What is it About Conspiracy Theorists ?

[n2ize]

I have been coming across this more and more on FaceBook. Not just people who think that 911 was a hoax, or that aircraft vapour trails are really the government spraying us with poison, or that we never really went to the moon, but people who cannot hear a single bit of information without believing that its some bizarre, secret, nefarious hoax or covert lie ? I am hearing some of the strangest things, i.e. human beings are presently living in towns and cities on Mars, secret plots to take away our canned food, perpetual motion machines, etc... I understand that people have mistrust for the government, heck I don;t believe everything that comes out of Washington. But some of the crazy conspiracy theories, what is the matter with people these days ?

[PA5COR]

They waych/listen to FOX.

[KG4CGC]

Obama caused 9/11.

[W1GUH]

With some risk, I'll try to answer that from my own perspective. I'll begin my mentioning my original call, K8TFH. There is one possible set of phonetics to that that may come to mind. Go ahead -- I've seen enough of what I'm about to say that I'm confident about it and I've pretty much gotten used to a lot of the responses.

John, it's true that I've met with, hung out with, and talked with two of the more prominent members of the community that have uncovered, researched, and presented well the evidence they used to come to the conclusions they've come to. One of them gets viciously attacked over and over. But in person, he's extremely intelligent, is an excellent communicator, and, together with a colleague who is also prominent, puts on a very, very competent and well-done presentation of his work. I sat through one at the LAX Hilton back in the fall of 2007, and their presentation fulfilled all the requirements for credibility, and especially in presenting compelling evidence. That's the gospel truth, and I'll swear that on a stack of handbooks.

But they only represent a small sliver of what's going on, and the only cover a tiny part of the whole spectrum of those who trigger the "conspiracy theory tin-foil hat" response.

If you dig deep enough, you CAN find very disturbing questions about, and uncovered evidence of, shall we say, shenanigans on the part of very powerful forces. One example is Russ Baker's book, "Family of Secrets" where the author has submitted lots and lots of well-researched evidence about the Bush familiies questionable behavior. I highly recommend that book, and invite anyone to read it and check out the copious footnotes that Mr. Baker provides.

Moving on from there...

I won't say always, but I can say that usually when these people, and even yours truly, get viciously attacked for putting any credence in these so-call "crackpot" theories at all, the attacker had NEVER, and I mean NEVER responded to the request of, "Could you please inform me why you feel that way, what do you know that supports your views, and what evidence is there of the correctness of what you know?" Never at all. It is ALWAY a personal attacke without any comment at all about the subject matter. Usually the excuse is, "That's too crack-pot to even waste any time or energy on."

I've got ideas about why that happens, which for now I think is appropriately kept to myself. After all, it's only speculation on my part. But the the above is a pretty accurate picture of what I've experienced. As you know by now, personal attacks never phase my own thinking, only my opinion of the attacker. The way I see it is, if someone has solid evidence that something is "whacko", they'd be more inclined to spell it out dis-passionately instead of issuing a viscious attack, venomous fangs and all.

[n2ize]

They waych/listen to FOX.

Maybe. But many of them are also people who swing more to the liberal or libertarian side. They don;t trust corporations, they don't care for the republicans or democrats and often they have sensible opinions, i.e. they believe in conservation, protecting the environment, etc. Some of them are smart in many ways. Yet they still fall for or invent crazy conspiracy theories that defy logic, defy history, defy science, and literally make no sense and are so easily debunked by facts and logic. And I am seeing more and more people buying into this conspiracy nonsense, hook, line, and sinker, and promoting it. Some of them swear by it so strongly that trying to convince them they are wrong is fruitless. They will tell you that you are naive if you try to present them with real science, or real facts.

I wish I could just attribute it to watching and believing FOX but it seems to afflict far too many.

[n2ize]

John, it's true that I've met with, hung out with, and talked with two of the more prominent members of the community that have uncovered, researched, and presented well the evidence they used to come to the conclusions they've come to. One of them gets viciously attacked over and over. But in person, he's extremely intelligent, is an excellent communicator, and, together with a colleague who is also prominent, puts on a very, very competent and well-done presentation of his work. I sat through one at the LAX Hilton back in the fall of 2007, and their presentation fulfilled all the requirements for credibility, and especially in presenting compelling evidence. That's the gospel truth, and I'll swear that on a stack of handbooks.

I don't know who in particular you mean but one popular name that comes to mind, particularly with respect to space and Mars conspiracies is Richard Hoagland. All of his claims have been debunked, not by arrogant people who claim he is a "wacko" but by sensible scientists who carefully listened to his claims and then did some research and uncovered his hoaxes. I'll give you one example in which Hoagland measured angles between a graph of nodes which represented points on the Cydonia region of Mars. He then manipulated those angles using trig functions and claimed it showed a pattern of numbers indicating that rhe region was developed by intelligent beings therefore Mars is habitable. However, when you apply some mathematics to Hoaglands "analysis" you start to notice some problems. If you take the same set of points he used and you path connect them any you count the total number of angles you come up with you get an incredibly enormous number of angles. This can be proved via graph theory but simply looking at the picture you immediately see how vast are the number of possible angles. Yet Hoagland cherry picks only certain ones. He then narrows down the number of possible values by applying trig functions to the cherry picked angles. he then performs his "analysis" and claims it proof of intelligence. Yet a math professor at a prominent university recreated Hoagland's experiment and instead of cherry picking certain angles he used random numbers to randomly chose angles from the entire set of possible angles. Guess what ?? Using random numbers he wound up getting better results than Hoagland got. In short, Hoagland's mathematical proof of intelligent design of Cydonia was not a mathematical proof at all. . However, how many people reading Hoagland's explanation are aware of this ? Probably very few, if any. In any event the professor made several attempts to contact Hoagland and offered to debate him on this. very conveniently Hoagland never responded.




I won't say always, but I can say that usually when these people, and even yours truly, get viciously attacked for putting any credence in these so-call "crackpot" theories at all, the attacker had NEVER, and I mean NEVER responded to the request of, "Could you please inform me why you feel that way, what do you know that supports your views, and what evidence is there of the correctness of what you know?" Never at all. It is ALWAY a personal attacke without any comment at all about the subject matter. Usually the excuse is, "That's too crack-pot to even waste any time or energy on."

I agree with you. I don;t like iot when people refer to conspiracy theorists as wacko's, or used derogatory put downs. I feel that a far better way to debate, at least scientifically related conspiracies is to explain in a scientific way as to why the theory may be wrong and to present scientific facts. That is what I generally try to do when i am confronted with a conspiracy theory. Case and point, not long ago I debated a person who believes in "chemtrails", that common aircraft contrails are really deliberate chemicals being sprayed on an unsuspecting public. He gave me several reasons as to why he believes they are not real contrails. For each phenomenon he described I presented a scientific explanation based in sound meteorology and in physics that explains why a contrail would naturally behave as described. No hassles, no name calling, no put downs. Whether I convinced him of anything or not I don't know. I hope I got him thinking a bit.



I've got ideas about why that happens, which for now I think is appropriately kept to myself. After all, it's only speculation on my part. But the the above is a pretty accurate picture of what I've experienced. As you know by now, personal attacks never phase my own thinking, only my opinion of the attacker. The way I see it is, if someone has solid evidence that something is "whacko", they'd be more inclined to spell it out dis-passionately instead of issuing a viscious attack, venomous fangs and all.

Like I said, i don't believe in attacking people over their beliefs. I am just puzzled by the proliferation of some extremely bizarre conspiracy theories, many of them so absurd and easily debunked by simple logic

[W1GUH]

Thanks for the comments, John. As usual, well done. I'll be digesting them for a while...not something to make quick comments about!

