Nibiru (Planet X for the plebs)

some CTs are certainly off the wall though the theory of Nibiru well there might just be something to that. its plausible.

Saipanne wrote: »

No. Do your own persuading. That's what I laugh about with you lot. You genuinely think posting a video is an argument.

L oh L

you lot:pac: laugh away there horse:D youre being very serious here actually and a bit of a dik head truth be told leaping without looking. if you watched the video instead of attacking me because its cool or something you would see the error of your way here. but sure no harm done all good, Ricky.

Saipanne wrote: »

I'm not watching your stupid video for idiots too lazy to think.

ah here Ill leave you alone back up with your bullsh1t though will you. you twit. the video is a bit of crack. but dont watch it then. I dont give a phuck.

There was thread in AF earlier on about john titor that seems to have disapeared, suspicious or what.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Titor

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Well I looked at the video and I've been convinced there is something out there. This doesn't mean that what was in the video was showing any evidence of intelligent life, the signals emanating from deep space can't really be justified as intelligent but there's something there, vaguely musical. We can't make you understand until you watch. Gotta make you understand.

No. It would be a waste of my time to listen to idiocy. Besides, that paint drying ain't gonna watch itself.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

It's not open minded to dismiss something out of hand. I was sceptical too until I watched the video.

No. Because I have previously engaged with conspiracy type material. It was a waste of time. It is an exercise I shall not be repeating. Ever.

WakeUp wrote: »

I think Eugene has made a fair and coherent argument in favor of the video and to be honest from what I can see you wouldnt get this from any other poster. certainly here at least. you should check it out.

I saw no argument. None whatsoever. Just a "hey, open your mind by watching someone else's point in this video" type of "argument", which is no argument at all. Just your typical lazy conspiracy theorist.

No thanks.

Do you know why you try to pass videos off as an argument? Because you lack the knowledge to make the case yourself. You may have some "facts" but no tacit knowledge of your own. And yet, you claim to have the answer.

Do you understand why I don't listen to you and your ilk?

WakeUp wrote: »

Im just trying to articulate / tell you how Im feeling about it nothing more nothing less. though I dont think you understand. but sure all good no harm done. no matter what I say I dont think I can convince you to watch the video and thats fair enough tis up to you.

If it's a feeling, then say its a feeling.

Dont call it an argument.

Don't call it research.

Don't expect engaging conversation when your contribution is a link to a video someone else made.

WakeUp wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

Sad. But at least Rick Astley is real.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. That video was done by the same people who faked the moon landings.

We're true the looking glass here people.

pueblo wrote: »

A quick read of the definitions of a conspiracy should make it clear to the scoffers that conspiracies are quite a commonplace occurrence.

A careful read should make it clear that there is no way one could logically conclude they are commonplace.

Reality is, that organizing a conspiracy is like herding cats. It involves the cooperation of well-placed parties, typically with differing agendas, to cooperate in secret towards a goal using unethical and often illegal means. Doesn't happen very often and when it does it's typically small scale, like some ad hoc cover-up and not some Worldwide reality-bending conspiracy.

As Sand put it earlier in this thread, the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they often suffer from a narcissistic need to be able to see (and thus be in the center of) such reality-bending conspiracies. Proving the existence of the conspiracy becomes of paramount importance, because without it they become ordinary. Arguing with them is pointless as their conspiracy theory will simply be expanded speculatively to address any criticism. It's like watching kids argue over the existence of Santa and hearing the arguments that those defending him will use to explain the many holes in his plausibility.

This is not to suggest that all conspiracy theories are false; they do happen, maybe even some of the bigger ones, although there's little historical evidence past major conspiracies on a scale to rival some of the theories out there - a plot to kill Caesar, sure. Caesar being a nine-foot lizard-man, no. Even Cassius didn't try to sell that one.

However, I find as a general rule of thumb, that one should never ascribe to malice that which may be more easily be explained as incompetency - after all, it's not just the conspiracy theorists who are not that special, but also those in power they ascribe conspiracies to are just as prone to screwing up as everyone else.

The Corinthian wrote: »

A careful read should make it clear that there is no way one could logically conclude they are commonplace.

