Rise of the conspiracy theorists?

DaveH

Striker
If something seems odd or doesn't appear to ring true or observe logic, isn't it sensible to at least question it?
Yes absolutely, however in my experience the alternate truth put forward by conspiracy theorists tends to be incredibly complex, often impossible and goes well beyond not ringing true into the world of so far removed from all common basis of reality that it can be judged as lunacy. Sometimes the claims of cover ups and what are involved are more difficult than the acts themselves.

Once questioned, the theorist goes on the attack saying things like only the more intelligent, open minded people can see their truth and brand those who follow conventional thought as sheep.

To question something does not mean dismiss out of hand or you should not believe. Go, read, learn, experiment and find the truth if it really matters. And, by the same token, apply to the alternate theory. Especially the theories to do with space and science, I have yet to see one alternate theory that can stand up to any level of modeling or scrutiny. I believe like someone said above, that many have a deep insecurity and a desperate need for attention.
 
99% of ordinary people who have a pop at conspiracy theories, calling them nonsense, are doing so because they're simply following a narrative and find it much easier to simply accept and follow the mass opinion on something
People who have a go at conspiracy theorists will do it for many different reasons. And what do you mean by 'ordinary people'? You pulled that stat out your arse didn't you.
 

Nukehasslefan

Goalkeeper
Yes absolutely, however in my experience the alternate truth put forward by conspiracy theorists tends to be incredibly complex, often impossible and goes well beyond not ringing true into the world of so far removed from all common basis of reality that it can be judged as lunacy. Sometimes the claims of cover ups and what are involved are more difficult than the acts themselves.
The issue is, not all conspiracy theorists are the same and they certainly do not all have the same take on whatever conspiracy is on offer as a potential.
It seems like there's a massive mismatch with thoughts and mainstream media and the likes pick up on that and lump it all into one section.
Basically anyone who questions something with outrageous looking claims against another that questions something with a claim that seems more plausible, etc, is lumped into the outrageous category, regardless.
Basically all conspiracy theorists becomes needy lunatics and all the rest of it.


Once questioned, the theorist goes on the attack saying things like only the more intelligent, open minded people can see their truth and brand those who follow conventional thought as sheep.
That depends on who's looking in at it and who sees what they see from their point.
For instance: if someone is questioning something and are attacked for it or simply questioned at first until more people come into the debate which becomes a mass questioning and a more heated debate that generally leads to verbal attacks, then the (usually) lone theorist has two options.
1. Be bullied out of talking.
2. Give some back.

You see, what you say about theorists going on the attack, I see those who adhere to mainstream ideals as the usual attackers when the theorist will not accept their served up on a platter explanation.
This is genuinely what I see in my time of watching and being part of this carry on.

To question something does not mean dismiss out of hand or you should not believe.
Nobody has to dismiss anything.
Nobody needs to do anything other than accept what they believe is right for them.
Unless we know the absolute truth then all avenues can be kept open, which includes the theories that many may call, outrageous.
However, this can apply to everyone, not just those that choose to question.
We all know the media parrot lies and we know it's not just a one off.
So given that thought, isn't it best to basically question everything?
I do agree that conspiracy theorists should never take anything too far or push it onto others, as in stopping people in the street or whatever.
But having an opinion and talking about it should be absolutely fine for those who want to listen or feel there could be some weight to a story/theory/musing.
Those who have zero time for conspiracies or conspiracy theorists would be best to just overlook or no engage with them if they feel strongly about it.
Go, read, learn, experiment and find the truth if it really matters.
I have experimented on a few things. It proves a lot to me against what mainstream says. But that's from my part.
I don't expect anyone to accept anything I say as a truth because until I can provide an undeniable truth then all I have are theories, hypotheses, musings or whatever people think they are. Maybe nonsense to some...but that's fair enough.
There's loads of conspiracies out there and loads of conspiracy theorists and generally all have a different take on things.
And, by the same token, apply to the alternate theory. Especially the theories to do with space and science, I have yet to see one alternate theory that can stand up to any level of modeling or scrutiny.
That's entirely your prerogative. It depends how you look at it all.
You don't see anything that goes against what you learned on this stuff being questioned because everything was given to you as your truth or on the fact shelf, so you take it on that value, just like it was for most of us, including myself at one time.