[N8YX]

If there's anything the government (past or present) is guilty of, it's capitalizing on tragedy. While not intentionally orchestrated by same, 9/11 was indeed a Kristallnecht. As long as the political climate in this country tends toward the reactionary and inflammatory, expect more of the same. This phenomenon is not unique to one party; it is the methodology of all politicians. None of them want to be out of a job, and to a man or woman they'll go to damn near any length to justify their positions.

[KG4CGC]

If there's anything the government (past or present) is guilty of, it's capitalizing on tragedy. While not intentionally orchestrated by same, 9/11 was indeed a Kristallnecht. As long as the political climate in this country tends toward the reactionary and inflammatory, expect more of the same. This phenomenon is not unique to one party; it is the methodology of all politicians. None of them want to be out of a job, and to a man or woman they'll go to damn near any length to justify their positions.It's for the children.

[W1GUH]

John,

I believe this thread is about why some people take the time to check out these theories to see if there's anything there, and not about any particular researcher. As such, IMHO, it's irrelevant who I was talking about. Regardless of who I was talking about, my comments stand irrespective of who it was. Fiar enough?

Don't mean to weave a "web of mystery" -- just want to avoid it becoming a discussion of any particular flavor of conspiracy.

[KC2UGV]

John,

I believe this thread is about why some people take the time to check out these theories to see if there's anything there, and not about any particular researcher. As such, IMHO, it's irrelevant who I was talking about. Regardless of who I was talking about, my comments stand irrespective of who it was. Fiar enough?

Don't mean to weave a "web of mystery" -- just want to avoid it becoming a discussion of any particular flavor of conspiracy.

Anyone who thinks there is a modicum of respectability to a theory that defies many logical laws, such as:

* Hundreds (Sometimes thousands) of people involved, yet none leak information
* Rather than a mundane explanation, such as Game Theory; it must be a massive, secret, coordinated effort

If a "theory" violates these two laws, rather than wasting time "looking into them", the person proposing them needs to:

Bring extraordinary evidence, since they would be making an extraordinary claim.

[W1GUH]

I have actually seen extraordinary evidence. All I'm going to say about that at this point.

Again, I'm only answering the question, "Why do I take the time to study, read, listen to some of these theories." Not to defend or debunk any one in particular.

[KC2UGV]

I have actually seen extraordinary evidence. All I'm going to say about that at this point.


What was extraordinary? What "evidence" was presented to support a hypothesis that is unexplained with something such as Game Theory?



Again, I'm only answering the question, "Why do I take the time to study, read, listen to some of these theories." Not to defend or debunk any one in particular.

And, I'm just saying that if one takes time to learn about a theory that doesn't answer basic questions first, such as "Why can this NOT be explained with well-known knowledge" and "How does this NOT violate the law of Parsimony?"; then you are wasting your time.

[W1GUH]

YHO, MMV.

[n2ize]

John,

I believe this thread is about why some people take the time to check out these theories to see if there's anything there, and not about any particular researcher. As such, IMHO, it's irrelevant who I was talking about. Regardless of who I was talking about, my comments stand irrespective of who it was. Fiar enough?

Don't mean to weave a "web of mystery" -- just want to avoid it becoming a discussion of any particular flavor of conspiracy.

My only reason for mentioning Hoagland was to emphasise how many people who believe in conspiracy theories actually do so because they will take an argument that sounds convincingly scientific, mathematical, or logical, and will accept it on face value without any further critical analysis. In the case of Hoaxland's "mathematical proof" of intelligent life on Cydonia region of Mars when his "proof" is analyzed from a mathematical perspective we quickly discover that it is not a proof at all. First, he cherry picks a select few angles out of thousands of possible angles and then applies the sine and cosine trig functions to those angles which places them in the range of real numbers from [-1,1]. he then goes on to manipulate these results to derive his "amazing numerical relationship" that "proves" there had to be an intelligent hand in the Cydonia region. But, as Professor Ralph Greenberg http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html shows, making random selections provides just as good if not better results. In short, Hoagland proved absolutely nothing. Unfortunately most people either lack the mathematical ability to carefully analyze Hoagland's claims or, never bother to. If it sounds convincing and contains enough numbers and scientific sounding terms many people will believe it without any further critical analysis.

This is the problem I have with many conspiracy theories. People will latch onto them as Gospel truth and will turn a deaf ear to valid science.

Much like the Chemtrails conspiracy theorists who keep repeating the mantra that jet contrails can only last a few seconds, that they cannot persist in the sky. Yet, the normal laws of physics predict that given the right level of humidity, temperature, and pressure they can indeed and frequently do persist in the sky, for the same reasons that clouds form and persist. Yet when i try to explain this to the conspiracy theorists they will tell me I am wrong, and that I probably work for the government or the Illuminati.

[n2ize]

What was extraordinary? What "evidence" was presented to support a hypothesis that is unexplained with something such as Game Theory?



And, I'm just saying that if one takes time to learn about a theory that doesn't answer basic questions first, such as "Why can this NOT be explained with well-known knowledge" and "How does this NOT violate the law of Parsimony?"; then you are wasting your time.

My exact point. Most conspiracy theorists that I meet these days are firm believers is ______ conspiracy. Most of them will either not look any further to see if said phenomenon can be explained via any natural laws or present knowledge. Not only that but they will often vehemently reject scientific knowledge when it is presented as a probably cause. In addition, most of the ones I have met are not very adept at applying Occam's razor.

[W1GUH]

Let get more specific and detailed in what I'm attempting to say in my own clumsy way.

A very significant portion of critisisms/debunking I've read don't really get into details of the whole body of information that an author is presenting, nor does if preset any supporting evidence of why the criticism is valid. (And PLEASE try not to think of any particular theory -- this applies to 'em all!) It's usually platitudes or generalities.

What I always ask for, and never seem to get, is an essay with the structure of:

Here are my objections

This section includes specific references to what an author has written, including quotes, page numbers, whatever, so the reader knows exactly what the writer is referring to.

This is why I object

This section examines in detail the above listed objections and supplies compelling evidence as to why the author has presented flawed information.

I've never seen that kind of thoughtful, well-done criticism.

IMHO (again -- YMMV) if that isn't forthcoming, that's in indication that the critic really doesn't know what's being criticized. For whatever reason the author may have.

[W1GUH]

My exact point. Most conspiracy theorists that I meet these days are firm believers is ______ conspiracy. Most of them will either not look any further to see if said phenomenon can be explained via any natural laws or present knowledge. Not only that but they will often vehemently reject scientific knowledge when it is presented as a probably cause. In addition, most of the ones I have met are not very adept at applying Occam's razor.

Exact same thing can be said in the other direction, John.

[KC2UGV]

Exact same thing can be said in the other direction, John.

No, it can't.

Common knowledge is tested, and found to not fail yet. This is how scientific theories becomes known as "Law". They are tested, and work.

SO, in order to try to say something is caused by some untested method; this is known as "Extraordinary Claim". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; which firstly explain why something can not be explained under currently accepted knowledge, and how it does not violate the laws of parsimony.

[W1GUH]

Very well.

John, have you actually read "Monuments of Mars?". I'm thinking not. That's on a tiny, insignificant sliver of the whole body of information that the author brings to the table. Why not?

To condemn the man on the basis of angles is like saying an elephant is like a rope because you've felt his tail.

[W1GUH]

And why are are you so seemingly hung-up on Mr. Hoagland? You asked a general question, I gave you a personal perspective, and you immediately zoomed in on that one man.

Did I mus-interpret your purpose here?

[n2ize]

Very well.

John, have you actually read "Monuments of Mars?". I'm thinking not. That's on a tiny, insignificant sliver of the whole body of information that the author brings to the table. Why not?

