How to make a tinfoil hat (Conspiracy theories)

[Fred588]

Some predictions: Let's see how many come true:

By 2020;

1. The falsity of the Lock Ness Monster will not be disproven to the satisfaction of all its believers.

2. The multiple-shooter theory will not be disproven to the satisfaction of its believers.

3. The idea that the moon landing was faked will not be disproven to its believers.

4. The concept of the Earth being flat will not be disproven to the satisfaction of the flat-Earth believers.

5. Fred will be proven to have been right in ALL of the above.

[bfc796]

From my perspective, it's not so much a question of of belief - it's simply whether your perceptions are in alignment with objective reality or not. I would personally define that as 'what is most likely to be the true state of affairs, based on all the available evidence', since you can never know for certain what actually happened, unless you were a first-hand witness or directly involved. Therefore, you have to come to your own conclusions using Occam's Razor and other deductive reasoning methods, combined with open-minded enquiry, intellectual curiosity, and the absence of prejudice and preconception (i.e, wanting things to be a certain way and then looking for prejudicial evidence to support that pre-conceived conclusion) - confirmation bias.

Or you can let outside agencies spoon-feed you a narrowly prescribed range of socially acceptable 'talking points' which you then select from and adopt as your own (second-hand) opinions. It is not easy to take full responsibility for what you believe about the world, from scratch, because of the required amount of time and effort it takes to examine sufficient amounts of data - a long-pass meta-analysis of what's 'out there'. It takes years. I would conservatively estimate that I have spent upwards of 5000 hours looking into what comes under the umbrella of 'alternative explanations for why the world is the way it is'. I've done my research, and am therefore well qualified to comment on this topic by virtue of that - I don't say, 'here is what I believe (and you should too)', but rather; here is my current understanding of things, which is constantly evolving, and you may find this information worthy of your consideration (make of it what you will).

I would say that my completely re-drawn 'map of reality' has a little extra credibility, because the conclusions I've arrived at are pretty much the exact opposite of what I would prefer to believe; what I wanted to be true - which is why I had to find out for sure, to the degree that is possible. Acknowledging how bad things really are is often horrifying, disturbing and most of all depressing. If you think I am egoicly identified with this information or have invested my sense of self in it, then you are mistaken. I'd love nothing more than to discover that this is all somehow a horrible mistake and then go back to the comfortable world-view I had prior to May 2010, as promulgated by the Times of London and Observer newspapers (which, incidentally, I read every day religiously for 11 years between 1997 and 2007, cover-to-cover - and not once was there a mention of the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations or the Bilderberg Group. Then later, when I became aware of the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Group through the independent (i.e, not wholly owned subsidiaries of 6 transnational corporations) alternative media, I was able to witness the extraordinary mainstream media blackout that occurred each year, up until 2013, as if it wasn't happening - major red flag). Do you have any idea who was in attendance at the 2013 meeting in Watford, England? I'm guessing probably not.

If you believe that Governmental institutions are incompetent and corrupt, but essentially benevolent and really do care about the little people, then that's fine - you are entitled to your opinion, of course. Keep telling yourself that story and let me know how that works out for you and your family in the long-run. The proliferation of childhood cancer, the explosion in rates of Autism, auto-immune diseases, birth defects - all this is the product of the collective warped imaginations of a bunch of paranoid tin-foil-hat wearing nutjob conspiracy theorists living in their mom's respective basements. If you still believe that meme in 2015 then, well... Good luck, and watch out below.

No one wants to hear that there is an emergent depopulation agenda that is targeting you and your family, via 'soft-kill' modern eugenics - the accumulation of myriad environmental toxins, the combined effect of which is untraceable. Continue ignoring all the evidence around you. Alternatively, if the weak and sick are going to be progressively culled from the target population - find out how you are being poisoned and don't be sick and weak (if survival is something that interests you).

The pre-determined future for humanity that the ruling elite have planned is nothing less than the high-tech slave society depicted in the Hunger Games (look up predictive programming to understand why all these dystopian post-apocalyptic movies are being produced by Hollywood - it's to get people used to the idea that 'this is the way things are going to be in the future', via repetitive subconscious conditioning). If the prospect of that world becoming manifested reality doesn't warrant the epithet of hell on earth, then I'm not sure what does.

I'm morally obligated here to warn you that; if you and the people you care about are basically ignorant of the information I've been researching, then you are potentially in big trouble down the line.

[bfc796]

Youtube is not empirical data and research. It's hearsay. It's actually crap.

Complete the following sentence: "YouTube isn't a legitimate source of information because [.................................................]" (?)


