85 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
85 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Ha - so bite me.

by HeySal
65 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
I can now say STFU with integrity again.

http://therebel.org/resistance/66608...-crazy-hostile
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Vindication for all of us whack jobs...

    This says it all: "Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events."

    All I can say to that statement is well... duh.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277067].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Vindication for all of us whack jobs...

      This says it all: "Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events."

      All I can say to that statement is well... duh.
      Yep!

      That is probably because we don't have a huge fear issue, which is acting as a barrier to find out what is really going on!


      Some people want to stay safe or feel safe, so they will go with the official answer, and others want to please everyone, so they will go with the pack.

      And some are like us, uncover the truth, no matter how unsettling it is.


      Yep, bring up a certain issue and some will go insane to prove they are right, it is quite a sight to see!


      Swearing and a lot of capitals, with the occasional threat usually ensues, but of course the real thing to ask is why are they acting like this, there is clearly something motivating them whether they realize it or not!

      Shane
      Signature
      `
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277191].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      Vindication for all of us whack jobs...

      This says it all: "Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events."

      All I can say to that statement is well... duh.
      I don't believe this comment was the conclusion of the researchers, but rather a comment by the site owner about the research.

      IMO, the research itself is flawed. To make a conclusion that because "theorists" made more comments on news articles means they are in the majority isn't sound. It's possible that theorists are simply more likely to comment. If it's true theorists are more likely to comment, it could be a sign they are simply more emotional.

      Unless the researchers quantify the actual number of theoriest to non theorists, the entire premise of their research is faulty. Counting comments made, instead of counting actual theoriests/non theorists isn't valid research for them to base their conclusions.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277438].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Yep. Not only is it not sound it's very stupid to think this validates tin foil hat wearers. :/

        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        To make a conclusion that because "theorists" made more comments on news articles means they are in the majority isn't sound. It's possible that theorists are simply more likely to comment. If it's true theorists are more likely to comment, it could be a sign they are simply more emotional.

        Unless the researchers quantify the actual number of theoriest to non theorists, the entire premise of their research is faulty. Counting comments made, instead of counting actual theoriests/non theorists isn't valid research for them to base their conclusions.
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277795].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          I'm quoting myself here --

          LOL -- don't "get" it yet? That's okay, not everyone can understand that complexity.

          Um.....I wasn't talking about the complexity of the STUDY -- I was talking about the post relevant to the answers.

          Nobody else found the thread hilarious?
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277893].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            Tim -- so now people are stupid again to you if they think something you don't? You are so obnoxious you reek. You can't ever disagree without name calling -- and that's your idea of a logical response?


            :rolleyes::rolleyes: That was your idea of one?

            I thought you were joking at first but its unbelievable that you think a study that is based on online "comments" has any validity. Its flawed by the very premise. No special degree needed - just common sense. Whats next? IQ tests based on "thanks"?
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278734].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Yep. Not only is it not sound it's very stupid to think this validates tin foil hat wearers.

          Without a doubt one of the all time bone headed stupid "studies" of all time I have ever seen. By that rational we should do a larger study of comments and then conclude that a huge percentage of the world is involved in spam.

          We should also conclude that a startling percentage of the population is racist and homophobic and spell you "U" because you see a ton load of that in news comments

          People post to comments alot of the time because they have nowhere else to publish their nonsense. One of the down sides of the internet is that it gives every idiot a voice where before the internet and comments etc the you had to earn the right to be put before the public (you could shout in your backyard until 11 PM ).

          Hopefully this is not a trend because the only thing could make it worse is if professionals actually start believing that comments represent any truly scientific polling of the majority.
          Signature

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278711].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Since I'm not an actual "social researcher", let's see what the real researcher, Mike Wood, has to say about the article written by Kevin Barrett:

            Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013 | The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories
            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

            Without a doubt one of the all time bone headed stupid "studies" of all time I have ever seen. By that rational we should do a larger study of comments and then conclude that a huge percentage of the world is involved in spam.

            .
            Hey Mike,

            Actually, the research was fine. It was the commentary of the author of the article that was way off base.

            Read what the actual researcher has to say. Here it is again:
            Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013 | The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

            Although, I have to laugh at Sal who claims I "proved" her case with my reasoning. The reallity is, I was correct on my earlier points and she was proven wrong by the real researcher. She wouldn't even consider my points to be possible, saying I wasn't qualified since I wasn't a "social researcher". Yet the actual researcher PROVED my points in his rebuttal.