To condemn the man on the basis of angles is like saying an elephant is like a rope because you've felt his tail.

No, it is not condemnation, it is valid question and valid criticism and it is very significant because it represents the condition that he is presenting a flawed mathematical analysis as fact. He is making a claim about something and when a mathematics professional pointed out the flaws in his "proof" he shunned the valid points that Dr. Greenberg had made and continued to promote his deceptive proof. To me that is very significant and very telling because he is trying to use his argument to convince people of something yet when presented with valid scientific criticism he ignores it rather than welcoming it as a real scientist would do. If that is how Hoagland operates then how much faith can we place in his other claims, the vast majority of which have been called into question. we are not talking about a bunch of people who are out on a witch hunt, we are talking about highly credible and well respected scientists and mathematicians, with many years of experience and research calling Hoagland to task over some of his arguments. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. That is how science is supposed to work. yet when applied to conspiracy theorists the scientist is labeled an attacker and is accused of condemnation

[W1GUH]

"If that is how Hoagland operates..."

Is it? You asked the question. Do you KNOW that's how he operates? If so, please present compelling evidence that he, in fact DOES operate like that, preferable from the primary source...what you've learned about the man himself, not what someone else said about him.

But how about answering my question about why you've zoomed in on him?

[n2ize]

And why are are you so seemingly hung-up on Mr. Hoagland? You asked a general question, I gave you a personal perspective, and you immediately zoomed in on that one man.

Did I mus-interpret your purpose here?

Because it is an excellent example of how many people who accept conspiracy theories accept something as valid and without critical analysis. Hoagland made a claim and a person with deep knowledge of the subject responded. Yet many people will look at Dr. Greenberg as the villain rather than a good mathematician acting professionally and raising question about an invalid proof.,

[W1GUH]

An excellent example? Please expand in detail why you say that.

But first....why is who I was talking about relevant to the general question you asked? I see no relevance. You asked why, I gave a personal perspective. That's why I do. That answered your question.

[WØTKX]

Numerology. Heh heh heh. OJ was aquitted by presenting evidence in an extrodinary way.

And then there's good 'ol Terrance McKenna, RIP...

http://youtu.be/4Q6sa70_wQ8


http://youtu.be/4Q6sa70_wQ8

[n2ize]

"If that is how Hoagland operates..."

Is it? You asked the question. Do you KNOW that's how he operates? If so, please present compelling evidence that he, in fact DOES operate like that, preferable from the primary source...what you've learned about the man himself, not what someone else said about him.

But how about answering my question about why you've zoomed in on him?

I already did. he claimed he proved mathematically that there was intelligent hand in building Cydonia. he provided the angles he used and the computations. And others, with expertise in the subject critiqued his method and proved that randomness yields the same result. Thus his "proof" proves nothing about intelligence, and when confronted with this he ignored it. So, what more do I need to know. A similar thing happened with regards to the face on Mars.

Hoagland (and others) is the one making the claim so it is up to him to defend his claims in the eyes of scientifically minded people. Just as I would have to do if I made a claim that were challenged by experts in my field. The people who are going to critique my work don;t need to read my books, know my biography, or what my hobbies are, or anything else about me. All they need to read is what I am claiming and my argument supporting my claim. If my claim is faulty or flawed they are going to take me to task and it is up to me to defend my argument if I can. Arguing that they don't know me well enough or that they haven't read my book is invalid. I am making a claim and providing an argument and it is up to me to either show that I am correct or else admit that I am wrong. Same goes for Hoagland or anyone else.

[n2ize]

An excellent example? Please expand in detail why you say that.

But first....why is who I was talking about relevant to the general question you asked? I see no relevance. You asked why, I gave a personal perspective. That's why I do. That answered your question.

I already answered that question.In their mistrust for government people will latch onto conspiracy theories and will often ignore other explanations. The Hoagland example is one of many. Many people who believe that NASA is hiding intelligent life on mars also believe that Hoagland provided a mathematically valid example of intelligent life on Mars. Now how many people realize that pure randomness can give better proof than Hoagland gives ? Or that when you understand the process of Mars imaging and rendering the face on Mars is not really a face on mars. The question being, why do people latch onto conspiracy theories. I propose that it is due to a lack of awareness in alternate explanations founded in modern science and current knowledge and/or a refusal to acknowledge that there are other valid explanations and/or as UGV stated, the laws of parsimony.

[W1GUH]

Yes you did answer that. That was my bad and I apologize for not noticing that right away.

"I already did. he claimed he proved mathematically that there was intelligent hand in building Cydonia. he provided the angles he used and the computations. "

So you're saying that "he proved mathematicically" based solely on "..he provided the angles..."? Or am I mis-reading that?

[n2ize]

Yes you did answer that. That was my bad and I apologize for not noticing that right away.

"I already did. he claimed he proved mathematically that there was intelligent hand in building Cydonia. he provided the angles he used and the computations. "

So you're saying that "he proved mathematicically" based solely on "..he provided the angles..."? Or am I mis-reading that?

What I am saying is that what Hoagland argues as evidence of intelligent life could just have well been randomness from a mathematical perspective.

Mind, I am not trying to put down conspiracy theories or to knock Hoagland or anyone else. By chance Hoagland could be right about some things and some conspiracy theories may be right or, may contain certain truths. I am just trying to better understand because it seems there is a prevalence of conspiracy arguments these days and I often wonder what is valid, and what isn't. Matter of fact I encouraged my Chemtrails friend to continue to ask questions and to even do his own investigation into it and to keep an open mind. Just because I consider it doubtful doesn't mean he shouldn't investigate it for himself.

[W2NAP]

lets take the aliens at area 51 "theory"

1947 Roswell,NM something crashes. a rancher finds it. calls it a flying disk. USAF comes out collects the stuff, claims its a balloon.... ok no big deal right.. but from the pics I have seen it looked like this balloon was in pieces. but I remember seeing the pic of the AF guy with a balloon that's not in pieces... then we move along. how about all the unexplained USAF aircraft chasing down UFO's on radar and having pilots come out and say something was up there... yet now gov denies it happened....and with the area 51 stuff. we know it exists. but yet the US Gov denies it exists.. why cover it up when we all know it exists? what is really going on out at area 51? why so damn secretive about it? Why not just say when people started to question it just say "Yea its just a army base one of the many we have around the nation. we use it to train USAF pilots due to the mostly uninhabitied area incase something goes wrong.. you wouldn't want a (insert aircraft type of the time here) crashing in your neighbourhood would ya? so we train people out there since it is safer for the citizens of our nation" Had the gov said that all them many years ago the whole area 51 stuff wouldnt be like it is today.

[W1GUH]

"What I am saying is that what Hoagland argues as evidence of intelligent life could just have well been randomness from a mathematical perspective."

Whoops. Huh? Ummmm...are you claiming that what you're saying about angles compelling proves what you just said about Mr. Hoagland? IMHO, that's pure poppycock. That aspect is vanishingly small when his whole body of work is taken into account.

Any other evidence supporting that statement about that man? Please, use as many words and you like, cite as many sources as you can; I promise you I'll take the time to check it out in a thoughtful way and get back to you.

Are you actually getting the drift of why I'm probing you for this, John?

[W1GUH]

Anyone who thinks there is a modicum of respectability to a theory that defies many logical laws, such as:

* Hundreds (Sometimes thousands) of people involved, yet none leak information
* Rather than a mundane explanation, such as Game Theory; it must be a massive, secret, coordinated effort

If a "theory" violates these two laws, rather than wasting time "looking into them", the person proposing them needs to:

Bring extraordinary evidence, since they would be making an extraordinary claim.

"* Hundreds (Sometimes thousands) of people involved, yet none leak information"

Just to check out what you mean by that statement. It's kind of terse and out of context to the present discussion.

