They learned this from Hitler's Nazi movement, and from the Communist terror propagation. Except in America everyone buys the lies. This is because the powers that be suppressed education. The communists' biggest mistake was to teach science and literature and art to their young. Consequently, every citizen saw right through their lies.

I have news for you: the American establishment lies are almost identical to those of the communists. The difference? Amys believe them. Russkies did not. — god must be atheist

Now you're making sense. The working and middle classes mostly believe the lies, too. But, hey! We got the Super Bowl and Twinkies, right?

We got the Super Bowl and Twinkies, right? — Noah Te Stroete

Now you are talkin'. Sports, and drugs. Rock'n'Roll went out the window with sex, i.e. with the sexual counter-revolution, due to AIDS. It was only coincidental (or a conspiracy) that new musicians can't make any serious money whatsoever. Grand theft is a national pastime in certain industries.

NO, no. My conspiracy theory is in the news. Yours is behind the headlines. Mine are in the li(n)es. Yours are in-between.

Which are more likely to be true?

"When two conspiracists lock antlers." — god must be atheist

I'm not being ludicrous and inane. You are. You are more than welcome to look up all of my claims. They are consistent, coherent, and logically inferred from the available public historical record. You are just trying to be funny or trying to get my goat. You're trolling, and I don't really care much for your lack of intellectual honesty.

And besides, ExxonMobil profits never helped anyone I've ever met. Oil is sold on the world markets and the prices are the same for you, me, and everyone else I've ever met no matter if ExxonMobil owns it or not. I don't give a fuck about ExxonMobil. They are fucking the vast majority of Americans.

I've heard other explanations for why Building 7 had to come down. I don't know. I just don't buy it came down from the scattered and not very large fires.

I just don't buy it came down from the scattered and not very large fires. — Coben

Of course it didn't. Only a fool would believe that a building would fall like that from small fires.

If possible let’s try to not go into all directions at once here! Each conspiracy theory could deserve a topic on its own, but I doubt that the admins want to see a thread for each conspiracy theory in existence, and we won’t be able to discuss all conspiracy theories in this one thread, as addressing one at a time is already complex enough.

The point of this thread is first of all to show why it is important to consider conspiracy theories seriously, and not blindly dismiss them or ridicule them, which I believe I and others have shown quite well.

Then I want to show that there are conspiracy theories today which are true (beyond a reasonable doubt), while almost everyone still believe that they are false (and blindly dismiss/ridicule them). Since philosophy is in great part concerned with uncovering truth, I think you will agree that it is important to find out which conspiracy theories are true.

I don’t want to start with 9/11 because it isn’t the easiest one to prove and because it puts many people off, even though indeed as was mentioned the collapse of Building 7 is difficult to explain without invoking controlled demolition. Instead I want to start with the moon landings, because it is easier to prove that they were faked, because the subject matter is less bleak, and because almost everyone considers that theory (that astronauts never set foot on the moon) to be extremely ridiculous, so if it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that this theory is indeed true then this has far-reaching implications, and can serve as a motivation to look more deeply into other conspiracy theories.

And again there is an outstanding documentary that was released recently, which shows beyond a reasonable doubt that astronauts never set foot on the moon, that these landings were faked in a studio. If you can’t believe it, I suggest you watch the documentary, I suggest everyone watch it and then give their thoughts on it, it is well worth it, here is the link again:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/

And besides, ExxonMobil profits never helped anyone I've ever met. Oil is sold on the world markets and the prices are the same for you, me, and everyone else I've ever met no matter if ExxonMobil owns it or not. I don't give a fuck about ExxonMobil. They are fucking the vast majority of Americans. — Noah Te Stroete

1. Oil is a commodity. It is sold on the commodity markets, which are not retail markets. If you buy a Columbia Coat in Vancouver, and one in Toronto, they may have vastly different prices. But oil is not such a goods. I can't explain it any better than saying it's a commodity. I can't explain it better precisely because I don't understand it either. But it's not the only commodity... corn, soy beans, minerals, uranium, etc. all have world-wide uniform prices.

2. ExxonMobil has helped lots of Americans, barring the sharing of profits. Americans' cars would not run without oil production; retail goods would skyracket in price or not be available whatsoever if they had to be manufactured and distributed without oil production. ExxonMobil sure takes a huge profit, and it sure takes the government by the balls and squeezes them until it gets what it wants (including wars), but one thing you can't say is that ExxonMobil does not help Americans.