            I was correct that the opening paragraph wasn't the views of the researcher and only that of the author. I was also correct that the number of comments doesn't prove the theorists are in the majority.

            Looks like someone needs to bite themselves.
            Signature
            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278750].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Hey Mike,

              Actually, the research was fine. It was the commentary of the author of the article that was way off base.

              Read what the actual researcher has to say.
              Yeah I just read it. My mistake indicting the study based on a false characterization of it but I got to be honest - I don't think we need any studies based on news comments. It attracts some of the most uneducated, racist, homophobic, silly people in the world. Take a sampling of some CNN's comments and you will see a good percentage are children and others are not mentally qualified to make commentary. They are just like some forums.
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278820].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                Yothers are not mentally qualified to make commentary. They are just like some forums.
                Yeah - well just remember, Mark..........those people ARE allowed to vote. If that doesn't make you want to do a double-take of anyone elected right there, what would? LOL We have a system in which any drug and liquor burned person gets a vote, which may or may not happen while they are sober. The mentally unstable vote - how many people do you know that can't handle life on a daily basis without a pharm cocktail, yet vote. The uneducated vote - ask some voters what the three branches of gov are.......people that don't have a flying clue about what the politician's record is vote.

                Yet - there's no way a conspiracy theory can be true. Right. There's no way the people can be fooled.

                Where I differ from the researchers are in thinking that there is quite a large amount of arrogance in saying there is no way in hell that you could be fooled so you don't need to look at evidence of it happening. I've been fooled on the other side of the line with people saying something was not on the up and up that turned out to be just fine. But to think something might NOT be? You have to be just sick in the head to think that rich powerful people might have a plan. Check - IRS for the first one of those. I was called a complete fruit loop for insisting that the FED is a bank and not a branch of gov -- for 30 years. Now most people are catching up with that one, but it was like trying to freeze fire getting people to even look at why I was telling them that. Then they figure it out and now it's "why didn't anyone tell us?" Um.....yeah, whatever.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279087].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                  Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                  Yeah - well just remember, Mark..........those people ARE allowed to vote. If that doesn't make you want to do a double-take of anyone elected right there, what would? LOL
                  Actual Sal no many of them are not. You do not need to be 18 to comment on a news site.

                  Yet - there's no way a conspiracy theory can be true. Right. There's no way the people can be fooled.
                  Strawman. Who in the world ever stated people cannot be fooled? Most objections to conspiracy theorists is that they take a couple facts do a jig with them and then make A=Z as an established fact.

                  Personally I loved expose journalism - don't see it too much nowadays - but the difference is there they lay out all the facts until their initial theory is no longer a theory but a fact. That and all the emotional appeals take a sideline where as conspiracy theories are usually laced with the emotions of distrust,fear or prejudice and they never quite get to fact status unless you believed the premise to begin with.
                  Signature

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279142].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

              Hey Mike,

              Actually, the research was fine. It was the commentary of the author of the article that was way off base.

              Read what the actual researcher has to say. Here it is again:
              Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013 | The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

              Although, I have to laugh at Sal who claims I "proved" her case with my reasoning. The reallity is, I was correct on my earlier points and she was proven wrong by the real researcher. She wouldn't even consider my points to be possible, saying I wasn't qualified since I wasn't a "social researcher". Yet the actual researcher PROVED my points in his rebuttal.

              I was correct that the opening paragraph wasn't the views of the researcher and only that of the author. I was also correct that the number of comments doesn't prove the theorists are in the majority.

              Looks like someone needs to bite themselves.
              I mistook your post - yes it's the author that's not on que - that's why I was saying don't shoot the messenger. Objecting to an idea just because of who exposes it is the most widely used logical fallacy in the tinfoil screamer's aganda.

              The reason I said you aren't qualified is that you judged the research to not be sound. You are not a sociologist, so are not familiar with all the aspects that went into it,. including some of the background knowledge necessary. That's not a slam, it's just sayin'. You might be correct in questioning it, but would have to wait for the explanations of it to actually be able to make that statement that strongly. There are a few things I question, too - but not willing to go there as my soc ed isn't really advanced enough to be able to state definitely that the technique was flawed without a little more study.

