Do you know what a conspiracy theory is?

[KelleyNice]

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label “Conspiracy Theorists” … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the “Official” Narrative with the following:

· Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy

· Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports

· Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable

· Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”

· Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active

· Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate

· Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories

· Accuse theorists of being politically motivated

· Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories

[DWornock]

A conspiracy theory is when two or people agree to spread and a lie. Some conspiracy theories are. Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK, Sirhan Sirhan shot and killed Robert F Kennedy, and perhaps the biggest conspiracy theory of all: a man in a cave arraigned to have commercial air planes fly into and destroy the twin towers on 9/11 and that the towers, which were loaded with enough internal steel columns to withstand hits from several commercial planes, collapsed in their footprint because of fire. Even if was possible for the towers to have collapsed in their footprints without controlled demolition, which cannot happen because building fall through the least resistance which is air. Also, without controlled demolition, it would be impossible for the twin towers to collapse at near free fall speed because that would violate the law of conservation of momentum.

[globetrotter22]

Usually the most plausible theory is the right one.

But occasionally a theory that is initially considered wild, implausible or unlikely is quickly dismissed only to resurface later as real. Also sometimes people WANT to believe a certain theory because it reinforces their existing views.

I will give you an example. The whole Trump Russia collusion theory a few years ago. It was a giant hoax. But the leftist media took it and ran with it. And Trump being Trump couldn’t keep his mouth shut and instead fan the flames and made it all worse. So we wasted two years with the mueller investigation and over $100 million in wasted taxpayer money. People WANTED conspiracy theory to be real. It later proven to be completely false.

[KelleyNice]

Thank you for your splendid example.

[globetrotter22]

Well the newest example is the conspiracy theory that Trump actually organized and incited the January 6th riots. He absolutely did say a lot of stupid things the elevated the temperature. But also did say “protest with me peacefully”.

But the democrats are hoping to spin this as:

1) Trump “masterminded” the riot (and he didn’t).

2). The morons you saw on Capitol Hill represent all conservatives. Ah the vast majority of republicans would never do something that stupid. But we got the worst of the worst all together in one spot that day.

3) they are trying to make everybody forget about the mass destruction the BLM riots caused in 2020. So they have to fixate on an very isolated (yet very ugly) one time incident.

Anyway they are trying to blow this up to win more votes for the coming midterms. They are predicted to get slaughtered because of joe Biden’s incompetence and they know it. So they have to come up with this crap.

[abc3643]

Whenever someone is about to let their conspiracy theories take off, ask yourself these things:

1. What’s in it for the people who are doing the conspiring? And not just anything immediate, but in the long run... What value do people get by taking the effort to be in the conspiracy? Ideology is almost never enough for most actions like engaging in a conspiracy.

2. All that’s needed for a conspiracy to fall apart is for one person to decide to no longer be a part of it and reveal the conspiracy. This means that, the more people involved, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. So, ask yourself “How many people are involved? How likely is this conspiracy to fall apart?”

3. The larger and more complex the conspiracy, the easier it is to detect by potential victims. This is because conspiracies require coordinated actions among the conspirators — the kinds of actions which appear suspicious because they would not occur if there was the simple randomness of people. For instance, this is how forensic accountants discover financial crimes.

Put another way:

Usually, mentally undisciplined or ignorant people (*) believe in complex ornate conspiracy theories because they fail to realize that, for their complex conspiracy theories to work, __every__ single person who is in on the conspiracy needs to do these 3 things:
1. Do their part perfectly and
2. Never reveal to anyone outside the conspiracy even a single part of the plan and
3, Have no ethical problems with any part of the plan or its execution.

(*) By mentally undisciplined, I mean stupid or immature or overly emotional people; basically fools. I am willing to give "the ignorant" some slack. Many people, especially the young, do not have a sound grasp on human nature and are not in-tune with natural reality, so it is easy to tell them conspiracies and they believe them. Case in point: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and QAnon.

Bottom line: Anyone who is mentally disciplined and understands human nature will understand the impossibility of meeting all 3 of these conditions for all but the tiniest of conspiracies. Only fools and those ignorant of human nature believe that all 3 of the above can be accomplished by everyone in the conspiracy.