If you're honest you'll accept that a lot of what you're told is based on you accepting it as a truth when you have no real physical knowledge of whether it is actually a truth or whether it really does fit into reality.
I was once the same. I accepted it all until I started to question a few things then do a few experiments, etc.

I believe like someone said above, that many have a deep insecurity and a desperate need for attention.
Maybe so. I may be after attention. I mean I'm on a forum typing to other names. If I type something then surely I'm after attention...but then again this must apply to all that type in.
You quoted me so you're after my attention, just as I would be if I answer or quote someone else, including this lengthy reply to you.

There's no point anyone typing, texting or talking if they're not after attention.

As for deep insecurity. I think that depends on the context of what people deem, deep insecurity is.
I mean, if I don't trust something then I'm certainly not secure in the knowledge that it's a truth.


However I think we're all insecure in some way shape or form. It's all about admitting it and in what context.
People who have a go at conspiracy theorists will do it for many different reasons.
Yep.
 
Last edited:
The issue is, not all conspiracy theorists are the same and they certainly do not all have the same take on whatever conspiracy is on offer as a potential.
It seems like there's a massive mismatch with thoughts and mainstream media and the likes pick up on that and lump it all into one section.
Basically anyone who questions something with outrageous looking claims against another that questions something with a claim that seems more plausible, etc, is lumped into the outrageous category, regardless.
Basically all conspiracy theorists becomes needy lunatics and all the rest of it.


That depends on who's looking in at it and who sees what they see from their point.
For instance: if someone is questioning something and are attacked for it or simply questioned at first until more people come into the debate which becomes a mass questioning and a more heated debate that generally leads to verbal attacks, then the (usually) lone theorist has two options.
1. Be bullied out of talking.
2. Give some back.

You see, what you say about theorists going on the attack, I see those who adhere to mainstream ideals as the usual attackers when the theorist will not accept their served up on a platter explanation.
This is genuinely what I see in my time of watching and being part of this carry on.

Nobody has to dismiss anything.
Nobody needs to do anything other than accept what they believe is right for them.
Unless we know the absolute truth then all avenues can be kept open, which includes the theories that many may call, outrageous.
However, this can apply to everyone, not just those that choose to question.
We all know the media parrot lies and we know it's not just a one off.
So given that thought, isn't it best to basically question everything?
I do agree that conspiracy theorists should never take anything too far or push it onto others, as in stopping people in the street or whatever.
But having an opinion and talking about it should be absolutely fine for those who want to listen or feel there could be some weight to a story/theory/musing.
Those who have zero time for conspiracies or conspiracy theorists would be best to just overlook or no engage with them if they feel strongly about it.
I have experimented on a few things. It proves a lot to me against what mainstream says. But that's from my part.
I don't expect anyone to accept anything I say as a truth because until I can provide an undeniable truth then all I have are theories, hypotheses, musings or whatever people think they are. Maybe nonsense to some...but that's fair enough.
There's loads of conspiracies out there and loads of conspiracy theorists and generally all have a different take on things.
That's entirely your prerogative. It depends how you look at it all.
You don't see anything that goes against what you learned on this stuff being questioned because everything was given to you as your truth or on the fact shelf, so you take it on that value, just like it was for most of us, including myself at one time.

If you're honest you'll accept that a lot of what you're told is based on you accepting it as a truth when you have no real physical knowledge of whether it is actually a truth or whether it really does fit into reality.
I was once the same. I accepted it all until I started to question a few things then do a few experiments, etc.

Maybe so. I may be after attention. I mean I'm on a forum typing to other names. If I type something then surely I'm after attention...but then again this must apply to all that type in.
You quoted me so you're after my attention, just as I would be if I answer or quote someone else, including this lengthy reply to you.

There's no point anyone typing, texting or talking if they're not after attention.