3. As a private opinion, and I don't suppose anyone here will agree with me, I offer and put it to you that there is no difference in lifestyle between people who earn $2000,000 a year and people who earn two billion a year or anywhere in-between; and I put it to you that the life of the rich is only marginally better, if at all, than that of the middle class, or even that of the poor (outside of America, the poor).

- all three strata enjoy medicare (in rich countries outside the USA)
- all three strata have enough to eat, and good tasting food too;
- all three strata have access to public education (free until grade 12)
- all three strata have access to entertainment;
- all three strata have access to hygienic products and lifestyle;
- all three strata have access to clothing, transportation and telecommunication.

These all apply to Americans and non-Americans in the rich countries, except the first point.

MY point? A rich can't eat a thousand or million times more food than the poor. He can't get a thousand to a million times cleaner, healthier, uncold, unhot (against the elements), unnoised, he can't dance a thousand or a million times more steps, he can't get a billion or a hundred million times laid more, they both have the same amount of orgasms over a lifetime, see the same amount of movies, play the same amount of computer games, sing the same amount of blues in the shower.

Being rich is an American dream which is idolized by the poor, protected by the rich, and unbeknownst to all involved, who are stupid enough to not think it through, in and by itself being wealthy by a large margin buys you double the fun, but not even triple, never mind 1,000,000 times the fun.

There is a theory of mobility; you go out, you come back, and in the main, your final destination remains the same. The difference between the rich and the poor, the only material difference in enjoyment of life and in lifestyle, is that in-between coming home, the rich can go farther away than the poor.

Commodities are traded on exchanges by banks, corporations, and speculators. They buy long with the hope that they can sell it later at a higher price, or they sell short on a margin account (selling first — with the hope that the price drops so they can buy it at a lower price). These are called futures. There is technical analysis (reading patterns in candlestick charts and extrapolating where price will go in the future) and there is fundamental analysis (news events, corporate earnings reports like that of Saudi Aramco and corporate governance news and such). They speculate on this analysis to earn profits on their trades. If there are more sellers at a price than buyers, then the price of oil drops to where there are buyers at another price. If there are more buyers than sellers at a price, then the price of oil goes up to a price where there are more sellers. This is how the price of Brent and WTI crude are determined.

What you and I pay for gasoline has a lot to do with this oil price coupled with the billions of dollars that our government hands out to companies like ExxonMobil free of charge, which pads their bottom line more than it helps you and me afford their prices.

It would make zero difference to you and me if ExxonMobil is the owner or if British Petroleum is. I say let the British be the imperialists, and lets spend our money on subsidizing renewable energy, electric cars, investing in affordable housing and college, universal healthcare etc.

You’re wrong about the rich and the poor. The poor have nothing to be taxed. The rich should be taxed at pre-Reagan levels to make it a more just society. Also, the rich have longer life expectancy than the poor, better education, and have many more opportunities.

Furthermore, you’re a psychopathic asshole.

But, hey! We got the Super Bowl and Twinkies, right? — Noah Te Stroete

The federal government requires television networks to beam free NFL football games into my living room in HD. That's the kind of authoritarianism I can get behind.

The federal government requires television networks to beam free NFL football games into my living room in HD. That's the kind of authoritarianism I can get behind. — fishfry

:100:

Of course, all of my recommended prescriptions for US society are only meant to slow the race to our ultimate ruin.

Furthermore, you’re a psychopathic asshole. — Noah Te Stroete

No further comments.

I've seen no good evidence that there have been aliens and alien spacecraft recovered and/or captured by US governmental agencies. — creativesoul

Perhaps you will not consider this evidence, but give it a watch and see if it shifts how you approach the issue and how you go about looking for evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEWz4SXfyCQ

I'm curious. I've not watched the link you offered on the moon landing, although I've read a number of different people's writings on it as well as watching a number of different 'documentaries' about it... So, unless there is something new in that one - as far as evidence goes - I remain unconvinced of the landing being faked.

So, as I was saying... I'm curious...

What is the standard for the burden of proof here?

Are the anomalies that are being pointed out as evidence of the moon landing being faked explained by more than one account? Is being faked the only explanation thereof? Are the expert opinions the only ones? Are there other experts who denounce the fake landing explanation in lieu of another? Are some of those experts not tied to the governmental explanation in any way?