I don't know how many people here are interested in this sort of information, but FWIW - here is a mini-series of short videos that I was going to upload to my YouTube channel last year (since I have something of audience, with 1700-odd subscribers) and had planned to call it 'Reality Makes An Unwelcome Intrusion'

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:

Episode 1. The Banker - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peX4dBEF0Vg

Episode 2. This is an Orange - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Episode 3. Cue Howard - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WINDtlPXmmE

Episode 4. We're in a lot of trouble! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8

Episode 5. Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAfUj8ra1bM

[bfc796]

Remembered a few more that I was going to include:


Episode 6. Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Episode 7. Speech that got JKF Killed (along with Executive Order 11110...) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR5m1-5ksj0

Episode 8. George Carlin, The American Dream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

Episode 9. President Eisenhower farewell speech, warning of the Military Industrial Complex - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

[nachtjaeger]

As a logical tool, I have always found 'Holmes' razor' more useful than Occam's razor. Holmes' razor, created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for his fictional detective, states simply "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the answer." I try to be my own Devil's Advocate- I do my damnedest to prove my theory wrong, and if I can't, then there may be something there. All you need is one solid fact, like the fact that Thermite does not and cannot explode, or a table listing the effect of high temperatures on the tensile strength of steel, and Boom -the "conspiracy theory" goes down in flames. Except for one problem. . .

One thing that drives me straight up the wall is "True Believers". They will look only for data that supports their theories, no matter how flimsy, and ignore any evidence that contradicts them, no matter how strong. Like the other day, somebody was going all Chicken Little on Facebook about how "X chemical is in your food, it will kill you dead, give you cancer, make your children mutants, make you stupid and obedient, etc., etc." I shared a link to the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on X chemical, with details on exactly how toxic it is (or rather, isn't) and at what exposure levels, both acute and chronic. They completely ignored my link, and claimed that I was "A paid shill for Big Chem and the Corporatists."
(By the way, if anybody knows where I sign up to get paid to support properly labeled GMO crops, hydrofracking, nuclear power, capitalism, free markets, etc., please hook me up- I need me some of that Koch Brothers cash!)

My Granddad raised me to be a skeptic. He also said "I don't believe anything I hear, and only half of what I see." I swear, the same people who share these "Chicken Little" memes as though they're Gospel are the same folks who see a "Wet Paint" sign and have to touch it to make sure.

(snip) Therefore, you have to come to your own conclusions using Occam's Razor and other deductive reasoning methods, combined with open-minded enquiry, intellectual curiosity, and the absence of prejudice and preconception (i.e, wanting things to be a certain way and then looking for prejudicial evidence to support that pre-conceived conclusion) - confirmation bias. (/snip)

[Duncan Edwards]

Youtube is not empirical data and research. It's hearsay. It's actually crap.

Complete the following sentence: "YouTube isn't a legitimate source of information because [.................................................]" (?)

Because none of the information is documented or proven. I did my 5000 hours too only it was at the feet of learned PhD's to get a degree in History. A legitimate source of information is one that provides multiple points of origin, or is first hand and can be corroborated with others, or is some sort of scientifically testable physical evidence. Getting info from a guy who had a moderate success as one of four producers on a single movie and eleven others that went straight to video and claims he was told something non-specific by a politician of modest import who isn't around to verify his claim is not a legitimate source of information. It also brings up two questions right away. How did the operation remain so secure if it was being blabbed to someone not part of it and why hasn't anyone else come forward with this? The same holds true for the sources in virtually every hacked together video you listed. Most of it is "this guy I know heard from somebody who knew a fellow that thought this" kind of stuff. It is not documented, testable, or verifiable. It fails to meet any standard of proof or viability. It also contradicts all of the information that does fit the test of a legitimate source.

"Conspiracy theories" as they have come to be known have all of this in common. I have a theory that you are unaware a tribe of invisible Indians is walking around in your house a night. I know this because sometimes things go bump in the dark and the house creaks. Sometimes things aren't located where you remember leaving them. I heard about it on Youtube from this guy that Art Bell knew who took a tape recorder to graveyards at night and when he played the tape back you could hear dead people talking. It has to be true. Prove me wrong.

And this goes back to a question I asked. How is it that there are such monstrous dark forces out there capable of pulling off plots that require years, decades, generations, of perfect secrecy. Entities so capable that they can remain focused and able to manipulate all media and world governments but they can't get a video with "the truth" removed from YouTube? I've seen Dave get a video in violation of copyright pulled in minutes. It's not difficult. If they can keep the New York Times and Washington Post quiet then why not "the truth" on a two dollar website? Why can no "conspiracy theorist" ever answer this very simple and direct question?