[KelleyNice]

They don't have to be perfect. This video showing Building 7still standing 20 minutes after BBC said it collapsed, proves that. They don't have to convince everyone; only a majority. And, that is easy because they own and control mainstream media,

[KelleyNice]

www.bing.com/.../search

[abc3643]

As a New Yorker, I am fully aware of 9/11 and Building 7 and all the other "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracies. And, sadly, even some people who are otherwise technically savvy accept some of these conspiracies. I do not, of course, because I fully understand physics - I have a degree in physics and mechanical engineering. Also, no one died in B7. Do you know why? It was well-known after the twin towers fell that B7 was structurally unsound because of the impact of the debris from those two collapses. Everyone was ordered out of B7 and we all just waited the rest of the day for it to finally fall, which it did. As for the BBC thing, I wouldn't worry about it. For one thing, it was predicted that it was going to fall hours before it did. As an engineer working that day, even on TV, I could see that it was just a matter of time before it was going to fall.

==========
Pardon me, but 9/11 conspiracies piss me off the most of all. The fucking idiots who believe in them are victims themselves... ghosts whose presence on Earth serves only two purposes: 1. Torturing themselves in a hunt for a nonexistent truth as elusive as a corner in a circle and 2. Hurting the actual victims of 9/11... the family members whose lives were shattered and that had to be rebuilt but go through it all again every 9/11. To be told that it was an "inside job" is offensive and emotionally hurtful beyond belief. I know because I am a New Yorker and I know 9/11 widows and children.

[KelleyNice]

You are much smarter and far better educated then I am. You are clearly out my league so I am not going to argue with you.

[abc3643]

Honey, you "argue" all you want. It's important toward your development as a critically thinking human being. My objective with you is not win arguments, but to teach you to be better [*].

There's an old adage:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to fish and you feed him for his lifetime."

If I can teach you to think BEYOND the bullshit others tell you, then you can protect yourself and others and future generations.

So, if getting into "arguments" is a way that happens, that's good.

In fact, it's part of something called The Socratic Method. I didn't know what it was, but when I learned what it is in my 40s or early 50s, I realized that's what I was doing when I was teaching in college in the late 1980s. But the point is, if you can learn to be skeptical and to critically think with logical and mathematical rigor, that will go a long way in life toward helping you identify bullshit and their charlatan espousers like Trump.

The toughest thing to learn is human nature; that can't really be taught but is learned with life experience. Fortunately, a place like this helps expedite that.

[*] There's another adage: You learn from failure. If you think about it, that's easy to see. In fact, in discussions with you these past few weeks, you've taught me things and so I failed. Am I upset? No! I may want to "win" like everyone else, but what I __really__ want is to know the truth. At an early age, I realized adults were lying and nutty which is one reason why I went into science - to learn about the world in an objective, bullshit-free fashion. And when I discovered that others weren't doing what was in their objective best interests, that's when I began to learn about human nature.

[abc3643]

If you don't know what the Pew Trusts are, Pew Research is perhaps the most esteemed polling organization in the United States. Their work is often cited in news reports.

From their About page...
https://www.pewresearch.org/about/

"Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.

Our mission
We generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making. We are nonprofit, nonpartisan and nonadvocacy. We value independence, objectivity, accuracy, rigor, humility, transparency and innovation."

(more)

[abc3643]

====
OK, now you know who Pew is if you did not before.

This is an excerpt from a section in a 2009 Pew Research report.
www.pewresearch.org/.../

[BEGIN EXCERPT]

Most Americans do not see scientists as a group as particularly liberal or conservative. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) say they think of scientists as “neither in particular”; 20% see them as politically liberal and 9% say they are politically conservative.

In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.

The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.

(more)

[abc3643]

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.

Majorities of scientists working in academia (60%), for non-profits (55%) and in government (52%) call themselves Democrats, as do nearly half of those working in private industry (47%).

[END EXCERPT]

So, I want to ask you: Why? Why do 81% of scientists identify as Democrats or lean Democratic?

You don't have to answer me and, if you want, we can discuss this in PM, but I want you to think about why this is so and, furthermore, try to put it in context with my previous post about learning to think critically and with rigor.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 I’m skeptical of Pew Research. They toot their own horn but so does most everyone. I will have to read more than two surveys before I will have confidence. Furthermore, the following statement makes me wonder if they have an agenda. “By contrast, 84% of scientists say the earth is warming because of human activity. Scientists also are far more likely than the public to regard global warming as a very serious problem:” I don’t believe that. Many scientists will claim to support manmade global warming because they are bribed to. There is or has been lots of money for studies that supports manmade global warming but zero money for studies that dispute it. CO2 is a trace gas.

