the Seattle Times the next day as a UFO sightings.
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
Justified that made up science was OK as long as the result was good... ends justify the means logic...
Click to expand...
My friends parents growing up, most of my teachers in school, many of my bosees, local (especially) and higher level governments, all advertisers and big businesses adhere to this reasoning. Is it any wonder that after a lifetime of being subjected to people who get you do do what they want you to do by "backward engineering" the "facts" to fit their preconceived notions, some people-- especially those more limited than you or I :) -- believe that everything, or at least everything they haven't personally experienced is the same?
 
Albany Tom said:
I see it like a function generator. Inputs are: noise, imagination, fears, dreams, historical events, scientific evidence, random observations. Filters are distortion, more noise, personal biases. Then you set it to create whatever you want: myth, religion, manifesto, conspiracy theory, scientific proof, rumor, trend. Feed a little bit of the output back to the input. Like a 1970's analog synth. But it never sounds as good as a Hammond B3.

Changing my answer on favorite conspiracy theory. Nuclear Winter. It's not a theory, from what I understand Carl Sagan admitted in later life that he just made it up. The math wasn't right, and subsequent events have proven it silly, but he justified that made up science was OK as long as the result was good. For a relatively bright guy to fall for ends justify the means logic should be surprising, but it's not.

Good conspiracy theories, like any good lie, have a little bit of truth in them.
Click to expand...
I realize that this is a conspiracy thread, but the theory was proposed by someone other than Sagan:
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/WiresClimateChangeNW.pdf
 
Scrabo said:
JFK junior is back
Click to expand...

This current one.. wow, I just fail to comprehend how gullible some people are these days. Are they still waiting at that plaza for the big announcement? Its been weeks now.
 
Albany Tom said:
Changing my answer on favorite conspiracy theory. Nuclear Winter. It's not a theory, from what I understand Carl Sagan admitted in later life that he just made it up. The math wasn't right, and subsequent events have proven it silly, but he justified that made up science was OK as long as the result was good.
Click to expand...

It wasn't so much that he made it up. There was a lot of math and computer modeling behind the nuclear winter idea that Sagan and colleagues proposed. I was working in the next building over at the time, and so was exposed to some of it when the debate went public. But you are correct, the math wasn't right. That old "Garbage In => Garbage Out" problem. The models contained some bad assumptions, with the biggest gaffe being failure to account for the temperature buffering effects of the oceans. The models were, as we say, directionally correct, but the effects would almost certainly be less dire than was predicted back in the '80s.

I believe the larger conclusion, that humanity really should avoid nuclear war, still holds up pretty well.
 
Last edited:
GaryM said:
...
I believe the larger conclusion, that humanity really should avoid nuclear war, still holds up pretty well.
Click to expand...

I suspect that many will conclude that humanity really should avoid war ... nuclear or "conventional".... we don't need modeling or math or much of anything special to reach that obvious conclusion.

Or will such a statement get me banned?
 
Albany Tom said:
I see it like a function generator. Inputs are: noise, imagination, fears, dreams, historical events, scientific evidence, random observations....
Click to expand...
Of that list, the only one that requires replication of results is scientific evidence.
 
GaryM said:
It wasn't so much that he made it up. There was a lot of math and computer modeling behind the nuclear winter idea that Sagan and colleagues proposed. I was working in the next building over at the time, and so was exposed to some of it when the debate went public. But you are correct, the math wasn't right. That old "Garbage In => Garbage Out" problem. The models contained some bad assumptions, with the biggest gaffe being failure to account for the temperature buffering effects of the oceans. The models were, as we say, directionally correct, but the effects would almost certainly be less dire than was predicted back in the '80s.

I believe the larger conclusion, that humanity really should avoid nuclear war, still holds up pretty well.
Click to expand...

But we don't need fake science to make that statement. I worked with a group that does plume modeling for "normal" particulate emissions around things like power plants. From them, the Iraqi oil well fires put that to bed. When scientists steer their results to fit the answers they want, rather than what the data suggests, it leads people to mistrust the entire scientific community, believing it to be political...because in this case it was. This wasn't the only over hyped thing from the scientific community in the 80's, and I believe it resulted in a decent part of a generation viewing scientists as just another type of marketing executive.
 
Albany Tom said:
But we don't need fake science to make that statement. I worked with a group that does plume modeling for "normal" particulate emissions around things like power plants. From them, the Iraqi oil well fires put that to bed. When scientists steer their results to fit the answers they want, rather than what the data suggests, it leads people to mistrust the entire scientific community, believing it to be political...because in this case it was. This wasn't the only over hyped thing from the scientific community in the 80's, and I believe it resulted in a decent part of a generation viewing scientists as just another type of marketing executive.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence that was done? The The Iraqi oil well calculations were somewhat flawed as a comparison because that soot didn't go into the stratosphere, and it was only thick smoke locally (see the reference cited in my earlier reply to you). Mt. Pinatubo would be a better example, although I feel the volcanic gasses are different than that from what would result from a nuclear explosion.
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
 
Albany Tom said:
But we don't need fake science to make that statement. I worked with a group that does plume modeling for "normal" particulate emissions around things like power plants. From them, the Iraqi oil well fires put that to bed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean here. The Iraqi fires and any modeling thereof came almost a decade after the nuclear winter modeling…so it’s not like Sagan and colleagues chose to ignore those results.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Do you have evidence that was done? The The Iraqi oil well calculations were somewhat flawed as a comparison because that soot didn't go into the stratosphere, and it was only thick smoke locally (see the reference cited in my earlier reply to you). Mt. Pinatubo would be a better example, although I feel the volcanic gasses are different than that from what would result from a nuclear explosion.
https://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf
Click to expand...

To me it's self-evident. He didn't present questionable theories as theories, he presented them as fact, and then evangelized them. I never met the man. I've read that he justified the propaganda as ethically correct, I don't know if that's true, but either way it's at best self-serving in my view. I didn't draw the comparison with Iraqi fires, I just commented on it. It was Sagan that drew that parallel, and at the time.
 
GaryM said:
Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean here. The Iraqi fires and any modeling thereof came almost a decade after the nuclear winter modeling…so it’s not like Sagan and colleagues chose to ignore those results.
Click to expand...

Correct. My point being that the Iraqi fires were the nails in the coffin in the theory, according to the people I know in that field.
 
Albany Tom said:
Correct. My point being that the Iraqi fires were the nails in the coffin in the theory, according to the people I know in that field.
Click to expand...
Surface particles and particles lofted very high up into the atmosphere don't necessarily mean the same effects. I think that is the reasoning behind the difference between any possible nuclear winter (or volcanic winter) vs a ground based fire. Millions of acres are burning across Siberia every year and that does not seem make a big difference, yet some volcanic eruptions in the past have caused a significant (temporary) climate shift.
 
I know who Q is. He's a friend of mine, tells me cool stuff but promised I wouldn't give him up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top