Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 21:22:23 GMT -5
This was a thread on PSF I thought was pretty underrated and wanted to see again.
I'll start:
I believe Bigfoot exists.
I believe the Intelligence Agencies exercise a degree of control over actual elected officials. Not complete, but enough to where they aren't challenged in their endeavors at the very least.
Nobody knew or acknowledged that transgender people existed until 2015 when Caitlyn Jenner came out. Then suddenly it was this big hot button issue, you started hearing about the possibility of bathroom assaults and suddenly every ignorant Joe Schmo had a strong opinion either way. I think it's a cruel, cynical political pawn. 2016 was the first election since legal gay marriage so the social conservatives needed a new boogeyman. I don't know if this is considered a conspiracy or not, but it's certainly messed up and deserves more condemnation either way. If nobody cared either way before, there's no reason it has to suddenly be an issue government gets involved with now.
I believe the 2016 DNC primary was rigged against Bernie.
The Great American Streetcar Scandal happened.
Whether you call it the Bilderberg Group or whatever else, the obscenely rich plot on ways to keep their power entrenched. This shouldn't be controversial--it only makes sense they would do this and have the resources to make it happen. The Panama Papers alone are pretty good proof of this. The whole Illuminati/Freemason concept of a secret botherhood in robes who plot every intimate detail of global policy is bullshit, however.
I think the many "isms" that are thrown around now (racism and sexism especially) are used cynically by the powers that be as tools of division, censorship and control. The biggest examples I can give are how sexism was used to try to shame everyone into voting for Hillary. Sexism and the divisiveness between men and women is breaking up the home and making people increasingly distrustful and resentful of each other. Which in turn makes them easier to control. Police brutality being made out as purely a race issue is to keep us fighting each other instead of banding together to fix a real problem. The Trayvon Martin case was an overblown dog and pony show used to distract us from talking about the Snowden Revelations--and it worked.
I think the more ridiculous conspiracy theories, like Reptilians and shit are all made up and thrown around in order to discredit truthful theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by kds on Feb 9, 2019 23:19:15 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I think there is life somewhere in space. Does that mean there's an Area 51, Roswell cover up, men in black, etc? I don't know. But, for an vast as the universe is, it would seem hard to believe that we're the only planet with life.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 0:24:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure if this qualifies, but I think there is life somewhere in space. Does that mean there's an Area 51, Roswell cover up, men in black, etc? I don't know. But, for an vast as the universe is, it would seem hard to believe that we're the only planet with life. I don't think that's a conspiracy per se, until you get into UFOs and/or the government covering it up. I both agree and disagree with you depending on how you define life. Personally, I believe in the Fermi Paradox, but rather than one single "great filter" that impedes the progress of life, I think it's many. I'd theorize that on planets capable of supporting life, organic molecules are almost certainly extremely common. Simple Prokaryotic life (ie Bacteria) are probably very common as well. However, complex cells (Eukaryotic life--with a nucleus) is probably much more rare. The reason is because if our hypotheses about how mitochondria and chloroplasts formed is correct and it was a mutualistic relationship, that was probably a very unlikely situation that happened. Same with multi-cellular life, it was a lot harder to happen and therefore much rarer. Same with sapient life like humans--I'd theorize that is astronomically rare. If it happens at all, two sapient civilizations probably never exist at the same time in the universe. You look at all it took for sapient life to form: water, organic molecules, energy (lightning possibly) to make it form complex molecules, a comparatively large moon to form tide pools, a chance symbiotic relationship between mitochondria/chloroplasts and a larger cell, a series of millions of chance evolutions to make multicellular life, even more millions of chance evolutions to make intelligent life. So, if the 5 great mass extinctions had not occurred, who knows if humans or some intelligent lizard-men would ever have evolved? If the oxygen catastrophe had not happened, or the two asteroid impacts that formed the moon and killed the dinosaurs, who knows where life would be? I know people say "oh but there's so many galaxies and so many planets out there, one of them must have life." And that's true. But you gotta take into account only a small percentage of planets are actually in the habitable zone in the first place. When you factor in all those other limiting barriers (each one compounding on the last) the chances of complex, intelligent life is in the billions if not quadrillions. So yes, there are quadrillions of planets out there but also a one in a trillion (at best) chance for something like us to evolve. |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 10, 2019 7:39:16 GMT -5
The habitable zone you're talking about - the so-called "waterhole" - applies to carbon based species (and not all of those). There may very well be other life forms out there based on, say, silicon. To assume we're the only sentient life in all of the cosmos is at best mistaken, more obviously arrogant. As Spock put it, "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it."