[bfc796]

This is actually the very first time I have participated in an online discussion about this subject, ever - so I'm not your typical 'Keyboard Warrior' or 'Truther' to use that pejorative term. I never joined the AboveTopSecret forum or even left YouTube comments. I've been content to quietly go about my own business whilst watching and observing, reading constantly. I realised a couple of years ago that the only people you have a realistic chance of getting through to about this information are close friends and family members - basically, people you know IRL; otherwise you are just some random guy on the Internet with no prior credit (no established credibility in their eyes). Even then, I tend to keep things on a need-to-know basis, mainly about getting healthier and opting out of modern eugenics as much as possible (exposure to mercury, fluoride, aluminium, aspartame, radiation, etc).

I know the intransigent mentality you describe, and I would characterise it as 'I refuse to believe it, even if you prove that it's true.' The reverse also applies, if someone is intellectually wedded to particular theory, even if it's been shown to be demonstrably nonsensical. Most people subconsciously shy away from researching this subject matter, and I don't blame them - the more you keep asking the question 'WHY?', the worse it gets. It's a vulgar expression, but 'mind-rape' is how I would describe it - there is 'messed up' and then there is barely comprehensible, monstrously depraved fucking evil. The question you have to ask yourself is: do I really want to know what's under that rock? The implications of certain things being true are not easy to come to terms with; to accept as being real truth; and I think that is where most people decide to back off - 'If it's that fucking bad, I don't want to know'. Fair enough.

Hypothetical scenario A: You are diagnosed with cancer, but it is operable - you have the operation to remove the tumour, but then; do you defer to the oncologist's authority when he recommends adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, despite both being known carcinogens (causing more cancer)? This is the kind of thing worth pre-emptively worrying about, because when disaster strikes; normalcy bias kicks in big-time and the dye is cast.


Normalcy Bias - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias

Confirmation Bias - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Cognitive Dissonance - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


Concepts worth understanding. I would personally define normalcy bias as the tendency to revert back to core programming under stress - and in order to overcome that reflex, you have to consciously undo the conditiong of your mind; to 'unlearn what you have learned', to paraphrase Yoda. Mark Passio calls this 'Negative Knowledge' - you have to work hard just to get back to zero (knowing nothing)

Negative Knowledge - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GkXlJRAQDc.

[Duncan Edwards]

I know the intransigent mentality you describe, and I would characterise it as 'I refuse to believe it, even if you prove that it's true.' The reverse also applies, if someone is intellectually wedded to particular theory, even if it's been shown to be demonstrably nonsensical. Most people subconsciously shy away from researching this subject matter, and I don't blame them - the more you keep asking the question 'WHY?', the worse it gets. It's a vulgar expression, but 'mind-rape' is how I would describe it - there is 'messed up' and then there is barely comprehensible, monstrously depraved fucking evil. The question you have to ask yourself is: do I really want to know what's under that rock? The implications of certain things being true are not easy to come to terms with; to accept as being real truth; and I think that is where most people decide to back off - 'If it's that fucking bad, I don't want to know'. Fair enough.

But you haven't "proven" anything. I want to know. I went to college to learn how to look for things to know. But if someone claims 2+2=5 then they better show me some pretty fancy math that violates everything humanity has proven so far or I'm not listening to them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and you don't have that.

[bfc796]

I'm not trying to prove anything and haven't claimed to. Clearly, you have a settled view on how things are and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. The intention behind making the above contributions to the conversation is: here is some information that you may not hitherto have been aware of, for your consideration. What you make of it is entirely up to you.

I don't want to get involved in fractious personal debates - as I said, my whole MO is normally 'don't get involved' (in things that are not my business, not my responsibility; like other people's perceptions).

[Duncan Edwards]

I'm not trying to prove anything and haven't claimed to. Clearly, you have a settled view on how things are and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. ... What you make of it is entirely up to you.

It's not an "opinion" or a "view" and it's not what I "make of it". It's the facts as they are. Please show me some factual information and I'll listen to anything.

I realize I'm wasting my time arguing with those who can't tell facts from hearsay. My goal is to defend learning. Not only is this an insult to every teacher who ever lived, thinking like this without it being challenged is undermining civilization. As all of history is being subjected to endless unsubstantiated revision by internet bullshit artists the value of learning is being degraded. Nobody is even learning how to learn any longer. Rational thought, debate, discourse, study, scholarship, are all going the way of infotainment and everyone is left to believe whatever they want regardless of what the facts say. If allowed to continue there will come a day when we won't know our place in this world and consequently our future as well.

And also it's just damned ignorant.