As for deep insecurity. I think that depends on the context of what people deem, deep insecurity is.
I mean, if I don't trust something then I'm certainly not secure in the knowledge that it's a truth.


However I think we're all insecure in some way shape or form. It's all about admitting it and in what context.
Yep.
What shape is planet Earth?
 

DaveH

Striker
That's entirely your prerogative. It depends how you look at it all.
You don't see anything that goes against what you learned on this stuff being questioned because everything was given to you as your truth or on the fact shelf, so you take it on that value, just like it was for most of us, including myself at one time.

If you're honest you'll accept that a lot of what you're told is based on you accepting it as a truth when you have no real physical knowledge of whether it is actually a truth or whether it really does fit into reality.
I was once the same. I accepted it all until I started to question a few things then do a few experiments, etc.
And there we have it in one post, that need to attack, the smug condescending nature, no doubt designed to invoke a reaction. Without knowing anything about my education and background, that little "there there, you are just doing what you have been told, you don't really know any better, but now I'm a grown up I can see the lies you accept".

Certainly when it comes to space, motion etc, I have quite a bit of physical knowledge that you claim (out of thin air) I can not have. The heavens are there to be observed and studied by all. The physics and maths back it up, but some people chose not only to ignore that, but belittle people who have an education. I think it is the need to feel special, different and above.
 

cosmicchris00

Midfield

DaveH

Striker
The issue is, not all conspiracy theorists are the same and they certainly do not all have the same take on whatever conspiracy is on offer as a potential.
It seems like there's a massive mismatch with thoughts and mainstream media and the likes pick up on that and lump it all into one section.
Basically anyone who questions something with outrageous looking claims against another that questions something with a claim that seems more plausible, etc, is lumped into the outrageous category, regardless.
I forgot to pick up on this bit in my earlier post, because you are correct in the bold bit about mainstream media, with media being the key word. There are a few good blogs and articles that pick apart the mainstream media all the time. These days it seems common to have a sensationalised headline claiming something and perhaps the same again in the opening paragraph, but then the article itself goes on to say something different and then the actual source says something different again.

One example I saw a while ago was about something simple, I think it might have been drinking tea. A University did a small exploratory study into one medical condition and noticed that something like 70% in a study of 20 who showed some other positive side effect to what the study was about in the first place, were all regular tea drinkers. The paper itself said something along the lines of "We noticed this pattern during the course of our research, the numbers are too low to draw any conclusion but it may be worth further study in the future.". The headlines said "Scientists prove drinking tea can cure ... blah".

Mainstream media should not be confused with mainstream accepted knowledge though. Mainstream knowledge is something that generally the vast majority accept, like water always flows downhill. The Mail may report this as "When we leave the EU, OUR water can flow the way WE want", but the general principal can be studied and proven by anyone. Your conspiracy theorist pops up to say "I don't think that is right, you can't swim against the side, but salmon swim upstream so something is not right with our rivers, governments are covering it up, there is some other force at work here THEY don't want to know about. Those who still think water flows downstream are just following what they have already been told without question. Sheep don't know any better".
 

dangermows

Striker
People who have a go at conspiracy theorists will do it for many different reasons. And what do you mean by 'ordinary people'? You pulled that stat out your arse didn't you.
The main reason is because the theories they put forward get blarn. Then they just move onto another so called anomaly.
 

Nukehasslefan

Goalkeeper
What shape is planet Earth?
Not entirely sure what exact shape it is. I'd say a sort of cell we live inside of, not outside of, such as a spinning ball in a nothingness. It makes zero logical sense.
However there's a topic in parsnip on this where I expand a bit further.
And there we have it in one post, that need to attack, the smug condescending nature, no doubt designed to invoke a reaction.
Without knowing anything about my education and background, that little "there there, you are just doing what you have been told, you don't really know any better, but now I'm a grown up I can see the lies you accept".
If that's how you want to read into it then there's little I can do about that. Just remember I included myself in what I said.