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 8:27:52 GMT -5
The three that I'm most curious about or am morbidly fascinated with are:
- the Kennedy assassination - the Manson family murder spree - Jim Morrison's death |
|
|
|
Post by AGD on Feb 10, 2019 10:19:26 GMT -5
The three that I'm most curious about or am morbidly fascinated with are:
- the Kennedy assassination - the Manson family murder spree - Jim Morrison's death Yonks ago I spoke with Herve Meuller about Jim's death and he said "there's no mystery about him being dead, but there is about how he died". The commonly accepted notion these days is that he OD'd on very pure smack, thinking it was coke, in the toilet of a Paris club and was taken back to the apartment and put in the bath. Pam wasn't there as she claimed: she was away with The Count. As for Manson, it was just that Charlie got burned in a drug deal and exacted his revenge. He knew who would be at the Polanski house that night, and he got them. Tate and the others were wrong place, wrong time. The LaBiancas were just a diversion. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 10, 2019 10:33:13 GMT -5
As a rule I believe in conspiracy theories so mundane that nobody discusses them, but not the ones that end up on the utterly misnamed History Channel. So for example, I believe in conspiracies resulting in artificially high prices for commodities and components of consumer electronics--the sorts of things that have resulted in antitrust class action settlements (with the evidence in complaints showing beyond a reasonable doubt that there were actual conspiracies). I do not believe in bigfoot, Area 51/Roswell, chemtrails, vaccines causing autism or controlling the population somehow, or any of that sort of thing.
The psychology behind people's belief in false conspiracies is interesting, though.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 11:01:24 GMT -5
The habitable zone you're talking about - the so-called "waterhole" - applies to carbon based species (and not all of those). There may very well be other life forms out there based on, say, silicon. To assume we're the only sentient life in all of the cosmos is at best mistaken, more obviously arrogant. As Spock put it, "it's life, Jim, but not as we know it." Considering we've never found any alternate life yet, remaining open minded yet practical to the idea of other life is just that, nothing arrogant about it. Besides, these alternate forms of life would still be limited to their own habitable zone. Carbon or Silicon, water or ammonia, nothing is springing to life on a planet like Mercury or planet as cold as Pluto. As it happens, I find the idea of alternate biochemistry fascinating so Ive read about it in my spare time. I know Wikipedia is a flawed source, but its examination on Silicon life includes the following passage: The other alternate ideas of biochemistry have similar problems. Its possible, but not very likely. And therefore, it coincides with my position on extraterrestrial life as a whole. Its possible, but every step up the complexity and evolutionary ladders is based on chance and therefore exponentially harder to climb. If we find life at all it would be far more likely to be a colony of bacteria than a super advanced race of human-like creatures. That hypothesis doesn't change when factoring in theoretical chemistry, each with significant drawbacks when compared to our own. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry |
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 12:49:43 GMT -5
As a rule I believe in conspiracy theories so mundane that nobody discusses them, but not the ones that end up on the utterly misnamed History Channel. So for example, I believe in conspiracies resulting in artificially high prices for commodities and components of consumer electronics--the sorts of things that have resulted in antitrust class action settlements (with the evidence in complaints showing beyond a reasonable doubt that there were actual conspiracies). I do not believe in bigfoot, Area 51/Roswell, chemtrails, vaccines causing autism or controlling the population somehow, or any of that sort of thing.
The psychology behind people's belief in false conspiracies is interesting, though.
I don't think it's wise to disregard conspiracies regarding "big" subjects out of hand, personally. It makes sense that powerful groups, be it governments or companies or whatever, have things they don't tell us about. Or influence events in ways they don't divulge. I'm not saying it always happens but it's more likely than not in my opinion. Something like MK Ultra and the Tuskagee Syphilis Experiment would sound like conspiracy nonsense years ago, but then we got confirmation and now they're documented historical facts. In the 1960s, the intelligence agencies suggested a false flag attack to blame on Cuba and justify a war but JFK turned it down. With examples like that, it stands to reason there could be and probably are other insane plots carried out by powerful groups which we don't know about. I think a good rule of thumb though, is if there isn't a clear money trail and/or if there are too many actors involved and/or too many moving parts in the supposed grand plan where it could all fall apart, then the theory in question is more than likely bullshit. If it requires a lot of people to be involved and keep quiet for years if not decades, it's probably bullshit. What youre describing about consumer products is planned obsolescence and it's also pretty well established that it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 10, 2019 12:56:39 GMT -5
I don't disregard "the big ones" out of hand, I'm just a lot less likely to believe them without a lot more and better evidence.