At about one part per 3,000 of earth’s atmosphere there is too little CO2 to have any measurable effect on earth’s temperature. The earth has been losing CO2 for billions of years and CO2 levels in the atmosphere are dangerously low for life on earth. The earth needs more; not less CO2. In fact, more would enhance plant growth which might help cool Earth’s temperature. Per the following, 500 million years ago, there was 12 to 20 times as much CO2 and the temperature was about the same.

If you want to know what causes global warming, look up in the sky. It is called the sun. I have been told that ten or so years ago when it was a little hotter, the polar caps on Mars was receding. Did manmade global warming cause that too?

Global cooling; not global warming may soon become a danger. That is because, we are in an intergalactic warm period and when it ends, earth will return to the millions of years long Ice Age. However, that may be not happen for several thousand years. Far more likely in the near future, there will be another mini-Ice Age.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 If in fact, 81% of scientists identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, I would think they know something. That is because, if the 5% of logical people believe one thing and 95% believe another, there are only 2 possibilities. Either the logical people are correct or else they are both wrong. However, before I will believe it, I going to require more proof and know just who are defined by Pew Research as scientists.

[Shamalien]

This is so incredibly naive I’m lost for words. You’re going a million miles an hour with no lights. Many people have defected and the plan continues regardless. You can be ex phizer screaming about how the vaxxes will permanently damage people and even kill many but it doesn’t matter, there are people like you and they are stubborn as fuck in their ignorance

[abc3643]

Global Warming is easily understood by basic physics. It was predicted by Nobel Prize winning Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

[KelleyNice]

@
abc3643 He also said, “By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” If he is right about CO2 causing global warming, he should also be right that it is a good thing. Therefore, if our rulers use him to prove Global warming, why are they not claiming CO2 increases are desirable?

Furthermore, "Four fairly regular glacial-interglacial cycles occurred during the past 450,000 years." Per the chart, that is about every 100,000 to 120,000 years. geology.utah.gov/.../ If humans didn't cause those cycles and obviously they didn't, what did?

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 This is from the following website.
If the AP is referring to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AP should become aware that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees.8 Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it -- scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: “the document itself is informative; the summary is not.” www.therx.com/.../

That, and the rest of the article, indicates that most scientists don’t support the manmade global warming theory.

[abc3643]

Most scientists do believe in global warming.

This is because they were required to take college-level physics which provides all the basic science that is needed to understand both global warming and the atmospheres of other planets.

Now, in your defense, they don't teach what's necessary in high school although kids who take AP Physics might. This is because understanding the kinetic theory of gases (which is introduced in high school) requires understanding statistical mechanics and that involves calculus and understanding statistics.

To properly understand global warming, the physical subdisciplines that you need to know are:
1. Basic mechanics, in particular knowing the difference between kinetic and potential energy.
2. Basic thermodynamics to understand what temperature actually means and how heat is stored and flows. The most important concept hear is something called a heat balance or energy balance.
3. Gravitation because gravity instills potential energy, but is also pivotal for computing escape velocities. This is important because...

(more)

[abc3643]

4. The kinetic theory of gases and statistical mechanics will predict will predict many properties of gases. One thing is molecular velocities. So, over time, molecules of a certain mass or less and traveling in a particular direction at a particular minimum velocity, will go off into space (if the "up component" of their velocity exceeds escape velocity, it's going into space). In other words, atmospheres age as, over time, the lighter molecules disappear and go into space. Also, important in statistical mechanics is to know something called "mean free path" which is the average distance a molecule in a gas will travel before it collides with another molecule.
5. Astronomy... really, primarily just "The solar constant" and "albedo".

Now, I have not at all explained how global warming works, but it is intuitive if one understands the disciplines that I discussed. That's how Svante Arrhenius was able to predict it in 1896.

[abc3643]

www.bbvaopenmind.com/.../

[Guy__]

A while ago, among other things I listened to an interview with Adam Eisenberg. "A first responder at the Pentagon with extensive time on site, former U. S. Army Sergeant" for example I remember that they were forced to go without any equipment and weapons they normally used for such cases.

And there is obviously a lot of symbolism and numerology involved from before the towers were even built, we don't need a master's degree to see that.

