Are conspiracy theorists wrong about almost everything?

It's what the sheep say.

This is the best video I ever saw in my life up until now. Downloaded and placed in an "off internet" safe place so I can preserve it for the rest of my life... (barring "they" find a way to destroy my stash!... I think I will place copies in six or seven locations along with some other documents that will be brought to light via my "dead man's switch").
 
It's what the sheep say.

The amazing thing about this is the immense arrogance that the sheep's accusers exhibit with their categoric assertion that their position is unassailably true (and that the sheep's is obviously and ridiculously false). It's just the opposite side of the same coin.
 
Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge that
  1. I haven’t deeply investigated any of these theories...
...
What am I missing?
I'd love to sit down over coffee and discuss this with you all day but it probably wouldn't make any difference so I'll just answer your question: you are missing #1. Also maybe that the host isn't trying to make money.
 
What makes them false, or even a dichotomy for that matter?
Please explain
Because you don't have to believe every conspiracy theory or believe in 100% benevolent and truthful government. It makes for a catchy meme, but it's far from reality. Take me, for example. As noted in this thread, I think 9/11 happened pretty much like the government says it did. I think Oswald killed Kennedy all by his own crazy self. I think the moon landings were real. I think the earth is round, despite all the "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists to the contrary.

At the same time I think sufficient election fraud took place to tilt the win to Biden. I know the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on lies and a conspiracy.

In the middle, I think (actually know in some cases) the federal government is full of incompetent people and tends to make stupid decisions based on political optics and ivory tower theories and emotional reactions even when it's trying to do the right thing. I think politicians are generally cowards and sneaks. I also think that members of govt, both elected and appointed, are too often corrupt and self-serving and often screw up our lives to benefit their own. I think there is a covid virus and it kills those who were going to die soon anyhow. However, political opportunism, egotism (see Fauci) and fear caused the govt media complex to create a panic based on the false notion that we are all equally susceptible.

That said, there are also competent, dedicated, patriotic people in govt departments - or contracted by them - doing and saying the right thing. Sometimes politicians hijack or bury their message, sometimes not.

I also think that people promoting conspiracy theories are often liars and/or idiots and/or corrupt and self serving. Money is not always the most important motive for either conspiracy promoters or government. In fact, power, prestige and other psychological perks are usually at least as important, if not more so. I further think that anyone lumping everyone into dichotomous classes is probably a simpleton - e.g. "govt always true! Conspiracy always lie!" or vice versa.

That said, some serious people reporting on conspiracies are dedicated and competent and have something important and real to say.

But guess what? Conspiracy theorists are people and government is people and people are susceptible to the 7 deadly sins. There are no exceptions. To think one group more honorable and perfect than the other is stupid.

There are no groups of people that are always the bearers of truth, justice and coolness. They are all flawed at least some of the time.
 
Last edited:
Here's the bottom line on Building Seven -

Just like a bookie sets odds on a sporting event, those odds are calculated on all known factors and all perceived factors available to the experienced bookmaker. Most events are close to 50/50 but sometimes there are matches where one side is the obvious huge favorite, These odds are "juiced" and made available to the public for betting purposes in the odds format attractive to the target market.

Take out the juice and convert the odds to percentages and what you'll always get when you add up the percentages for all the selections is 100% So within that framework - we could reduce it to a two selection market.

Selection A would be "Building Seven was a demolition"

Selection B would be "Building Seven came down for any other reason"

The fact is only if Selection A is true - which means there are (or at least "were") those who were involved in setting all that up and then either the same people or someone else "pushing the plunger" then they know this to be a fact or at least knew this to be a fact in case they are all now dead.

If Selection B is true, no one can definitively know that.

So excluding you being someone "in on it" (if Selection A is true) then neither selection A or Selection B can have honest odds set at 100% (which would make the other selection 0%).

So within that reality, each individual has a fair right to make their own odds. If this were an event that would one day have a clear result for betting purposes then the bet could be "settled." Sadly this one likely won't ever be (well... unless, again, Selection A is true and you were in on it).

My personal odds would be set at Selection A is 95% likely true.

My reasons are - The collapse of Building Seven was announced by the "Operation Mockingbird" Press on one major news network (I think it was the BBC) prior to the actual collapse of the building. In fact, in the video clip of this announcement, Building Seven is still showing standing in the background shot behind the presenter. We call that an "ooops."

The second reason is the way it feel and the rapidity of the fall. My logic is that even an idiot can see it was a controlled demolition.

The third reason - records were held in that building which, if destroyed and lost forever, would be greatly appreciated by a three letter agency which may otherwise experience grave exposure if those records ever fell into the wrong hands.

I have a speculation about what likely happened to those records. They WERE absconded with and have been held in certain hands and used for blackmail purposes ever since - gotta keep everyone in line, right? Ohhh and, what about a rogue "save the day" type guy who might want to expose the fraud. Let's consider examples of folks like that... say, Seth Rich for example? Just to name one example among thousands over the course of history?