Certainly when it comes to space, motion etc, I have quite a bit of physical knowledge that you claim (out of thin air) I can not have.
I don't claim anything against you. I don't even know you.
I'm saying that people can accept a story as a truth when they don't know the real truth of it.
If you say you know something for a fact then that's your mindset on what you personally know or believe you know as your truth.
If you can physically prove what you know in all aspects then you will feel you have enough ammo to blow any conspiracy theorist out of the water if they question what you know to be a fact.

But what you have to remember is, people have to take your word for it based on nothing other than face value, as it stands.

The heavens are there to be observed and studied by all. The physics and maths back it up, but some people chose not only to ignore that, but belittle people who have an education. I think it is the need to feel special, different and above.
I don't think it's belittling at all. It's questioning and being sceptical.
You saying the heavens are there to be studied by all is fine for you. You say the maths works....but for what? What are you seeing that you can be sure is what is a reality in those heavens you observe?

You might take this as me having a go but from my side I simply do not believe what we see is what we're told. You do and that's fine by me.
You were given the maths and you were given all the explanations for what you see in the night sky and you accept them. I simply don't. whether I'm a nut for doing so or I'm backward or merely a contrarian to some people...it's my thoughts.
Some people likely despise me for having them and some will be wondering or intrigued. It's the nature of the beast to be fair.
Surely you can understand people being dismissive and a bit annoyed when conspiracy theorists are argumentative and state things which are obviously bollocks.
Of course I can. I absolutely get it.
One persons truth can be another persons lie.
It's all about knowing what the truth is, physically as it is to know what a lie is and also to try and decipher the truth of any lie.

Debates start because people cannot show physical truths. It's a reliance on verbal understanding from each persons point of view.
A debate can only be shut down by plain reality showing.
This applies to everything.

In terms of conspiracies, let's take the JFK assassination.
Conspiracies abound.
Was he really assassinated?
Was he assassinated with an ice bullet?
Was he assassinated from the grassy knoll?
Was he assassinated from under a roadside kerb drain.
Was he assassinated by the driver of his car or someone in that car?
And of course, was he assassinated from the book depository by Oswald?

And so on.

Which one is correct?
Does anyone know the correct answer?

Now here's the key.
Ask most people who understand the assassination, who killed JFK and the likely answer will be Lee Harvey Oswald.
But is that the correct answer and should everything else just shut up or keep it to themselves if they believe something else was going on?

Is anyone who puts forward another possibility, a conspiracy nutcase?
Is it not just as easy for that person who is called the nutcase to simply react with, " well you're a sheep".......?

We all think we know the reality of a lot of things without actually knowing that to be a truth. It's basically an accepted truth....but without physical proof to rubber stamp it, it's up for debate and will be debated by all kinds of minds,from the sublime to the utter perceived ridiculous...but even the perceived ridiculous could potentially be the truth.
I forgot to pick up on this bit in my earlier post, because you are correct in the bold bit about mainstream media, with media being the key word. There are a few good blogs and articles that pick apart the mainstream media all the time. These days it seems common to have a sensationalised headline claiming something and perhaps the same again in the opening paragraph, but then the article itself goes on to say something different and then the actual source says something different again.

One example I saw a while ago was about something simple, I think it might have been drinking tea. A University did a small exploratory study into one medical condition and noticed that something like 70% in a study of 20 who showed some other positive side effect to what the study was about in the first place, were all regular tea drinkers. The paper itself said something along the lines of "We noticed this pattern during the course of our research, the numbers are too low to draw any conclusion but it may be worth further study in the future.". The headlines said "Scientists prove drinking tea can cure ... blah".
Yep, we've seen it all with all kinds of stuff from cornflakes giving you cancer to eggs causing salmonella to stress causing ulcers and drinking 2 or 3 beers a day can actually help you combat this or that or wine is good for you then it's bad and now beer is bad and a fried breakfast is now a death sentence on a plate and even formulas to make the best toast and tea and every other study, it seems.
And then we have theoretical scientists/physicists/astrophysicists that come up with all kinds of stuff that none of us can verify but yet we accept them.....Why?
Because it's simply just easier to do that and get on with what we do in life. Work, eat, drink and do not question authority.
The saying " you're paid to work not to think."
And then you have the few that are literally paid to think.