Reality is, that organizing a conspiracy is like herding cats. It involves the cooperation of well-placed parties, typically with differing agendas, to cooperate in secret towards a goal using unethical and often illegal means. Doesn't happen very often and when it does it's typically small scale, like some ad hoc cover-up and not some Worldwide reality-bending conspiracy.

As Sand put it earlier in this thread, the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they often suffer from a narcissistic need to be able to see (and thus be in the center of) such reality-bending conspiracies. Proving the existence of the conspiracy becomes of paramount importance, because without it they become ordinary. Arguing with them is pointless as their conspiracy theory will simply be expanded speculatively to address any criticism. It's like watching kids argue over the existence of Santa and hearing the arguments that those defending him will use to explain the many holes in his plausibility.

This is not to suggest that all conspiracy theories are false; they do happen, maybe even some of the bigger ones, although there's little historical evidence past major conspiracies on a scale to rival some of the theories out there - a plot to kill Caesar, sure. Caesar being a nine-foot lizard-man, no. Even Cassius didn't try to sell that one.

However, I find as a general rule of thumb, that one should never ascribe to malice that which may be more easily be explained as incompetency - after all, it's not just the conspiracy theorists who are not that special, but also those in power they ascribe conspiracies to are just as prone to screwing up as everyone else.

Good post.

On the point of what is true. I think there might be some modicum of truth to some CT claims. However, the delusional, self aggrandising, egotistical and childish nature of the typical CT proponent and their tendency to stretch the facts beyond all recognition ensures that whatever truth is out there is forever masked by troofers.

Ironic, ain't it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

A careful read should make it clear that there is no way one could logically conclude they are commonplace.

Reality is, that organizing a conspiracy is like herding cats. It involves the cooperation of well-placed parties, typically with differing agendas, to cooperate in secret towards a goal using unethical and often illegal means. Doesn't happen very often and when it does it's typically small scale, like some ad hoc cover-up and not some Worldwide reality-bending conspiracy.

As Sand put it earlier in this thread, the problem with conspiracy theorists is that they often suffer from a narcissistic need to be able to see (and thus be in the center of) such reality-bending conspiracies. Proving the existence of the conspiracy becomes of paramount importance, because without it they become ordinary. Arguing with them is pointless as their conspiracy theory will simply be expanded speculatively to address any criticism. It's like watching kids argue over the existence of Santa and hearing the arguments that those defending him will use to explain the many holes in his plausibility.

This is not to suggest that all conspiracy theories are false; they do happen, maybe even some of the bigger ones, although there's little historical evidence past major conspiracies on a scale to rival some of the theories out there - a plot to kill Caesar, sure. Caesar being a nine-foot lizard-man, no. Even Cassius didn't try to sell that one.

However, I find as a general rule of thumb, that one should never ascribe to malice that which may be more easily be explained as incompetency - after all, it's not just the conspiracy theorists who are not that special, but also those in power they ascribe conspiracies to are just as prone to screwing up as everyone else.

Hanlons razor thats interesting. sort of like occams razor and thats interesting too. because that principal is put forward and applied in situations when really it has no place and shouldnt be/cant be used. only evidence is absolute and all that. interesting none the less.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a rule of thumb, as is Occam's razor; don't confuse that with any kind of absolute proof or disproof.

However, if absolute proof or disproof is absent (as with 99.9% of conspiracy theories), it's probably the best path to take, rather than favouring the more complex, implausible and dramatic explanation for something, which is what conspiracy theorists will do. At least until actual evidence is uncovered, pro or against the theory - or neither as, even if there is a conspiracy, it would be quite arrogant to presume to have figured it out.

Im not arguing against your theories about conspiracy theories. though rule of thumb by its definition isnt intended to be either completely accurate nor reliable. its more of a determination a guess even - minus any evidence of course. occams razor is put forward and held up as some sort of argument in many instances when really it has no place and its quite ridiculous to do so. only evidence is absolute. occams/hanlons/whatever razor isnt an argument for or against for anything. sometimes the more simpler explanation is the correct one I concur. but that isnt always the case.

Saipanne wrote: »

You don't understand Ockham's Razor.

really...do please elaborate for me...