I believe what you're saying is that "they" simply could NOT accomplish what some people claim "they" have done because it would be impossible. Is that what you're saying?

If so, (and taking this one step at a time so we're clear about what each other is saying)...

To start, would you agree or disagree with this statement?

The government has unlimited resources to carry out whatever it wants to.

Agree? Disagree?

I agree because they've got pretty much unlimited funds and all it can buy to accomplish whatever it wants to. And not ALL of the government's budget is open to public scrutiny.

[n2ize]

Agree? Disagree?

I agree because they've got pretty much unlimited funds and all it can buy to accomplish whatever it wants to. And not ALL of the government's budget is open to public scrutiny.

I think what he is trying to apply is Occam's razor. Regardless of government funds it is quite hard to pull off a massive conspiracy and at the same time maintain perfect secrecy. A good example of this is the conspiracy that the trip to the moon was a hoax. What is amazing is that they not only got the American's and the Europeans to maintain secrecy but even our direct competitors, the Russians, who were closely monitoring our plight to make it to the moon and our progress in space. yet not one Russian has called our bluff. Occam's razor, what is is more likely what it really is that what one may imagine it to be.

[KC2UGV]

"* Hundreds (Sometimes thousands) of people involved, yet none leak information"

Just to check out what you mean by that statement. It's kind of terse and out of context to the present discussion.


It was an example. Case in point: "9-11 was an inside job". Ok, so the conspiracy theorists claim thousands (Or hundreds) of people participated. Yet, not a single person has come forward; nor leaked seriously credible information.

Hell, laws of human nature dictate the only way to keep a secret is for one person to know it, and then kill them. Now, hundreds know this secret, yet nobody spills the beans?



I believe what you're saying is that "they" simply could NOT accomplish what some people claim "they" have done because it would be impossible. Is that what you're saying?


Correct. I do not think ANY entity out there can perform ANY secretive operation utilizing hundreds (Or thousands), and not have a single person leak information.



If so, (and taking this one step at a time so we're clear about what each other is saying)...

To start, would you agree or disagree with this statement?

The government has unlimited resources to carry out whatever it wants to.

Agree? Disagree?

I agree because they've got pretty much unlimited funds and all it can buy to accomplish whatever it wants to. And not ALL of the government's budget is open to public scrutiny.

Disagree. Resources are always limited. The government could not hide $1 billion to pay for an operation; since budgets are open to scrutiny.

And, time and manpower is always limited as well.

The only way to account for the limits of resources (Or the scrutiny of such) is to add an unknown, without good reaosn. This violates the law of parsimony.

[KC2UGV]

I have been coming across this more and more on FaceBook. Not just people who think that 911 was a hoax, or that aircraft vapour trails are really the government spraying us with poison, or that we never really went to the moon, but people who cannot hear a single bit of information without believing that its some bizarre, secret, nefarious hoax or covert lie ? I am hearing some of the strangest things, i.e. human beings are presently living in towns and cities on Mars, secret plots to take away our canned food, perpetual motion machines, etc... I understand that people have mistrust for the government, heck I don;t believe everything that comes out of Washington. But some of the crazy conspiracy theories, what is the matter with people these days ?

Because critical thinking is being taught as "evil".

[n2ize]

"What I am saying is that what Hoagland argues as evidence of intelligent life could just have well been randomness from a mathematical perspective."

Whoops. Huh? Ummmm...are you claiming that what you're saying about angles compelling proves what you just said about Mr. Hoagland? IMHO, that's pure poppycock. That aspect is vanishingly small when his whole body of work is taken into account.

No, it is but one example where he made a claim, argued a mathematical proof, and was taken to task by a professional mathematician and, rather than acknowledge as a true scientist would do, simply ignored the claim. In this case he was mathematically proved to have proved nothing yet many of his followers still believe he proved something. Why did he not acknowledge Dr. Greenberg as a good scientist who has nothing to hide would ?



Any other evidence supporting that statement about that man? Please, use as many words and you like, cite as many sources as you can; I promise you I'll take the time to check it out in a thoughtful way and get back to you.


Most researchers are busy doing research thus few have the time to refute or challenge Hoagland's claims. Some will simply dismiss his arguments as balderdash. However, some very reputable researchers have acknowledged Hoagland's claims and have taken him to task. It isn't hard to find some of these arguments via a Google search. Even among conspiracy theorists Hoagland is not considered to be very reputable.

[W1GUH]

I think what he is trying to apply is Occam's razor. Regardless of government funds it is quite hard to pull off a massive conspiracy and at the same time maintain perfect secrecy. A good example of this is the conspiracy that the trip to the moon was a hoax. What is amazing is that they not only got the American's and the Europeans to maintain secrecy but even our direct competitors, the Russians, who were closely monitoring our plight to make it to the moon and our progress in space. yet not one Russian has called our bluff. Occam's razor, what is is more likely what it really is that what one may imagine it to be.

Not the question. Do you agree or disagree?

[W1GUH]

No, it is but one example where he made a claim, argued a mathematical proof, and was taken to task by a professional mathematician and, rather than acknowledge as a true scientist would do, simply ignored the claim. In this case he was mathematically proved to have proved nothing yet many of his followers still believe he proved something. Why did he not acknowledge Dr. Greenberg as a good scientist who has nothing to hide would ?







Most researchers are busy doing research thus few have the time to refute or challenge Hoagland's claims. Some will simply dismiss his arguments as balderdash. However, some very reputable researchers have acknowledged Hoagland's claims and have taken him to task. It isn't hard to find some of these arguments via a Google search. Even among conspiracy theorists Hoagland is not considered to be very reputable.

"No, it is but one example where he made a claim..."

Please to enumerate, and provide detail of other examples.


"Most researchers are busy doing research..."

I'm not asking about "Most researchers." I'm asking how you, personally, "know" what you're asserting about Mr. Hoagland, and how you know it.

Please to stick to the questions...it'll make this discussion more illuminating for the both of us.

[KC2UGV]

Not the question. Do you agree or disagree?

Do you think that the government is not subject to basic laws of economics: Scarcity of resources?

[n2ize]

"No, it is but one example where he made a claim..."

Please to enumerate, and provide detail of other examples.


"Most researchers are busy doing research..."

I'm not asking about "Most researchers." I'm asking how you, personally, "know" what you're asserting about Mr. Hoagland, and how you know it.

Please to stick to the questions...it'll make this discussion more illuminating for the both of us.

Because his claims have been refuted by valid science.

[W1GUH]

Do you think that the government is not subject to basic laws of economics: Scarcity of resources?

Once again, that's not the question I asked.

[KC2UGV]

Once again, that's not the question I asked.

And, I stated I disagreed, due to the laws of scarcity.

So, I asked you: Do you think the government doesn't have to abide by the laws of scarcity, and somehow can circumvent the laws of economics?

[W1GUH]

Because his claims have been refuted by valid science.

John, John, John...

It appears as if you are gong to evade giving any real information ad infinitum. Do I have that correct? Do you have a problem with the questions I ask? If so please to explain. Do you have a problem with me probing to find out if you know what you're talking about? If so, please explain. Do you have a problem with answering even a very simple question like, Have you actually read Monuments of Mars? If so, please to explain.

See...I really want to know what you know about the man, but I'm don't accept that the kind of responses you've provided have any usefulness to the discussion at all. You've provided me with no information about how to check out your assertions, and, as such, why should I even bother discussing this?

I don't WANT to think that, but, it's the only thing I can think based on what you've said so far.

Mmmmm?? I sincerely want to discuss this in a useful way. Sorry if you're offended when I don't let stuff slide...but how else can I find out if you know what you're talking about or not?

[W1GUH]

And, I stated I disagreed, due to the laws of scarcity.