Mainstream media should not be confused with mainstream accepted knowledge though. Mainstream knowledge is something that generally the vast majority accept, like water always flows downhill. The Mail may report this as "When we leave the EU, OUR water can flow the way WE want", but the general principal can be studied and proven by anyone. Your conspiracy theorist pops up to say "I don't think that is right, you can't swim against the side, but salmon swim upstream so something is not right with our rivers, governments are covering it up, there is some other force at work here THEY don't want to know about. Those who still think water flows downstream are just following what they have already been told without question. Sheep don't know any better".
In that context that's fair enough but then again people are more than willing to accept that water in oceans and rivers, lakes and seas just curve around a ball and stay put.
Now that is not logical, at all.
Physical observation can easily show it's not logical.
However, we go back to the studies of earlier. The accepted studies by so called scientists of today and yesteryear telling us the reason for it is, gravity.
People them walk away and say " ahhh it's gravity, I knew there would be a good reason as to why these massive bodies of water stick to a spinning ball."
Then someone comes along as shows observable, testable and repeatable experiments to show that water doesn't stay on a ball and even worse when the ball is spinning.

Then the argument becomes more intense when someone is asked to prove gravity or even explain what it actually is.
Nobody knows what it is but most know what it's supposed to do in a way...but not why it works.

When someone spins a ball with water on and it flies off all over the place, those who believe it sticks to a spinning earth will generally use arguments like " yes but earth takes 24 hours to spin once on its axis so try turning that ball real slow over 24 hours and see what happens."

But then, in another argument will tell you the earth bulges because it spins so fast and that's why it's fatter at the equator than it is at the poles....and so on and so on.

Totally contradicting all the time because what supposedly fits for a spinning globe, does not make sense, logically but is accepted en masse because that's the way we were taught.
It becomes our sort of religion in a way or our lifetime sort of belief in a real santa where our logical minds may question if it's real but mass indoctrination and peer pressure ensures very few get to exercise that thought, because they know it's sort of, taboo. It carries a stigma and that stigma is generally generated by schools to colleges to universities alongside mainstream media.
 
Last edited:

DaveH

Striker
You were given the maths and you were given all the explanations for what you see in the night sky and you accept them. I simply don't. whether I'm a nut for doing so or I'm backward or merely a contrarian to some people...it's my thoughts.
Some people likely despise me for having them and some will be wondering or intrigued. It's the nature of the beast to be fair.
One of the real beauties of maths is that although it can take a lot of work and brilliance from someone to produce it, the very nature of maths lies in proof. You can sit with pen and paper, work though it yourself and watch it balance out. Physics is then the practical application of that maths, putting it into context.

it can be hard to visualise 3d space from a set of equations but these days there are a lot of 3d tools in computer languages that can be used to put together a simulation. Part of my first job was writing simulations so I find it easy to take the maths and put it to the test. What I see matches observations. I’m not alone in being the sort of person who does this. If you are enthusiastic enough it is all there to be proven by yourself. Like you say, question, challenge, don’t just accept. But, when I have challenged, like tens of thousands of others, I can’t find a flaw. Those who do find flaws seem to do it by just sitting speculating, with nothing to back it up. Why believe them?
 

Nukehasslefan

Goalkeeper
One of the real beauties of maths is that although it can take a lot of work and brilliance from someone to produce it, the very nature of maths lies in proof. You can sit with pen and paper, work though it yourself and watch it balance out. Physics is then the practical application of that maths, putting it into context.

it can be hard to visualise 3d space from a set of equations but these days there are a lot of 3d tools in computer languages that can be used to put together a simulation. Part of my first job was writing simulations so I find it easy to take the maths and put it to the test. What I see matches observations. I’m not alone in being the sort of person who does this. If you are enthusiastic enough it is all there to be proven by yourself. Like you say, question, challenge, don’t just accept. But, when I have challenged, like tens of thousands of others, I can’t find a flaw. Those who do find flaws seem to do it by just sitting speculating, with nothing to back it up. Why believe them?
I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to believe someone that couldn't back up something physically but in terms of what we're dealing with it really does apply to all.
You say you can make a simulation by using maths...but what maths are you using and where did you get the figures from and how did you manage to verify those figures?