Anways - note, I still make Selection B 5%. Why? Because I just don't know and I could lose my bet on the heavy favorite (as I have many times before).
The problem, Chester, is that no one has skin in the game. Players can wildly mis-assign odds because there will a) be no material consequences and b) no one will ever know for sure who won the game.
 
Last edited:
Because you don't have to believe every conspiracy theory or believe in 100% benevolent and truthful government. It makes for a catchy meme, but it's far from reality. Take me, for example. As noted in this thread, I think 9/11 happened pretty much like the government says it did. I think Oswald killed Kennedy all by his own crazy self. I think the moon landings were real. I think the earth is round, despite all the "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists to the contrary.

..
Still not a dichotomy. The statements which the woman displayed on her sign are obvious truths to some who have done a bit of digging. Does the press sometimes lie or is the press a rigged system of control. Do drug companies get it wrong sometimes or have they manipulated the system so that often more effective natural remedies are outlawed. Do governments lie - *One doesn't have to be ancient to remember how a new right economic system appeared miraculously around the world without the plebs getting wind of it. What are conspiracy theories to some are obvious truths to others who are concerned enough to do a bit of digging. ( 'I think 9/11 happened pretty much like the government says it did. I think Oswald killed Kennedy all by his own crazy self. I think the moon landings were real. I think the earth is round, despite all the "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists to the contrary.' ) To lump obvious conspiracies together with more dubious ones could qualify as a dichotomy. Have you even had a cursory look. Glancing out of an aircraft window tells us that the earth appears to be round. Do a bit of digging please about Kennedy et al.
* Yes one does:)
 
Last edited:
Still not a dichotomy.
Your hair splitting aside, the connotation of the sign is that you either believe the truthful conspiracy theorists or you're a stupid sheep that believes big scary corrupt sources like the government and big business. Either/or = dichotomy.

The statements which the woman displayed on her sign are obvious truths to some who have done a bit of digging.
Again we are left with needing to assess the quality of information that your diggers have produced, which I say, based on my actual experience and direct knowledge of some of the topics that conspiracy theorists harp on, is often total ignorant bull shit. The alleged "truths" are certainly not obvious truths to me. Just for example, I have worked for about 20 years in healthcare insurance business analysis for a Fortune 100 company and the blanket assertion that drug companies are making people sick (or keeping them sick) to make a buck is moronic. If that was the case, we would detect it in our studies and we wouldn't pay for it. Are there some drugs that don't really work well or add much value? Yes. We drop them from our formularies. They become non-covered/non-benefit. Do most drugs, prescribed as intended, do what they are supposed to do fairly well? Yes. Without pharmaceuticals there'd be a considerable decline in life expectancy as well as quality of life. Again, it is totally moronic to suggest otherwise.

Should people take better care of their minds and bodies and would doing so lead to a large reduction in reliance on Pharma and modern medicine in general? Absolutely. But they don't. So modern medicine and big Pharma offers a solution that fat stressed out slobs demand. Don't blame Pharma. My professional estimates say that 25% to 35% of all healthcare expenditures are related to obesity. Did big food biz put the massive quantities of bad food into people's bodies? Nope. The fatsos did that to themselves. No conspiracy.

Would pre-big Pharma people have loved to have antibiotics and host of other pharmaceuticals that save young lives and extend old ones and improve the quality of their lives. Absolutely they would have. Herbal remedies suck with few exceptions. Do you have any idea idea how many women and infants used to die in childbirth? Of other diseases and conditions for which fatalities are almost unheard of today?

Does the press sometimes lie or is the press a rigged system of control.
Yes. Of course. That should be obvious to everyone. Some of it is good old fashioned group think. Some of it is good old fashioned laziness. Some of it is good old fashioned corruption. Show me a person or organization that doesn't experience all of those traits to some extent. What is your point?

I do agree that the level of collusion between big media and big government has reached concerning Pravda levels in the last few years. Again, no secret. It's right there in front of us. Sometimes there is a conspiracy and it's rarely secret, or secret for long. This is simply a war that is being waged on traditional Americans by a new globalist socialist breed. They might as well be shooting people and seizing territory, but, since they're not, traditional Americans feel like they shouldn't pick up a weapon and kill these usurpers. That attitude will probably change at some point in the next few years. Sad it has come to that, but it's hardly a secret cabal behind the globalist-socialist movement. They are very open about what they are doing, will do and why. They even have publications, like The World Economic Forum, where they unabashedly explain their plans in detail.

Why don't the media or elected reps talk about it more? One reason is because people, many of them the aforementioned fatsos, would rather hear about identity politics and the Kardashians. No one ever went broke underestimating the stupidity of the American public. The Bell Curve is a major factor here. 25% of the people simply can't comprehend anything beyond identity politics and the Kardashian. The next 25% can dimly glimpse to the next level. The next 25% are mid-wits. They can comprehend more, but not deeply. Unfortunately, they think they are smarter than they are because they are better than the 50% below them. These are you government types, media types, etc. It's only the top 25% that can run a small to medium business. It is only the top 5% (or less) that can run a big business, be a true scientist, be a true wise leader of people. And even they are fallible, of course. They have to dumb down the messaging so all the rest can understand. What is good and necessary gets lost. Then conspiracy theorists come along and nit pick the message. They remind me of movie critics and Monday morning quarterbacks. Average IQ (=100)is actually not too bright.