So, I asked you: Do you think the government doesn't have to abide by the laws of scarcity, and somehow can circumvent the laws of economics?

OK. Cool. Thanks for the direct answer. Probably not very useful to debate that...we're probably dug in so far in our own camps about what the government can and can't accomplish that we'd go around and around and not get anywhere.

To state my assertion clearly and unambiguously. I DO think that the government DOES have unlimited resources to do anything it wants to.

Your opinion varies, and that's cool.

[KC2UGV]

John, John, John...

It appears as if you are gong to evade giving any real information ad infinitum. Do I have that correct? Do you have a problem with the questions I ask? If so please to explain. Do you have a problem with me probing to find out if you know what you're talking about? If so, please explain. Do you have a problem with answering even a very simple question like, Have you actually read Monuments of Mars? If so, please to explain.

See...I really want to know what you know about the man, but I'm don't accept that the kind of responses you've provided have any usefulness to the discussion at all. You've provided me with no information about how to check out your assertions, and, as such, why should I even bother discussing this?

I don't WANT to think that, but, it's the only thing I can think based on what you've said so far.

Mmmmm?? I sincerely want to discuss this in a useful way. Sorry if you're offended when I don't let stuff slide...but how else can I find out if you know what you're talking about or not?

The point is, we are not discussing the man. We are discussing the validity of the man's theories and suppositions; which have been found faulty.

[KC2UGV]

OK. Cool. Thanks for the direct answer. Probably not very useful to debate that...we're probably dug in so far in our own camps about what the government can and can't accomplish that we'd go around and around and not get anywhere.

To state my assertion clearly and unambiguously. I DO think that the government DOES have unlimited resources to do anything it wants to.

Your opinion varies, and that's cool.

And, your opinion flies in the face of very well grounded principles of economics: Resources are not unlimited.

So, since you make the extraordinary claim; in order for your claim to hold any validity, you must provide extraordinary evidence of it.

If the government has unlimited resources, to do whatever it wants; then why is there an issue with budgetary deficits, and federal debt?

[n2ize]

John, John, John...

It appears as if you are gong to evade giving any real information ad infinitum. Do I have that correct? Do you have a problem with the questions I ask? If so please to explain. Do you have a problem with me probing to find out if you know what you're talking about? If so, please explain. Do you have a problem with answering even a very simple question like, Have you actually read Monuments of Mars? If so, please to explain.

See...I really want to know what you know about the man, but I'm don't accept that the kind of responses you've provided have any usefulness to the discussion at all. You've provided me with no information about how to check out your assertions, and, as such, why should I even bother discussing this?

I don't WANT to think that, but, it's the only thing I can think based on what you've said so far.

Mmmmm?? I sincerely want to discuss this in a useful way. Sorry if you're offended when I don't let stuff slide...but how else can I find out if you know what you're talking about or not?

I don't have to read Hoagland's book to understand his claims and their scientific validity. It doesn't matter about the man or whether we understand him or not.. If I make the claim 2+2 = 7 I am going to be called to task regardless of how smart I am, how many books I wrote or who understands me or not or how sweet a guy I am or not. . It is the claim being made that counts and whether it passes the test of science. In the case of Hoagland's claims they have been refuted by valid science

[W1GUH]

The point is, we are not discussing the man. We are discussing the validity of the man's theories and suppositions; which have been found faulty.

Please to supply the evidence by which you come to the conclusion "which have been found faulty."

By whom? On what evidence?

[n2ize]

The point is, we are not discussing the man. We are discussing the validity of the man's theories and suppositions; which have been found faulty.

^^^ +10000 Precisely the point !!

[W1GUH]

I don't have to read Hoagland's book to understand his claims and their scientific validity. It doesn't matter about the man or whether we understand him or not.. If I make the claim 2+2 = 7 I am going to be called to task regardless of how smart I am, how many books I wrote or who understands me or not or how sweet a guy I am or not. . It is the claim being made that counts and whether it passes the test of science. In the case of Hoagland's claims they have been refuted by valid science

You have offered nothing in support of your claim, "whether it passes the test of science. " Zero Zippo.

Why not?

[KC2UGV]

Please to supply the evidence by which you come to the conclusion "which have been found faulty."

By whom? On what evidence?

It was shown by mathematical proofs that random noise would produce results more consistent than Hoagland's computation.

Whenever randomness works better than a hypothesis, we can assume the hypothesis is wrong. John has already done the legwork, and pointed you in the correct direction for the information.

You are starting to venture into the realm of dogma, rather than facts.

[n2ize]

You have offered nothing in support of your claim, "whether it passes the test of science. " Zero Zippo.

Why not?

I posted a link to Ralph Greenberg's website at Washington State. Did you visit the site and read Greenberg's mathematical discussions regarding randomness ?. Also, Google is your friend. I pointed you in the right direction, now use the resources that are readily available to you just as I did when i researched Hoagland's claims.

[W1GUH]

It was shown by mathematical proofs that random noise would produce results more consistent than Hoagland's computation.

Whenever randomness works better than a hypothesis, we can assume the hypothesis is wrong. John has already done the legwork, and pointed you in the correct direction for the information.

You are starting to venture into the realm of dogma, rather than facts.

You guys are the ones who are avoiding providing concrete reasons why you say what you do. That isn't dogma? Seems to me that avoiding providing solid information is in that realm.

Asking for solid information by which to check out what you say is dogma? You'll never convince me of that. That's ALL I'm doing, no more, no less. What, exactly, is your problem with someone who wants to learn by asking probing questions?

But at this point, what I'll say is that the question I ask may take a while for you two to come up with solid replies to. So, OK....what I"m going to do is leave this tread to give you a chance to put together something that DOES have information about how you know what you claim to, and where I can check out the source for myself. Let me know somehow (PM works) that that's been done and I will be very happy to give it due consideration and craft a thoughtful response.

"John has already done the legwork, and pointed you in the correct direction for the information." Huh? He mentioned a name, didn't really cite any works. And was talking about a vanishingly small piece of the full body of Mr. Hoagland's work. You want me to believe you? Gotta do a whole lot better than that.

Fair enough?

[W1GUH]

I posted a link to Ralph Greenberg's website at Washington State. Did you visit the site and read Greenberg's mathematical discussions regarding randomness ?. Also, Google is your friend. I pointed you in the right direction, now use the resources that are readily available to you just as I did when i researched Hoagland's claims.

My bad....links don't show up here. Lo Siento Mucho.

[W1GUH]

So I got to this page (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html). I see no reference to Mr. Hoagland there. Or do you expect me to search it out for myself?

But I'll tell you this...if, as I surmised from your words, he only talks about those angles...well, you KNOW what I'll say.

[n2ize]

So I got to this page (http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/personal.html). I see no reference to Mr. Hoagland there. Or do you expect me to search it out for myself?

But I'll tell you this...if, as I surmised from your words, he only talks about those angles...well, you KNOW what I'll say.

Yes, you will say that it means nothing. But regardless,l the discussion of angles has proved that Hoagland's proof was invalid. Like it or not that is a mathematical certainty. When random numbers can provide better results than the supplied hypothesis then the hypothesis is not proved. Like it or not that is how both mathematics and science work. It is also the reason why we have learned more valuable things about our world and universe through science and mathematics than anything else.. It really does work.

And yes, Hoagland is mentioned. Do I expect you to search for it ? Yes, i do. Just as I and many others have. It's a lot easier than reserving time at a research library as I used to have to do in days gone by.

[W1GUH]

Very well. You're the one who wants to convince me. If you're not willing to put up a modicum of effort, so be it. Doesn't do much to motivate me. Besides, seems to me that this whole thing you bring up about angles is purely cherry-picking, especially since you, yourself, don't appear to have expended much effort going to the primary source, the body of work of that man himself.