[DWornock]

That is ridiculous. I've taken basis physics, I've taken basic chemistry, and I've thermodynamics and there was nothing taught in the non-advanced course that would prove the global warming hypotenuses. I can't say about more advanced, physics, chemistry, or thermodynamics because they were not required courses in my major. Certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there is too little to have any measurable effect on temperature. You might calculate it but instruments are not sensitive enough and even if they are, you can’t control all the variables.

There is no scientific theory that proves the so called Global Warming Theory as claimed by government leaders. There are some hypotheses, both pro and con, but hypothesis are just guesses while scientific theories are pretty much indisputable.

Of course most scientists believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to the warming of Earth’s atmosphere. However, that is much like saying they believe throwing a handful of salt in the ocean contributes to the saltiness of the ocean. Although most scientists believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, most scientists don’t believe humans are the reason that sometimes the temperature increases.

What we do know is that the radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate and that affects temperature. However, so does the tilt of the earth which cycles ever 41,000 years. Also, there's the eccentric shape of Earth's orbit around the sun, which varies from nearly circular to elliptical on a 96,000-year cycle. Together, there are too many factors we don’t understand or only partially to make the claim that most scientists believe in the so called manmade global warming theory.

[Guy__]

When someone speaks this away about 9/11... forget about the physics debates.
We first need an explanation why there were hundreds of scenes like these

[Whatever2929292]

Most of the time you're right. It is stuff people say to gaslight others and never look into something. They just call someone a conspiracy theorist without proving anything wrong. Like how Alex Jones has been right more times then he has been wrong.

Many times when they accuse someone of something they are projecting who and what they are.

I think it is GOOD to question things. I am not saying be disrespectful or jump to conclusions but wanting to know what is going on is a GOOD thing!

[TransAm85]

A lot of it is actually true. My great grandfather was a Freemason when he worked for Miller Brewery and my great grandma was an Eastern Star. I have their member books from the '50's and it's really creepy all the symbolism. 33 levels for example. The pyramid. The skull and bones. Google uses the Eastern Star colors..

[Guy__]

Symbolism and numbers all over...

May I know if you've seen something on androgyny too?

I personally think there's nothing more mockable and laughable than this stupidest "conspiracy theory" which happens to be undeniable. I find it quite important, when I see some androgynous politician, I know they're controlled opposition...

(Seriously) Is it strange to you how every single politician has the digit ratio of the opposite gender? ↗

[Guy__]

However I'm not saying that every freemason, even if they reached 33rd level are necessary on the bad side.
I'm saying that Qanon, and fox news are...

[TransAm85]

@Guy__ I never looked into that part, but it makes sense. That's why they are incorporating transgender now into everything? If u look into Illuminati symbolism/Occultism, it's really scary how many celebrities are involved in that stuff also.

[Guy__]

Literally most celebrities are BY DEFINITION androgynous looking. And we know for sure that at least a large portion of them are trannies.
While I think the biggest reason they turn everything gay, is to depopulate the planet, as georgia guidestones' #1 principle is to keep populations under half a billion.
They still have these "traditions" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIXCtBWKmWY

[TransAm85]

@Guy__ Dude u r really freaking me out! But yes! That's why they make this "body shape" a big deal now too? Because, yes, most women are either hourglass or pear shaped, but for some reason, they come up w/other factors.. like a guy! And the Yoni! Many women sell homemade "yoni" wash now. Where did they find that word? I'm almost 37 and we never used that word. Summer's Eve. Do u know what MK Ultra is?

[Guy__]

It's very obvious that on celebrities, the bone structure is gender reversed.
Who doesn't know about mk ultra? I don't know every detail of it but yes, I've learned of it years ago.

[Shamalien]

Would you consider doing an interview?

[StevieNix]

It's a theory that is very unpopular among many, so they choose to ignore it and hate the person with the theory. My theory is the death of Osama bin laden was faked. A lot of people won't like to hear that.

[KelleyNice]

I'm certain that he died but the official version is not something I believe either.

[StevieNix]

Bill Clinton could have had Osama bin laden killed in 1998 but he chose not to. So later Obama is the president, and he sends in seal team six to Pakistan to get osama.