Surely there are many living witnesses to that landing who watched it happen and/or played an instrumental part of the operation itself... right? Are all of these people liars? Buzz Aldren? Neil Armstrong? All of the other astronauts afterwards? There was more than one moon landing... right?

Is the underlying reasoning for faking the landing along the lines of the US government trying to impress upon the world American dominance and/or exceptionalism... cold-war style? Because JFK said it... we cannot fail or be seen as having failed to actually do it?

I am watching/listening to that Rogan show.

You can theorize the current wikipedia/time page is a lie.

You can theorize the current wikipedia/time page is a conspiracy (if you believe the author had evil intent.)

However, I think the word should be changed to stress less 'intent', there is also human stupidity.

Yeah...

Looks pretty convoluted.

What parts of what he said looked convoluted?
It would be strange if that kind of work was not highly complex.

Psychologically it can be understood why most people do not want to consider conspiracy theories seriously: because they do not want to believe that individuals more powerful than them are working against their interests. — leo

I don't think that's it. Sure, conspiracies occur, but "conspiracy theories" have a bad name because many people have a tendency to jump rashly to the conclusion that a conspiracy has occurred. Conspiracies are complex, and therefore there should be a considerable epistemic hurdle to justify belief in one. O.J. Simpson's attorney's proposed to his jury that the LAPD conspired to frame him. Of course it's possible, but consider how many people would have to be in on it and that 100% of them would have to keep it secret. Good epistemology calls for finding the simplest solution to a set of facts, and since conspiracies are complex - it's rare that a conspiracy would be the simplest solution.

Not wanting to believe something should not blind us, but the other side of the coin is confirmation bias: some people unjustifiably believe the world (or the rich) are out to get them. When examined more closely, that rarely seems to be the case.

The notion of not being able to place one's hands near the reactor(due to 'gravitational waves') contradicted all the later talk about 'placing' the sphere off and on the pedestal. It lost me with a tremendous amount of forgetting what he was saying amidst two hours of aimless wandering...

some people unjustifiably believe the world (or the rich) are out to get them. When examined more closely, that rarely seems to be the case. — Relativist

It’s not so much that the rich are out to get the poor. It’s that the rich have privilege that they don’t want to give up. It’s a matter of habituation and what people get accustomed to. The rich couldn’t handle maximum security prison with the life-hardened poor. Judges know this. The judges delude themselves that the rich convict is really a good person that just made a mistake. The judge’s bias is never more transparent than when he sentences the black crack dealer to life in prison for his third offense. The judge believes the convict is a hardened criminal who can’t be reformed even though dealing crack was probably the best opportunity the poor black man ever had in this society where everything was stacked against him from birth.

People really aren’t all that different in their morality, however. It’s just that some have had easy lives and get all the chances in the world. Some have one or two opportunities in life that they better not fuck up. Most people have no choice but to live in oppression and poverty, or to take a chance and deal crack.

Senators are just as much criminals as anyone else. They just don’t have to worry about police harassment and biased judges because the judges are biased in their favor.

The reactor could be on or off, which he explained.

↪creativesoul The reactor could be on or off, which he explained. Your reaction to him is he is making this stuff up? — Coben

I haven't watched the movie, but "Creating gravitational waves" with a reactor sounds fishy. Force of gravity is a funcion of mass and distance. In the classical physics sense. Neither can be faked. If someone claims to be generating "gravitational waves" with a reactor, methinks he is blowing it from the hothole. In other words, his or her credibility is gone. Because the person obviously has no physics knowledge, yet tries to use physics, false and impossible physics, to prove his or her point.

This is beside the point of believeing the conspiracy theory or not.

Another point is the convoluted serving of the topic. They don't have a point; they try to pull the wool over the viewers' eyes by presenting their own self-contradictory facts so far away from each other in time and in topic line, that they hope nobody notices it. If they had a clear case, believe me, they would present it clearly. If they don't have a clear case, their (the conspiracy theorists') only hope is to not be noticed for that, and the only way to do that is to convolute their presentation.

These are not criticism of the theory of conspiracy in the film, these are general observations also applicable to the film, which conspiracy theorists often use, but not necessarily always use.