Very well.

Thanks for the interesting sparring match. It was fun! And I learned a lot!

Cheers! :cheers:

[n2ize]

Very well. You're the one who wants to convince me. If you're not willing to put up a modicum of effort, so be it. Doesn't do much to motivate me. Besides, seems to me that this whole thing you bring up about angles is purely cherry-picking, especially since you, yourself, don't appear to have expended much effort going to the primary source, the body of work of that man himself.

Very well.

Thanks for the interesting sparring match. It was fun! And I learned a lot!

Cheers! :cheers:

No,it appears that you want to convince yourself that Hoagland is correct. Sorry, It's not my job to research Hoagland and read his books. He made his claims,I have read and understood them and they have been refuted by valid science. He chose to ignore and attack those who critiqued him. And It is his job to substantiate his claims, just as it is my job to substantiate my claims in my profession. It is not the job of those who critique my work to understand me, or read my books, or understand my passions and feelings. As a professional I state a proposition and it is entirely my job to support it if I expect to be taken seriously. The same goes for Hoaxland. Like it or not,that is the way professionals work.

I pointed you in the right direction. The information is there. All it involves is a few mouse clicks to find it.

[W1GUH]

"Sorry, It's not my job to research Hoagland and read his books."

Oh, but, my friend, you've made some pretty bold assertions about his work while supplying scant information about how you "know" that. You've made general references to "science", yet you refuse to follow protocol. That is to supply the evidence by which you know what you know.

"He made his claims,I have read and understood them.."

What did you read? Hoaglands books? The previous sentence said "It's not my job to research Hoagland and read his books. "

You could at least make consistent statements in adjacent sentences.

All this reader of your words need to hear from you on this subject.

Good day.

[n2ize]

"Sorry, It's not my job to research Hoagland and read his books."

Oh, but, my friend, you've made some pretty bold assertions about his work while supplying scant information about how you "know" that. You've made general references to "science", yet you refuse to follow protocol. That is to supply the evidence by which you know what you know.

"He made his claims,I have read and understood them.."

What did you read? Hoaglands books? The previous sentence said "It's not my job to research Hoagland and read his books. "

You could at least make consistent statements in adjacent sentences.

All this reader of your words need to hear from you on this subject.

Good day.

I have read his statements as he presented them on his website in his own words and as he has presented them to the public along with his reasoning in plain clear understandable English.. Then I did some research and I discovered knowledgeable people who have refuted his arguments in clear understandable English.. If I can perform such research i am sure you can too. I already provided you with one study which clearly refutes his claims and which you have chosen to ignore and/or belittle.. If you follow some of the links and references presented there it will lead you to other sources of information. Ralph Greenberg, Phil Plait among many others have refuted Hoagland's claims with reputable science and technological facts. Beyond that Google is your friend. All else is doggerel. The whole point of this post is about critical thinking. if you were thinking critically you would already be aware of those who have refuted Hoagland.

here is a direct link to Greenberg's analysis.

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/DMPyramid.html

This is strinkngly important because Hoagland uses this as the basis for many of his arguments.

Here is more

http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/EB.html

[n2ize]

The point is, we are not discussing the man. We are discussing the validity of the man's theories and suppositions; which have been found faulty.

Hoagland sullied his own reputation by refusing to acknowledge and running away from legitimate arguments founded in valid science which afforded explanations for the phenomenon he was describing.

It is indeed a given that many people use conspiracty theories as a belief system, much the way many use religion. And much the way religions do, many conspiracy theorists tend to view valid criticisms or alternative explanations which are based in knowledge as attacks against the belief system as opposed to welcome challenges.

It still however, does not explain the seemingly increased prevalence of conspiracy theories of almost every variety imaginable. Is it due to a lack of critical thinking ? Or is it due to a mistrust oif government and a mistrust of what are often viewed as "authoritative sources". Conspiracy theories are often put forth as coming from "the average Joe" or, "someone who represents the rest of us", therefore he must talk straight and on the level. Plus he is using language the rest of us can understand. In comes some college professor with his Ph.D's and his lofty sounding language and terminology offering some challenge to the conspiracy theory. Perhaps he is viewed as the authoritative element and is not to be trusted. Or, perhaps it is simply a matter of perspective. With the growth and prevalence of the Internet as a communications medium news of more conspiracy theories reaches more people leading to an increased proliferation. Prior to the Internet we might read of some of the more common conspiracy theories in an occasional magazine article or on some late night talk radio. These days conspiracy theories are online, they are discussed via websites, social networks, email, newsgroups, etc. Ready Internet access = increased exposure.

[KC2UGV]

Very well. You're the one who wants to convince me. If you're not willing to put up a modicum of effort, so be it. Doesn't do much to motivate me. Besides, seems to me that this whole thing you bring up about angles is purely cherry-picking, especially since you, yourself, don't appear to have expended much effort going to the primary source, the body of work of that man himself.

Very well.

Thanks for the interesting sparring match. It was fun! And I learned a lot!

Cheers! :cheers:

Look at it this way:

I'm not trying to convince you towards any opinion. I'm trying to convince you to use simple laws of deductive reasoning.

[n2ize]

Getting back to Hoagland for a minute, Hoagland has touted the relationships he derived from angles as one of the key proofs of an intelligent hand on Mars and one of the keys to supporting many of his other claims. But, since random noise gives the same result not only does his math proof of intelligence fail but it also weakens his other claims. So it is not me or Dr. Greenberg but rather Hoagland who elevated his obviously flawed math proof to such a level of importance.

[n2ize]

I would like to see an end to all superstitions.

[KC2UGV]

I would like to see an and to all superstitions.

Wont happen. Superstition is what bonds tribal groups together. Even the UFO-Roswell conspiracy types have a sort of tribe, held together by the glue of the principals of the idea (That there is extra-terrestrial life, that has in fact visited here); and protected by the other part of the idea: There is a conspiracy to keep the "others" ill-informed. And "the others" who are the conspirators are out the hurt the tribe.

[n2ize]

Wont happen. Superstition is what bonds tribal groups together. Even the UFO-Roswell conspiracy types have a sort of tribe, held together by the glue of the principals of the idea (That there is extra-terrestrial life, that has in fact visited here); and protected by the other part of the idea: There is a conspiracy to keep the "others" ill-informed. And "the others" who are the conspirators are out the hurt the tribe.

And another sign of a conspiracy theory is hostility against those who apply critical thinking and make valid scientific criticisms and rebuttals. Rather than met with such critiques on scientific terms they are met with deep suspicion, hostility, and frequently accused of being a "part of the conspiracy". case and point, about a week ago I was accused of "working for the government" when I challenged a 911 conspiracy.

[KC2UGV]

And another sign of a conspiracy theory is hostility against those who apply critical thinking and make valid scientific criticisms and rebuttals. Rather than met with such critiques on scientific terms they are met with deep suspicion, hostility, and frequently accused of being a "part of the conspiracy". case and point, about a week ago I was accused of "working for the government" when I challenged a 911 conspiracy.

Tribal glue: You threatened the stability of the tribe, so as an outsider, you had to be dealt with :)

[n2ize]

Tribal glue: You threatened the stability of the tribe, so as an outsider, you had to be dealt with :)

True. And you will never get very far arguing with the tribe. However, I still feel it necessarily to point out that there are scientifically well founded arguments to many conspiracy theories. It may not change the belief system of the whole tribe but, perhaps just get one or two people to think a bit more critically.