              And did you not see my in my post that I agreed that theorists are NOT in the majority? I still don't see theorists in the majority. I never did see that in this work. I see them open to analysis of situations instead of just railing at someone that they are crazy without looking at the facts of a situation.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279057].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author myob
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Not only is it not sound it's very stupid to think this validates tin foil hat wearers.
          Wearing a tin foil hat requires no critical thinking, no rigorous research, no understanding of complex socio-political relationships or science. All you have to remember is that the bad guys are in charge and they are the source of every bad thing that happens. Oh, and if anything good happens, it didn't really happen. The bad guys faked it.

          I highly recommend this book; "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order" by Alan Axelrod Ph.D., for a solid analysis of tin foil hats and suggestions for additional reading on a topic that is near and dear to a whole lot of people.
          Poll: 28 Percent of U.S. Believes Conspiracy Seeks World Government
          Poll: 63 Percent of Americans Believe in at Least One Conspiracy Theory
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279098].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
            Originally Posted by myob View Post

            for additional reading on a topic that is dear to 28% of Americans. Poll: 28 Percent of U.S. Believes Conspiracy Seeks World Government
            Bleh...count me among them. The only conspiracy in that is naming particular names or institutions but I highly doubt humans have seen the last set of people who would like to and will try to rule the world. As men we love power and we do backdoor deals all the time. Based on human nature I would never rule it out but the facts would have to rise beyond a conspiracy theory to start naming names.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279171].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        I don't believe this comment was the conclusion of the researchers, but rather a comment by the site owner about the research.

        IMO, the research itself is flawed. To make a conclusion that because "theorists" made more comments on news articles means they are in the majority isn't sound. It's possible that theorists are simply more likely to comment. If it's true theorists are more likely to comment, it could be a sign they are simply more emotional.

        Unless the researchers quantify the actual number of theoriest to non theorists, the entire premise of their research is faulty. Counting comments made, instead of counting actual theoriests/non theorists isn't valid research for them to base their conclusions.
        If you aren't even sure where the comments came from -- how the hell do you know enough about the research to know it is flawed? Are you a social researcher anyway, so you would even recognize what the exact flaws of the research were and how they should have been corrected?

        That is why we have tinfoil screamers. You just PROVED the research. I'm not sure that is what you meant to do or not, but well.........there ya go.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277889].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          If you aren't even sure where the comments came from -- how the hell do you know enough about the research to know it is flawed? Are you a social researcher anyway, so you would even recognize what the exact flaws of the research were and how they should have been corrected?

          That is why we have tinfoil screamers. You just PROVED the research. I'm not sure that is what you meant to do or not, but well.........there ya go.
          Actually, the only thing proven was that you aren't as open minded as you claim and show at total lack of logic.
          If you were truly as "open minded" to new theories as you pretend to be, you'd consider my point of view. However, you didn't even consider my points and threw a fit.

          I merely suggested the comment was that of the website and you won't even consider the possiblity.
          Not only is that paragraph in bold, it is the first paragraph on the page and written in third person. Unless you wrote the paragraph yourself or contacted the site and asked, you are simply picking the possibility that fits your point of view the best and discarding a totally valid concern.

          Please understand the logical fallacies in that argument. They drive some of us crazy.
          Appeal to Authority is not a valid argument.
          Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
          And you seriously try to claim Yukon's comments were an ad hominem fallacy while using the same fallacy towards me, implying that since I'm not a "social researcher" therefore my reasoning isn't valid? People are funny.

          At least you've shown you can be illogical and hypocritical all at the same time.

          The burden of proof is on YOU. You are the one making the claim by posting this. Prove that the number of theorists are greater than the number of non theorists and don't just claim this to be true because there were more posts from theorists on only TWO news topics.

          This "logic" is flawed. It's non sequitur as well as a hasty generalization (by suggesting small numbers prove the whole) and I don't need to be a "social researcher" to see it. I only need to be rational.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278380].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        I don't believe this comment was the conclusion of the researchers, but rather a comment by the site owner about the research.

        IMO, the research itself is flawed. To make a conclusion that because "theorists" made more comments on news articles means they are in the majority isn't sound. It's possible that theorists are simply more likely to comment. If it's true theorists are more likely to comment, it could be a sign they are simply more emotional.

