Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

Loose change?

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos wrote:
> > I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
> > a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

> Loose change?

> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

  Loose change didn't *start* the conspiracy theory, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes 
>>> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)
> 
>> Loose change?
> 
>> http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
> 
>   Loose change didn't *start* the conspiracy theory, though.

True. But I think it was the main driving factor in making people take it 
seriously who aren't normally conspiracy theory nuts.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> True. But I think it was the main driving factor in making people take it 
> seriously who aren't normally conspiracy theory nuts.

  I like to compare conspiracy theorists with magicians:

  A magician shows you a trick, and you have *no idea whatsoever* how it
could possibly work. You think and think about it, and you can't come up
with anything. It seems miraculous. Yet you know it's just a trick. While
some tricks are truly quite contrived and require a lot of practice to be
performed convincingly, in many cases if someone explains the trick, it's
almost laughably simple. You are like "Doh! Why didn't I think of that?"
It's almost disappointing how simple the trick was. Yet you couldn't explain
it unless someone explained it to you.

  Likewise it often happens that a conspiracy theorists shows you a quite
cleverly posed argument, for example something in a photograph which seems
to indicate that it has been faked. Even if you are an experienced debunker,
if it's something new to you, you may be left dumbfounded, with no rational
explanation. You may struggle to come up with an explanation, but you just
can't think of anything.

  But it's just like a magic trick: The argument has been so cleverly posed
that it fools you completely, but once someone explains it to you (or you
come up with the correct explanation by studying the phenomenon), it becomes
laughably simple and straightforward. "Doh! Why didn't I think of that?"

  I have been baffled by new conspiracy theory arguments myself, even though
I'm pretty experienced at debunking them. I *know* that these new arguments
are not legit, but I just can't come up with any kind of answer. It's just
like a magic trick. Only afterwards, when I gather more information about
the subject, it becomes very easy to explain.

  The difference between magicians and conspiracy theorists is, however,
that magicians don't claim that the tricks are real, while the theorists
do claim that their arguments are valid and genuine. Well, not all magicians,
of course. There are always a few "Uri Gellers" who try to claim (sometimes
rather successfully) that their tricks are the real thing and not tricks at
all. These phony magicians and conspiracy theorists have a lot in common.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   The difference between magicians and conspiracy theorists is, however,
> that magicians don't claim that the tricks are real, while the theorists
> do claim that their arguments are valid and genuine. Well, not all magicians,
> of course. There are always a few "Uri Gellers" who try to claim (sometimes
> rather successfully) that their tricks are the real thing and not tricks at
> all. These phony magicians and conspiracy theorists have a lot in common.

One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy 
theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic 
(regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.04.2010 10:41, schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy
> theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic
> (regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)

I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

Post a reply to this message

>> One might argue that the difference between a magician and a conspiracy
>> theorists is that few magicians believe that their tricks are real magic
>> (regardless of what they tell everybody else). ;-)
> 
> I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
> conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

Sure. You're probably right about that. But the poor saps who believe 
this stuff and parrot it to everybody they meet? Well, some of them know 
it's BS, but I get the feeling some of them genuinely believe it...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   A magician shows you a trick, and you have *no idea whatsoever* how it
> could possibly work. 

Reminds of this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KSLRjDR4aQ

But yes, I've run into this a few times too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I often get the feeling that the book-writing and DVD-selling subset of 
> conspiracy theorists /do/ know that they're selling crap.

  I think that what is happening with many of the conspiracy theorists who
are producing the "evidence" (rather than simply parroting what they have
heard from others) is that they honestly believe that *some* of that is
genuine evidence of fakery/conspiracy, while knowing perfectly well that
some other arguments are not valid and is easily explainable and verifiable.
Yet regardless of this they keep repeating both types of arguments.

  The Moon landing photos not showing stars is a perfect example of this.
Any conspiracy theorists can corroborate this by checking *other* photographs
taken in orbit (photos which are not in any way under suspicion) and see that
they, too, don't show any stars. They can corroborate this by consulting
books and professionals on the subject of photography. They can corroborate
this by making actual tests. I believe many of the conspiracy theorists who
produce "evidence" know that it's perfectly explainable why there are no
stars in the photos (and, on the contrary, if there *were* stars, *that*
would be suspicious).

  However, they still keep repeating the same old argument about the stars,
even though they know that the argument is not valid.

  Why? Because the stars argument sinks well on unwary people, and what they
are doing is so-called shotgun argumentation: They need as many arguments as
possible so as to give an impression that there's *tons* of evidence that
the photos are fake.

  This is a dishonest tactic, of course. They are basically lying (in other
words, claiming that the lack of stars is a genuine evidence of fakery even
though they themselves know it's not).

  And then they call NASA and the US government "liars". Talk about hypocrisy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:24:14 +0200, Nekar Xenos  
<nek### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 13:21:32 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>
>>> They're all in it together I tells ye, a vast conspiracy to let the  
>>> reptile people take over and eat all our hamsters.
>>
>> That's worryingly good.
>>
>> Some of these people must surely be suffering from a diagnosible mental  
>> condition...
>
> I wonder sometimes if conspiracy theories start this way. Somebody makes  
> a joke about something and some-one else takes it seriously... ;-)

Though in this case the response should be "Isn't that the plot from V?"

You know you're dealing with a crackpot if they come back with "Ah that's  
counter-intelligence, once someone discovers the reality it means everyone  
they tell just dismisses it as 'from a TV show'". If the show pre-dates  
the conspiracy then they're just being pro-active, very well-prepared, and  
just shows how long they've been covering it up.

I do own some of the conspiracy books and, as Warp has pointed out, as you  
read it you try to come up with a rational explanation but unless you're  
already aware of it you can struggle. Luckily there's plenty on the  
internet to quash these, of course that's where so many of them get  
started and snowball

To paraphrase one Mr H Simpson "The internet. The cause of, and solution  
to, all of life's problems"

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message