...Do drug companies get it wrong sometimes or have they manipulated the system so that often more effective natural remedies are outlawed.
Yes. Of course. Do you ever "get it wrong"? Of course. Humans often get it wrong. It's part of being human. As I have said elsewhere on this thread - and it's speaks to the dichotomy that you are lost in, but insists doesn't exist - all groups of people err. All groups of people have corrupt members. Singling out drug companies is disingenuous. That you do suggests your opinion that they are uniquely corrupt, which they are not, and that your conspiracy theorists are somehow uniquely pure and correct, which they are not.

What natural remedies? See my response above.

Uh yeah. So do you. So do I. So does everyone. Don't rely on or trust government or anyone else. Don't believe anyone claiming they represent utopia on earth. This is a dog eat dog world - always has been and always will be. Deal with it.

*One doesn't have to be ancient to remember how a new right economic system appeared miraculously around the world without the plebs getting wind of it.
No idea what you're talking about. Guess I didn't read that particular conspiracy theory, whatever it is.

'I think 9/11 happened pretty much like the government says it did. I think Oswald killed Kennedy all by his own crazy self. I think the moon landings were real. I think the earth is round, despite all the "evidence" presented by conspiracy theorists to the contrary.' ) To lump obvious conspiracies together with more dubious ones could qualify as a dichotomy.... have you even had a cursory look. Glancing out of an aircraft window tells us that the earth appears to be round.
LOL. So...sometimes your honest intelligent diggers are idiots, but you know that because you can look out an airplane window. OK, what if you had worked with thermite, worked in the intelligence services, been in the military and led operations? Then maybe dumb ideas like WTC-7 being wired to explode (as well as other ridiculous 9/11 theories) might seem as silly as flat earth does to you. Think about it.

Do a bit of digging please about Kennedy
Ah the old classic fall back cognitive dissonance based assumption that if someone doesn't believe the conspiracy theory then they're either part of it or just woefully uninformed. FYI - I have looked at everything available on Kennedy. Oswald, an antisocial sociopathic personality, trained to shoot by the best military force on the planet, shot him, at close range, all alone, for personal reasons that make sense to someone with that personality disorder. Did that event work to the benefit of some groups of people or individuals? Sure. So what? As I have said, that vultures dine on road kill doesn't mean they are in league with human automobile drivers. I explained my views on Kennedy in greater detail on the first page of this comment section. Your digger wasn't digging?
 
Last edited:
The problem, Chester, is that no one has skin in the game. Players can wildly mis-assign odds because there will a) be no material consequences and b) no one will ever know for sure who won the game.
The point is that no one lives life without making some assumptions along the way.

And from that perspective, each of us has skin in the game because what we onboard as an assumption impacts our life experience.

Some cannot leave assumptions at the level of "assumption" and those transform into what we call "beliefs," Holding a belief, if it's true, can't get you into trouble. But holding a belief that turns out to be false, can get you into trouble.

And here's the rub... no on, NO ONE but an insider that was involved can know if the possibility there was a conspiracy is an actuality. So for all the rest of us, we have to assume one way or another.

No one can escape making an assumption one way or the other. And I found putting odds on these is a more prudent way to go.

I have found that I do better when I depend more greatly upon assumptions where I have made the odds a certain direction and then I make my choices with those odds in mind... instead of just establishing a firm belief one way or another (like so many people tend to do). No one NO ONE is a perfect oddsmaker for all situations. And because we know this, because we know the fact of this, we can only accept looking at something like 9/11 was an inside job by making our own odds on whether or not it is true all because of one critically important "bottom line" factor for each and every one of us at a personal level.

And that is that we are each accountable for what we bet on. At the end of the day, I pay for losing bets and I collect on winning bets. So bringing this metaphor back to the subject of conspiracies, I pay for being more wrong than right. I pay for buying the narratives of the intelligence agency controlled media if that scenario is the actual reality. But also, if I am wrong and the media is independent of influence from intelligence agencies and those who benefit (and thus grease back the palms of those in said intelligence agencies) then I pay for that when I don't believe the news.

So that's the bottom line. Each of us are responsible for what we onboard as a belief and so, by being careful of not elevating an assumption to the status of belief, when I become privy to new information, I am more easily able to change the percentages of my assumption.

For me, 9/11 "Building 7" smells BUT, I would never tell you it was brought down by an intentionally placed controlled demolition because I don't know this with 100%% certainty. But I can state my odds (which I did) and I can modify them with new information.

And I can live with my bet whatever the actual truth happens to be.
 
Last edited:
Top