        Unless the researchers quantify the actual number of theoriest to non theorists, the entire premise of their research is faulty. Counting comments made, instead of counting actual theoriests/non theorists isn't valid research for them to base their conclusions.
        LOL - one only needs to look at the thread title to know this is true
        Signature

        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278193].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

    Re: Ha - so bite me.
    Hmm... what flavor are you?

    Just kidding of course. One reason people get so worked up with the conspiracy theorists is that the conspiracies go against their belief systems. People can get all kinds of crazy when you mess with their beliefs.
    Signature

    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277364].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

      Hmm... what flavor are you?

      Just kidding of course. One reason people get so worked up with the conspiracy theorists is that the conspiracies go against their belief systems. People can get all kinds of crazy when you mess with their beliefs.
      I understand that. I also know that slip programming causes complete cognitive dissonance at the mere mention of the possibility things aren't as they are supposed to be. There's also just the complete inability for the average person to understand the viewpoint or thought processes of psychopaths. There's a lot of levels that those with power and money can work on without being detected because the masses are so completely naive about people not always being concerned with their well being. As long as the society can be presented as functioning normally, the projection can cover a lot of territory in keeping the majority complacent.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277433].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author serryjw
      Cognitive Dissonance....
      The only problem I see is we are all preaching to the choice. I have no idea, have tried for 12 years, what it will take to open people's eyes
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279204].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    That entire site (therebel) is built on controversial link bait, it's a classic traffic/link building technique.

    I bet they get massive traffic (seriously).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277448].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      That entire site (therebel) is built on controversial link bait, it's a classic traffic/link building technique.

      I bet they get massive traffic (seriously).
      Please understand the logical fallacies in that argument. They drive some of us crazy.
      Appeal to Authority is not a valid argument.
      Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
      Appeal to Emotion is not a valid argument (in this case - ridicule).

      It doesn't matter who brings the study to light. What matters is the study itself. And this one is about tinfoil screamers.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277546].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Please understand the logical fallacies in that argument. They drive some of us crazy.
        Appeal to Authority is not a valid argument.
        Ad hominem is not a valid argument.
        Appeal to Emotion is not a valid argument (in this case - ridicule).

        It doesn't matter who brings the study to light. What matters is the study itself. And this one is about tinfoil screamers.
        I simply stated the site is link bait by design.

        Your looking at it from a conspiracy point of view, I see it as a way to generate link bait & book sales. Controversy creates traffic (example, the link you posted in OP), traffic generates money (book sales, ad clicks, etc..).

        BTW, that author (Kevin Barrett), his own site is conspiracy link bait trying to get people stirred up enough to buy another one of his books, build free links, etc...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277674].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    So 9/11 was an inside job after-all. :rolleyes:

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277860].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
    Not to disregard all conspiracy theories, but the research this article mentions comes from - University of Kent, SUNY Buffalo, University of Guelph (is that even a place?), Boise State University. Three out of four of these universities I've never even heard of before. And I've heard of SUNY Buffalo only because that's where most 'average' Indian students go to do their masters in the US. It is very likely that these researchers are conspiracy theorists themselves and had their own run in with the confirmation bias. Maybe the research would be more credible if it came out of one of the better universities - research in social sciences being less concrete than those in hard sciences.

    That's not to say every conspiracy theorist is talking out of their ass. But, a lot of them are. I ran into one on Quora who made wild claims but refused to post even a scintilla of proof. He said that he'd heard it from a acquaintance, who according to him was a credible source and in a position to make such claims. I asked him if he could provide any source at all, he said that anything he said would be not good as an affiadivit from a (now) dead Indian politician. Then he went on to say I had no critical thinking ability and blah.. blah.. And then I said some things.

    Most sane people have no problem debating a conspiracy theorist who has an alternative explanation of how things might have happened, but it's the "I am right, you are wrong and I don't need to prove it" kinds that piss me off. They breed other "I am right, you are wrong and I don't need to prove it"s. They have heard it from somewhere else, a nutjob friend or from political dogma, and think they are all wise.

    Those who have read hundreds of articles on a subject and have informed opinions are really fun to debate, actually because they intellectually challenge you. I wouldn't call them conspiracists, they are just smart people.