[StevieNix]

For some reason they televise the entire event in real time. And not only the seals but they show Hillary and Obama in the war room watching this in horror. Why would they show us this? Why would they show us the look on Hillary's face? Seem like a bad staged movie to me. So then the seal team breaks in and shoots some of bin laden in the head. Then out of respect, they quickly dump him in the ocean. So there's nobody to corroborate any of this. And shortly after that SEAL team six's chopper went down and all the witnesses died. I'm not buying any of it.

[Anonymous]

It's only a conspiracy until it's proven true. Reading some of the declassified proposed false flag operations from the JFK era is highly disturbing.

Or the list of attrocities committed by the us gov on it's own people a over on Wikipedia, that's a fun read too.

Or the network of concentration camps that were built across the US about ten years ago for some reason, and their manuals on how to shoot civilian leaders.

Or reading about the Georgia Guidestones or Bohemian Grove or Skull and Bones.

Honestly there's enough evil in there to chill even a steely man to the bone.

If you hunt monsters take care not to become one yourself.

[Lliam]

I'm a big time "conspiracy theorist", meaning that I don't take the word of government officials or mainstream media. I'm not influenced by ideology or consensus. I question everything; do my own research; read and analyze what I want; keep an open mind; develop my own opinions based on information and modify or change them as more information becomes available.

[purplepoppy]

Here's another quote, fantastic claims need fantastic evidence.

People don't believe conspiracy theories because their clever or have access to secret knowledge, they do it because they want to be different. The reality is most of them are uneducated attention seekers who are unable to assign the right amount of weight to various evidence sources.

A conspiracy theorist is like a drunk blind man with a machine gun who sprays bullets in every direction and if one hits claim himself a marksman

[KelleyNice]

Or perhaps they are telling the truth about lies the government invents to hide the truth from the American public.

[Guffrus]

Poppy, buildings do not fall at free fall speeds neatly into their own footprints as a result of fire.

It simply is not possible, you should look again, or perhaps for a first time.

[KelleyNice]

@Guffrus I don't know physic or engineering; nor do I have the mathematics to understand them. However, I can Google. I Googled buildings plus in turn fire, earthquakes, tornados, and bombs. There are hundreds of photos and not a single one collapsed in their footprint. They all topple or would be partly standing. Maybe a two story wood building could burn down, but not all at once like the 3 towers. One part would collapse followed by other parts. Even if fire could destroy the 3 towers, something that has never happened in the history of world to a high rise building, let alone 3 in one day, they would topple.

[Guffrus]

@kelleynice Exactly, no technical knowledge is required.

[SixFootSexy]

“Conspiracy Theorists” = People who get the truth before the majority of people. Think about the timeline of Covid for instance. Or WMD's in Iraq, or any number of questionable incidents that have happened in the last 50ish years.

[Guy__]

"No significant evidence has emerged"
Same as "there's nothing new on that"

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LNAwUxZ5nfw

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

A conspiracy theory is the truth that has been covered over. Usually accepted as fact 6 months later when it is revealed.

Modern examples.
Wohan
the laptop
The great reset.

[peedy]

Yes its a term made up by the CIA to label someone a nut case and discredit them when they were close to or already figured out the truth to what is/was going on
Funny thing nowadays conspiracy theory is now conspiracy fact most of them are true

[Adaeva]

Yes, a conspiracy is when anyone tells the truth about crimes the government commits and hides.

[Snsl153]

No conspiracy is ever real. Trust me, I work for the government.

[Anonymous]

A conspiracy theorist is someone who thinks that rich and powerful people might conspire with each other and lie to the public in order to maintain or grow their power. That’s crazy talk, of course they would never do that.

[Exterminatore]

Could you please provide a link to the info you cited regarding the CIA doctrines you cite were created in 1967?

[KelleyNice]

lenabloch.medium.com/it-is-important-to-remember-that-the-concept-of-conspiracy-theory-was-created-by-cia-in-1967-f19459cc9a7c

[FunkyMonkee]

I know what some people THINK they are! But, how can they be theories with proof?

[IsoUser]

Yes I do, however I don't often like being involved with them. I don't appreciate the experience of feeling DIRTY with them, but then again you just never know.

[loveslongnails]

Sure I know what it is. Some of them are hogwash, and some aren't theories at all in my opinion!

[TimBush]

Like captain Hogwash?

[WhitneySnow]

I know what a conspiracy theory is

[RuthlessAggression]

I do. They're called "christians"