[ka4dpo]

Shortly after 9/11 someone concocted a story that the Government fired a missile into to Pentagon. On 9/11 my wife was at work in her office on the 8th floor of the Park Center building in Alexandria. The building is about 1/4 mile from the Pentagon as the Crow flies. She and two of her co-workers just happened to be looking out the window and saw the American Airlines 757 fly right into the Pentagon. It was no missile, it was a commercial aircraft and I have three eye witnesses who actually saw it.

I was on the Key bridge at the time headding into DC and heard the explosion. I got a call from my boss about what had happened so I turned down 26th street to get on 66. I showed the police my identification and they let me pass. I turned off on GW blvd to get on 395, it goes right past the west side of the Pentagon. I stopped and got out of my car and could not believe what I saw. I felt violated that someone could do this to us. Anyway, on the way home that night I stopped by a local gun store here in Leesburg and stocked up on ammunition.

[KC2UGV]

Anyway, on the way home that night I stopped by a local gun store here in Leesburg and stocked up on ammunition.

Something tells me that that gun would be useless, should it happen again. Unless you stocked up on AA rounds, and are willing to set up a rotational shift to monitor the skies for intruders.

[n2ize]

Shortly after 9/11 someone concocted a story that the Government fired a missile into to Pentagon. On 9/11 my wife was at work in her office on the 8th floor of the Park Center building in Alexandria. The building is about 1/4 mile from the Pentagon as the Crow flies. She and two of her co-workers just happened to be looking out the window and saw the American Airlines 757 fly right into the Pentagon. It was no missile, it was a commercial aircraft and I have three eye witnesses who actually saw it.

I was on the Key bridge at the time headding into DC and heard the explosion. I got a call from my boss about what had happened so I turned down 26th street to get on 66. I showed the police my identification and they let me pass. I turned off on GW blvd to get on 395, it goes right past the west side of the Pentagon. I stopped and got out of my car and could not believe what I saw. I felt violated that someone could do this to us. Anyway, on the way home that night I stopped by a local gun store here in Leesburg and stocked up on ammunition.

I had a 911 "truther" telling me that the planes that hit the WTC were not passenger planes. He claims his brother and several others saw these "radio controlled planes with no windows" crash the buildings. I asked him...

1) Well then what happened to the planes and passengers that took off ?
2) How do you explain the fact that ATC tracked the planes and knew they were definately the ones that took off.
3) ATC identified the aircraft and when they dropped to low altitude prior to impact ACT turned them over to low altitude ATC who also identified them.
4) Wreckage of the passenger planes, including pieces of the fuselage that had windows showed up in and around the WTC site.
5) Identifiable remains of some of the passengers were found at the WTC site
6) Numerous photos and videos and eyewitness accounts clearly show passenger aircraft striking the buildings.

Of course the 911 "truther" didn't answer a single one of my questions. Instead he accused me of being part of the coverup. He also accused me of working for either the Government or the Illuminati. I jokingly ended the conversation by saying, "I don't like everything the Illuminati does... But I work for the Illuminati because of the excellent pay and benefits !!".


I felt violated that someone could do this to us. Anyway, on the way home that night I stopped by a local gun store here in Leesburg and stocked up on ammunition

Nothing wrong with that. Anytime there is a man made or natural disaster and ensuing chaos it never hurts to be well armed and ready to protect ones self.

[n2ize]

I guess you might say I am on a one man crusade to promote critical thinking and reason founded in logic and science. NASA astronomer Phill Plaitt has also taken on a similar crusade in challenging the pseudoscience that is the basis of countless astronomy related conspiracy theories and has compiled an excellent site over the years.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/index.html

Interesting video by Plait regarding the nature of skepticism and how to approach conspiracy theorems and belief systems, i.e. how to be a good skeptic and promote critical thinking.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmP9XozKEV0&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucDXvXqr_H8&feature=related



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AojfGz0YrZo&feature=related

[ka4dpo]

Something tells me that that gun would be useless, should it happen again. Unless you stocked up on AA rounds, and are willing to set up a rotational shift to monitor the skies for intruders.

It was a psycological thing, no one knew if we were at war or exactly what was happening but I was not going to be a victim. Being prepared is never a bad thing even though we began to get the full story later in the evening as reports came in to our office from the intelligence services. By the way I lost two vey good friends who were in a meeting at the Pentagon when it was attacked.

It seems like the conspiracy mongers would have wised up by now.

[n2ize]

Getting back to conspiracy theories for a moment, I would like to write a short piece regarding atmospheric diffusion rates and concentrations in regards to the "chemtrail phenomenon" to rebut the idea that spraying a powdered or aerosolized drug or chemical at 30-40 thousand feet in the atmosphere would be therapeutically effective at ground level. I doubt that it would change the minds of die hard conspiracy theorists but, would at least provide thought provoking factual information to those who may be sitting on the fence. In my mind false conspiracy theories (i.e. 911 myths, Mars myths, Chemtrails myths, etc.) are a dangerous thing because they adversely affect peoples ability to think critically, analytically, and to use deductive reasoning. They also lead to an attenuation of potentially real conspiracies that may exist as well as real and valid concerns that should be addressed (like our economic status, etc.)... The way I see it, what little I can do to dispel mythical conspiracies is a step in the right direction.

[ka4dpo]

Look at WWII photos of B17 and B24 bombers. They left contrails and there is no conspiracy about it, it's simple science. There are some super dumb shits in this country that believe almost anything.

There are no such things as Electrons. I have never seen an electron have you? Of course not but the mainstream scientific community would have you believe in them.. The truth is there are tiny evil spirits in the wires that will bite you if you stick your finger in a wall socket. The government doesn't want you to know this.

See how easy it is to make up bullshit??

[W3WN]

lets take the aliens at area 51 "theory"

1947 Roswell,NM something crashes. a rancher finds it. calls it a flying disk. USAF comes out collects the stuff, claims its a balloon.... ok no big deal right.. but from the pics I have seen it looked like this balloon was in pieces. but I remember seeing the pic of the AF guy with a balloon that's not in pieces... then we move along. how about all the unexplained USAF aircraft chasing down UFO's on radar and having pilots come out and say something was up there... yet now gov denies it happened....and with the area 51 stuff. we know it exists. but yet the US Gov denies it exists.. why cover it up when we all know it exists? what is really going on out at area 51? why so damn secretive about it? Why not just say when people started to question it just say "Yea its just a army base one of the many we have around the nation. we use it to train USAF pilots due to the mostly uninhabitied area incase something goes wrong.. you wouldn't want a (insert aircraft type of the time here) crashing in your neighbourhood would ya? so we train people out there since it is safer for the citizens of our nation" Had the gov said that all them many years ago the whole area 51 stuff wouldnt be like it is today.In the case of Area 51, based on what research I've done on my own, I'm convinced that the actual purpose of the base was to be used as a test facility for both experimental & developmental aircraft, and for "enemy" aircraft captured from hostile entities. That would certainly explain some of the "unusual" aircraft sightings over the years, and why civilians have been banned from an increasingly large perimeter around the base.

Further, I think that the military is quietly encouraging (or at least "egging on") some of the more, ah, whacko (for lack of a better term) Area 51 theories out there as part of the cover story. Let people believe that there are alien space craft there, to say nothing of the Covenant of the Ark. All throws more interference up for someone trying to figure out the truth.

Over the years, a good many details have leaked out. It is now acknowledged that the Area 51 base (under many names, primarily knownn as Groom Lake AFB or similar derivatives) is indeed an Air Force Flight Test Center, and is a detamchment of the Edwards AFB nearby in CA.

The area was used because it was already highly restricted government controlled land, originally used as part of the Nevada nuclear test range (the name comes from the grid map designation for the base from those tests) and was originally established by the CIA. Allegedly, the Lockheed U-2 "spy plane" was developed there, as was the A-12 (a U-2 successor). And allegedly, the first 'UFO' sightings in the area came from USAF pilots from nearby Nellis AFB who spotted the planes while on maneuvers, and by airline pilots landing in nearby Las Vegas.