As for the others, I wasn't meaning so much planned obsolescence as pure price fixing, but that's admittedly beside the point. My point was only that the unsexy conspiracies affect them directly and constantly, while "the big ones" are less likely true and less likely to matter. They're more sport than anything.
Edit - I should also have noted, I agree entirely with your "things to watch out for" paragraph. Those are indeed good rules of thumb for spotting a likely false conspiracy theory.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 13:06:27 GMT -5
The three that I'm most curious about or am morbidly fascinated with are:
- the Kennedy assassination - the Manson family murder spree - Jim Morrison's death Yonks ago I spoke with Herve Meuller about Jim's death and he said "there's no mystery about him being dead, but there is about how he died". The commonly accepted notion these days is that he OD'd on very pure smack, thinking it was coke, in the toilet of a Paris club and was taken back to the apartment and put in the bath. Pam wasn't there as she claimed: she was away with The Count. Yeah, that Paris club would be the infamous Rock 'n' Roll Circus. If Herve Mueller doesn't know how Jim died, then nobody alive does. He might've been Jim's closest friend at the time of Jim's death.
It's pretty commonly accepted that heroin was the cause of Jim's death. One theory is that Jim snorted some bad heroin in the Circus, died in a bathroom stall, and his body was transported back to his apartment and dumped in the bathtub. The other theory is that Jim and Pam were snorting heroin in their apartment, heroin obtained from The Count, Jim proceeded to take a bath, vomited repeatedly, and died in the bathtub.
Both theories seem plausible, but if the first theory is true, that Jim OD'd at the Rock 'n' Circus and the body was "brought home", then Pam lied to Doors' manager Bill Siddons and practically everybody else. But why would she lie? Was she afraid of retribution from the Circus? Didn't she want the public to know that he OD'd? It would've made her look better. She and Jim snorting in the apartment looks worse, doesn't it? However, the part about snorting heroin in the apartment didn't come out for years after Jim's death; heart failure was used as the cause of death. Pam was very descriptive with her details, even mentioning pineapple chunks as the food that Jim vomited, the number of times he vomited, and various times of the events throughout the night. Of course, Pam was junkie so she can't really be trusted, and she took that story to the grave with her in 1974.
With people dying off, we'll probably never know the true story.
|
|
Departed
Former Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2019 13:06:51 GMT -5
I don't disregard "the big ones" out of hand, I'm just a lot less likely to believe them without a lot more and better evidence.
As for the others, I wasn't meaning so much planned obsolescence as pure price fixing, but that's admittedly beside the point. My point was only that the unsexy conspiracies affect them directly and constantly, while "the big ones" are less likely true and less likely to matter. They're more sport than anything.
Edit - I should also have noted, I agree entirely with your "things to watch out for" paragraph. Those are indeed good rules of thumb for spotting a likely false conspiracy theory.
Fair enough. Ive heard some argument (I forget where) that people prefer to believe in big conspiracies over little ones because the idea that some group is at the helm controlling things--even a nefarious one--is more comforting than the idea of no plan at all. Personally I think people just like a great story. Thank you  |
|
|
|
Post by filledeplage on Feb 10, 2019 13:12:47 GMT -5
The Big Pharma problems are really not a conspiracy theory as we have learned about the opiate scandals. Also, I believe there are huge problems with the vaccine schedules (giving 4 at a time as opposed to one - only 30 years ago.) There are billions on the table. While some childhood illnesses are inconvenient-it is a function of reduction of work days lost by parents - so the push is on to promote vaccines which augment national productivity and convenience for doctors.
Easy to give 4 shots at once for the doctor, than one each month where the infants body can build slowly their immune system. It went from 8 basic and well researched shots and oral polio vaccine, to about 70 vaccines over 30 years. All the vaccine manufacturers have to do is convince Congress to be on board with their products. Then big gov gets involved to push them through the distribution stream.
There are Vaccine Compensation Funds to compensate for injuries where injured parties can recover. Built into that is an admission that there are a certain number of injures connected to each vaccine. Some absolutely should be given; some others could be optional. My skepticism grew over time.I believe in smart-vaxxing, and spread out schedules, rather than extreme vaxxing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Cap'n on Feb 10, 2019 13:26:54 GMT -5
Ive heard some argument (I forget where) that people prefer to believe in big conspiracies over little ones because the idea that some group is at the helm controlling things--even a nefarious one--is more comforting than the idea of no plan at all. Personally I think people just like a great story. I have some sympathy for that "control" idea. People are quick to assign agency in general, whether credit and security or blame. But I think getting caught up in a good-old campfire story is an attractive perk. |
|
