Nibiru (Planet X for the plebs)

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...

WakeUp wrote: »

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

Open your mind, mannnnn

Large scale conspiracies happen all the time, the Catholic Church conspired to hide industrialised child abuse, it looks like there's a similar past conspiracy involving high level MP's in Britain, there have been any number of false flags throughout history. The communists didn't burn down the Reichstag, the Polish didn't invade Germany to start WWII, Saddam Hussein did not have WMD and the intelligence community in the Anglo-US alliance conspired to convince enough people that he did.

The Lizard stuff might well be a conspiracy to discredit all conspiracies. Who knows.

As for the video that Wakeup posted it shows a limited kind of rationality to dismiss anything without watching it because you assume a conspiracy. Since you are not going to watch it here is what happened.

The video started with one of the gas giants, then it panned out into open space. Something appeared to be there. After a while it became clear that this something was in fact Rick Astley singing Never going to give you up.

You sirs, have been rick rolled.

Heres a list of once crazy, now accepted conspiracy theories.

http://www.oddee.com/item_99023.aspx

Reminds me of NASA being able to keep thousands and thousands of employees and their entire family's quite about the Moon landing not happening. :pac:

The Corinthian wrote: »

There was no large scale conspiracy. I went to one of these schools and it was common knowledge that it happened, who was behind it and that it had been happening for a very long time. When it did come out, it frankly disgusted me how some of these people, who knew, turned round and claimed that they'd known nothing and it had been kept hidden.

In reality it was a collection of independent cover ups by the Church and silent complicity by the Irish population, but no overarching 'puppet-masters'.

None of these are "large scale conspiracies". Some were organized conspiracies, but small or one-issue affairs. Others were disorganized conspiracies - last time I checked, it was not determined that the Bush administration, or any other 'puppet-master', planned and oversaw such a deception. Most likely it was a lot of middle level civil servants producing analysis concluding what they knew their superiors wanted to see, because that's one way to get ahead. Happens in the private sector all the time.

Which is not a good thing, because while I maintain that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are way off the mark, if not entirely deluded, that does not mean that conspiracies do not exist, and the lizard men serve to discredit them too.

It's just that the Word is a far more dull place in reality and most covert actions are far less organized than many conspiracy theorists would have you believe, let alone under the direction of some shadowing star chamber of Illuminati, Rothschilds or Lizard-men.

I think we just have very different takes on the meaning of the word "conspiracy", that's all. You want everybody to be on board, and nobody to be self deluded, and for it to go all the way to the top via a puppet master. I have a less stringent view, in the case of the Catholic Church the cover ups didn't have to go all the way to the Pope, but it was known by the Irish Bishops and brushed under the carpets, which is enough to convict them of conspiracy to pervert justice in many jurisdictions.

In the British case it looks like there were number of interlocking conspiracies between powerful men, the security services and the police. Retired policeman have suggested that they were stopped from investigating. Again, a conspiracy to pervert justice.

The Iraq war backers were conspiring to hide the info, including from the international bodies that showed no evidence of WMD, and promoting their own half baked theories, and known lies. These "mid level" bureaucrats were often opposed by more rational thinkers in the intelligence services but had the ear of Bush. Furthermore there is evidence that they, and organisations associated with them like PNAC, were gunning for Iraq before 9/11. This is a conspiracy to manipulate facts to go to war.

In the link I posted it turns out that the CIA did sell drugs to black gangs in LA. That was something I discounted as madness a few years ago, but it seems to be true ( via the support of the Contras).

Then there is the gulf of Tomkin incident. The main reason for the US to go to war with North Vietnam, it turns out to be a total fabrication, the crazies were right, the sane people who doubted that a government would do such a thing wrong.

Of course conspiring for Casus Belli is common in conspiracies. Hitler didn't just invade Poland, he pretended he was invaded by Poland.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not that we have different meanings to the word conspiracy, but - as I pointed out in my first sentence - none of them were particularly large, organized or World Changing. This is what I challenged.

The two cases above were the product of multiple, independent, mid-level bureaucrats covering up stuff in their own back yard - the former with the silent consent of a spineless local population that was well aware of what was going on.

You've described a catalog of incompetence, not a conspiracy.

I'm not saying that conspiracies don't happen, but I am saying that the vast majority of conspiracy theories are not rooted in reality, where 'conspiracies' are largely ad hoc, disorganized and localized affairs.

I absolutely am not describing incompetence. I think a group of ideologues within the bush admin deliberately manipulated the facts to their advantage to go to war. They conspired to go to war.

I'm sure there are grains of truth to some theories. Secret government plots or collusion in business etc. We know they happen and there are many examples through history. Talking about aliens and things is pretty daft though. A degree of sense has to be applied.

I suppose it's interesting to note the strategy of disinformation is very real. From wiki, (for an accurate definition):

"Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims."

The part I bolded especially applies to the internet. So I don't think it's true that people who believe in conspiracy theories are all nutjobs. I think they're are some but there are a lot of others who don't buy into propaganda or question things. They're certainly painted as nut jobs. So are whistleblowers.

But, um, on topic. Planet X? lol! Isn't The Shredder trying to open a portal to there? Thank God for the teenage mutant ninja turtles. :pac:

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No. There were turf wars within the administration with many non neocons in the intelligence agencies and the State Dept. opposing the neocon briefs ( to bush and the UN) but the neo-conservatives won. This wasn't incompetence, it was ideological marshalling of non facts, half truths and lies by a dedicated cadre to go to war. A conspiracy.

Evidence please?