The reactor could be on or off, which he explained. Your reaction to him is he is making this stuff up? — Coben

"Wrong reaction to the reaction to the reactor." I like this. Three occurances of the very same concept that have three different and distinct meanings, in one sentence, with each meaning unmistakeable for the other two. Sort of a humourless pun. But those of us who revel in puns, find a somewhat perverse pleasure reading something like this.

n

I haven't watched the movie, but "Creating gravitational waves" with a reactor sounds fishy. Force of gravity is a funcion of mass and distance. In the classical physics sense. Neither can be faked. If someone claims to be generating "gravitational waves" with a reactor, methinks he is blowing it from the hothole. In other words, his or her credibility is gone. Because the person obviously has no physics knowledge, yet tries to use physics, false and impossible physics, to prove his or her point. — god must be atheist

Let's look at your approach. You don't watch the video. You decide, based presumably on your knowledge of current physics models and current technology that this technology is impossible and that the speaker has no credibility. You conclude that the person has no physics knowledge. The technology in question, should it actually exist, would be more advanced then ours and based most likely on processes we don't currently understand. Just as within science, if we go back 150 years, say, many things we now know not only to be possible and some existent, were ruled out based on then current knowledge. This in relation to findings and processes discovered or proposed by other scientists. So, your approach to reaching a conclusion that this person knows no physics was to not actually listen to them speak and assume that you can rule out any significant possible technological advances that might seem to be ruled out now by current science.

I think that's poor epistemologal practice in a few different ways.

Another point is the convoluted serving of the topic. They don't have a point; they try to pull the wool over the viewers' eyes by presenting their own self-contradictory facts so far away from each other in time and in topic line, that they hope nobody notices it. If they had a clear case, believe me, they would present it clearly. If they don't have a clear case, their (the conspiracy theorists') only hope is to not be noticed for that, and the only way to do that is to convolute their presentation. — god must be atheist

I don't understand. You didn't watch the film but talk about the 'serving of the topic'. Then go on to attributing motivations to a person you have no experience of. You seem also to be claiming that people who have presented cases for ufos being alien craft, etc. don't present clear cases, period. The go on to present more mind reading about their hopes.

You use the general term 'conspiracy theorists' though obviously some people who believed in conspiracies later had their cases confirmed,even when consensus opinion was against them. These conspiracies are not longer, of course, considered the product of 'conspiracy theorists', a term that is irrational in the extreme, since it implies conspiracies, or at the very least large conspiracies, do not happen.

These are not criticism of the theory of conspiracy in the film, these are general observations also applicable to the film — god must be atheist

I thought this was fascinating. Your hypotheses, including knowing what is going on in other minds (motivations, hopes....) is applicaple to the person in the film you haven't seen.

Now I don't think the film should convince anyone that something specific is true. I just found him extremely credible. I think one needs to have an interest and continue looking at evidence, and, yes, choose people who seem to have nuanced and intelligent minds and focus on what they say and what data and evidence they provide. But I don't assume anyone should pursue this. Nor do I think there is any problem with skepticism. I have it in boatloads.

But I find it interesting how some people, supposedly on the more rational team, approach learning and drawing conclusions.

I do truly think it is fair to conclude from you post that you have a closed mind on the subject. I also appreciate your post because i think it is part of a general pattern where specific conclusions are considered a part of skepticism rather than specific processes of inquiry.

You drew a conclusion soley based on intuition and speculation and mind reading. If people you considered not skeptical used just those tools you would likely bring out some valid criticisms of those processes, but seem unaware of your own epistemology when reaching your conclusions.

I find that what is presented as a gap in epistemologies is actually just people on different teams. Sometimes they try to reverse engineer their conclusions so they seem the result of the epistemologies they supposedly value, and so what I appreciate about you post is that no effort at all is made to do this.

I'll be ignoring you on this topic. I know you have an excellent mind, from our contact in other topics, and a flexible one in some areas. But on this one I hope even you can see that you don't.

The technology in question, should it actually exist, would be more advanced then ours and based most likely on processes we don't currently understand. — Coben

This has been documented? If you want to pull in fantasy and imagination to prove conspiracy theories, then you are really gone far out.

I haven't seen the film, but I read the criticism of it. "A word to the wise is sufficient". I believe the poster who said it was convoluted and I believe you when you said "the sphere was turned on and off".

I believe things. That's why I don't believe things.

So...

The reactor looks like a globe atop a squat obelisk. It cannot be gotten near when it is on and producing this - never before seen by anyone aside from this guy - 'gravitational wave'. It goes off and on by placing it atop the pedestal.

Did I misunderstand?

Did he not say just that, or words to that effect/affect?