Why so secretive? Because it was established by the CIA (who believe strongly in 'need to know'), because it was during the height of the Cold War, and related fear of discovery. Yeah, it would have been a lot easier in the long run, IMHO, if they'd just owned up to the basics, but that's the military for you.

And it's because of incidents like THIS that the conspiracy theorists will wonder "if they lie about something THIS obvious, what else are they covering up?"

... besides, Area 51 isn't a base for secret experiments and aliens... it's the cover up. It's Area 52 where they're all located... didn't any of you see Looney Tunes: Back In Action? (If you didn't then you didn't have kids a few years ago)

[PA5COR]

Don't forget to HARP in HAARP ;)

Lots of idiot stuff about that out there....



Getting back to conspiracy theories for a moment, I would like to write a short piece regarding atmospheric diffusion rates and concentrations in regards to the "chemtrail phenomenon" to rebut the idea that spraying a powdered or aerosolized drug or chemical at 30-40 thousand feet in the atmosphere would be therapeutically effective at ground level. I doubt that it would change the minds of die hard conspiracy theorists but, would at least provide thought provoking factual information to those who may be sitting on the fence. In my mind false conspiracy theories (i.e. 911 myths, Mars myths, Chemtrails myths, etc.) are a dangerous thing because they adversely affect peoples ability to think critically, analytically, and to use deductive reasoning. They also lead to an attenuation of potentially real conspiracies that may exist as well as real and valid concerns that should be addressed (like our economic status, etc.)... The way I see it, what little I can do to dispel mythical conspiracies is a step in the right direction.

[n2ize]

Look at WWII photos of B17 and B24 bombers. They left contrails and there is no conspiracy about it, it's simple science. There are some super dumb shits in this country that believe almost anything.

There are no such things as Electrons. I have never seen an electron have you? Of course not but the mainstream scientific community would have you believe in them.. The truth is there are tiny evil spirits in the wires that will bite you if you stick your finger in a wall socket. The government doesn't want you to know this.

See how easy it is to make up bullshit??

I've had one on one discussions with chemtrail theorists. They tried to tell me that those types of contrails didn't exist until recently. I showed them the pictures of the B-17 and B-25 as well as smaller lighter aircraft leaving persistent contrails. As a matter of fact every phenomenon they offered to me as "proof" that these are "chemtrails" and not contrails I was easily able to refute with valid science. But, valid science and fact doesn't faze these conspiracy truthers. They simply ignore valid science and remain tightly adhered to their conspiracy belief system.

[WØTKX]

http://www.markstivers.com/cartoons/Cartoons%202004/Stivers-11-16-04-Conspiracy.gif

[n2ize]

http://www.markstivers.com/cartoons/Cartoons 2004/Stivers-11-16-04-Conspiracy.gif

^^^^^ That man is RIGHT !! ^^^^^^

[n2ize]

I just got done busting up some creationism (intelligent design) nonsense. . Feels good to bust up mythology every so often. There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design.

[NQ6U]

I just got done busting up some creationism (intelligent design) nonsense. . Feels good to bust up mythology every so often. There is nothing intelligent about intelligent design.

There's an ID "museum" in Lakeside, about five miles east of here. I'm going to go in there some day and check it out.

[n2ize]

There's an ID "museum" in Lakeside, about five miles east of here. I'm going to go in there some day and check it out.

Please, let us know what you find there. I hear the famous "Creationism Museum" in KY is so chock full of unscientific balderdash. Hopefully the one in Lakeside will also be chock full of similar myths and laughs.

[n2ize]

There's an ID "museum" in Lakeside, about five miles east of here. I'm going to go in there some day and check it out.

Let's also not forget about HAARP being used to create earthquakes and control our minds and, of course, the secret plan to depopulate the earth.

[NQ6U]

Let's also not forget about HAARP being used to create earthquakes and control our minds and, of course, the secret plan to depopulate the earth.

I know. As if there aren't enough real things to worry about. You know, like the Tri-Lateral Commission...

[n2ize]

I know. As if there aren't enough real things to worry about. You know, like the Tri-Lateral Commission...

The thing is that if/when you are trying to refute conspiracy theories, or other extremist nonsense, i.e. extreme libertarianism, etc., you are not going to convert the true tribal believer. Even if you present them with concrete facts and sound science, logic, factual information, etc. which they cannot challenge they will simply ignore it and continue with the belief. The important part of myth busting is to get the information out there and to the eyes and ears of those who are still sitting balanced on the fence in order to help them to think critically and to make informed decisions.

[NQ6U]

The thing is that if/when you are trying to refute conspiracy theories, or other extremist nonsense, i.e. extreme libertarianism, etc., you are not going to convert the true tribal believer. Even if you present them with concrete facts and sound science, logic, factual information, etc. which they cannot challenge they will simply ignore it and continue with the belief. The important part of myth busting is to get the information out there and to the eyes and ears of those who are still sitting balanced on the fence in order to help them to think critically and to make informed decisions.

Yeah, the True Believers simply dismiss you as a tool or a dupe or, even worse, in on the conspiracy. I've stopped even trying to convince the that type and just concentrate on people who still have an open mind on whatever the topic happens to be. It's more productive and less frustrating.

[n2ize]

Yeah, the True Believers simply dismiss you as a tool or a dupe or, even worse, in on the conspiracy. I've stopped even trying to convince the that type and just concentrate on people who still have an open mind on whatever the topic happens to be. It's more productive and less frustrating.

I'm familiar with all the typical arguments from conspiracy theorists when you try and explain their errors in judgement with real facts. Some of themore common ones are

"You are blind"
"You are naive"
"You are stupid"
"You have fallen for the mainstream lies"
"I am surprised you can't see the obvious conspiracy"
"Something big is happening and you can;t see it because your mind is controlled by the powers that be"
" You are part of the conspiracy"
"You are obviously a spook"

and my favorite

"You definitely work for the government"

and the all time champion of my favorites, yes, this was once said to me..

"It's obvious that you work for the Illuminati".

Conspiracy theorists, truthers, etc. ya gotta love em. :)

[NQ6U]

Conspiracy theorists, truthers, etc. ya gotta love em. :)

I do? Damn...

[W3WN]

< snip >
and the all time champion of my favorites, yes, this was once said to me..

"It's obvious that you work for the Illuminati".
< snip >We know. We just didn't know that you knew we knew.

[n2ize]

We know. We just didn't know that you knew we knew.

Hey, ya got me. But , the Illuminati is an equal opportunity employer. They (the Illuminati) provides good pay, excellent benefits, excellent medical and dental coverage, and a retirement plan that is out of this world. :)

[WØTKX]

Really? Where do I sign up? I can learn secret handshakes real fast...

[W3WN]

Really? Where do I sign up? I can learn secret handshakes real fast...The Illumnati is like the Campus Crusade for Cthulu... it finds you!

[n2ize]

Thinking of debating pseudoscience with valid science ? Think again ? The odds are stacked against you. This is not the same as the other article I posted relating science versus faith. This is about challenging pseudoscience. I think this one is more appropriate for this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/science/30ESSA.html?tntemail1

[n2ize]

Speaking of conspiracy theories a friend on facebook offered up this video to me as "proof" that HAARP controls the weather, makes massive earthquakes (i.e. moves tectonic plates) and, controls minds.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY4HGs-9JiU&amp;feature=youtu.be

I tried to explain as nicely as I could why the claims made in this video are ludicrous, extremely disingenuous and many are flat out lies. I also tried to explain based on science why the claims made in these videos are scientifically unfounded and/or invalid. I suggested a good physics text or perhaps a few college science courses for starters.