I'm not telling you you're wrong in anything you do or visualise. All I'm saying is, I do not just believe a lot of what I'm told unless there is real verification for it but I'll simply accept a lot of stuff on face value if I don't feel it's worth arguing, yet, until I can verify it at any time, over time, I'll always be sceptical in that acceptance.
 

DaveH

Striker
I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to believe someone that couldn't back up something physically but in terms of what we're dealing with it really does apply to all.
You say you can make a simulation by using maths...but what maths are you using and where did you get the figures from and how did you manage to verify those figures?

I'm not telling you you're wrong in anything you do or visualise. All I'm saying is, I do not just believe a lot of what I'm told unless there is real verification for it but I'll simply accept a lot of stuff on face value if I don't feel it's worth arguing, yet, until I can verify it at any time, over time, I'll always be sceptical in that acceptance.
I suppose there is a point there, for example I have not measured the mass of other planets. You can prove the maths from first principals but there is a level of trust on the raw data. For this particular case (and I have been trying not to make things specific so sorry for this example), you can get to a point where you say, the maths works, observational evidence backs up the standard model of the solar system, simulations using the accepted mass of planets matches observational data, so you either accept that is most likely the data you used is correct or....

you go down the conspiracy route and not just doubt the data, but doubt the entire model of the solar system and our place in it, coming up with something completely different that does not have the maths to back it up, that can not be simulated and does not match observational evidence. In my experience, the 'alternate' model by 'free thinkers who have broken their conditioning' ends up being incredibly complex to make it work. So complex you can't usually draw a diagram of how it works, where as a 7 year old can do a sketch of the solar system.

To me that is the crux of it and why I really don't understand the conspiracy theorists. I love learning and love to know how things work, and really like the maths and physics behind that. The process of this learning does throw up questions that I don't know the answer to but most things stand up to scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists come up with things that you can't just poke little holes in or say there is a gap here, they are usually something batshit crazy where there is a massive gulf in what they propose and reality. It is often difficult to find any common ground and when you question the answer usually is "I guess I'm just that level above you as you are just following what you are told, it took years for me to break free but now I know the truth and you are still following lies like a good sheep" - basically the smug attack with no basis. They come across as very needy.
 
I suppose there is a point there, for example I have not measured the mass of other planets. You can prove the maths from first principals but there is a level of trust on the raw data. For this particular case (and I have been trying not to make things specific so sorry for this example), you can get to a point where you say, the maths works, observational evidence backs up the standard model of the solar system, simulations using the accepted mass of planets matches observational data, so you either accept that is most likely the data you used is correct or....

you go down the conspiracy route and not just doubt the data, but doubt the entire model of the solar system and our place in it, coming up with something completely different that does not have the maths to back it up, that can not be simulated and does not match observational evidence. In my experience, the 'alternate' model by 'free thinkers who have broken their conditioning' ends up being incredibly complex to make it work. So complex you can't usually draw a diagram of how it works, where as a 7 year old can do a sketch of the solar system.

To me that is the crux of it and why I really don't understand the conspiracy theorists. I love learning and love to know how things work, and really like the maths and physics behind that. The process of this learning does throw up questions that I don't know the answer to but most things stand up to scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists come up with things that you can't just poke little holes in or say there is a gap here, they are usually something batshit crazy where there is a massive gulf in what they propose and reality. It is often difficult to find any common ground and when you question the answer usually is "I guess I'm just that level above you as you are just following what you are told, it took years for me to break free but now I know the truth and you are still following lies like a good sheep" - basically the smug attack with no basis. They come across as very needy.
What do you think about 9/11 as maths and science suggest the official story isn’t truthful. I’ve seen a few others where maths and science debunk what is reported in the media. I’m not trying to push the conspiracy agenda or argue about what’s true and what isn’t I’d just like to know your thoughts on the subject.
 

Top