    But, on this study, I'll take a pass.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8277959].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Just kidding of course. One reason people get so worked up with the conspiracy theorists is that the conspiracies go against their belief systems. People can get all kinds of crazy when you mess with their beliefs.
      Well it's their beliefs and possibly fears, that makes them so sure they are right! Or so sure they have to be right.


      I don't believe this comment was the conclusion of the researchers, but rather a comment by the site owner about the research.

      IMO, the research itself is flawed. To make a conclusion that because "theorists" made more comments on news articles means they are in the majority isn't sound. It's possible that theorists are simply more likely to comment. If it's true theorists are more likely to comment, it could be a sign they are simply more emotional.

      Unless the researchers quantify the actual number of theoriest to non theorists, the entire premise of their research is faulty. Counting comments made, instead of counting actual theoriests/non theorists isn't valid research for them to base their conclusions.
      True we are more likely to comment because we can see how much society can benefit from our research or writing a wrong, and we are frustrated by the media blackout and social injustice that could be so easily changed.

      And if we have a choice between a Socialpath having a cushy lifestyle at the expensive of the poor, or the poor having a more level playing field, then the choice is clear!


      Most sane people have no problem debating a conspiracy theorist who has an alternative explanation of how things might have happened, but it's the "I am right, you are wrong and I don't need to prove it" kinds that piss me off. They breed other "I am right, you are wrong and I don't need to prove it"s. They have heard it from somewhere else, a nutjob friend or from political dogma, and think they are all wise.

      Those who have read hundreds of articles on a subject and have informed opinions are really fun to debate, actually because they intellectually challenge you. I wouldn't call them conspiracists, they are just smart people.

      But, on this study, I'll take a pass.
      Yep, l can relate to that, and l seriously get p*** off when they say, "he won't listen, or you need a shrink". Or since they know everything, (or what popular media tells them) then you have to be wrong.

      So with that being the case, you are insane and l am not, so l will pat you on the head, since you are disturbed.


      I could prove a couple of things, most people would consider impossible, but l couldn't be bothered, since someone who is very closed minded, even with seeing it with their own eyes would still find any reason to dismiss it, or forget about it asap!


      No, an open minded person will see a UFO over the white house and because of the way it has moved, etc, confirms that it is real.

      A closed minded person will see the same thing, and either forget about it, or say he was delusional, or has an eye infection or his pet dog reflected the sunlight to a flock of seagulls above the building, blah, blah!

      Anything except the most plausible explanation!


      Fear is a powerful thing, unfortunately, but truth is truth!

      I suppose that is where the frustration comes in, as we can see something without fear!


      Tim -- so now people are stupid again to you if they think something you don't? You are so obnoxious you reek. You can't ever disagree without name calling -- and that's your idea of a logical response? Another person proving the research.

      LOL -- don't "get" it yet? That's okay, not everyone can understand that complexity.

      BTW - thank you. I really wouldn't want you close enough to munch anyhow.
      Settle down, Sal, l know you're a genius!!!


      Shane
      Signature
      `
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278082].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, being in the majority does NOT make you right! If anyone says it does, WATCH OUT! Some of the biggest discoveries and inventions have been so AGAINST the majority that the creators had their lives threatened. Some likely WERE killed.

    STILL, the idea that a conspiracy could never be one unless the majority believes it is ludicrous. FURTHER, if you believe one, that is not PRECISELY as believed, it does NOT make you an idiot. It is even possible that, while not being a conspiracy, you may be 100% right on everything else. Meanwhile, your detractors may doubt the most basic of facts.

    I long believed a conspiracy. The basic premise is fact, though some may choose not to believe, etc.... I thought the motivation was monetary greed, incompetence, and laziness. NOW, I hear people saying that the end result is/was PLANNED! They claim it was politically motivated. It IS mentioned in Agenda 21, which claims it is ECOLOGICALLY motivated!

    OK, OK! Who knows? I thought it was driven by a common condition which, though a conspiracy, was driven by such a common condition that it simply fell into place. Agenda 21 tries to give it common goal to get some to force it and accept it. Outside of that, they claim that a relatively small party created it. That last one is hard to believe until you realize that they really are a major driving force in the industry! Does it really matter if the motivation or origins are wrong? It is STILL a conspiracy!

    And people claim that A21 is nothing...., Just an idea, etc.... YEAH, one forwarded by the UN in meetings that many attend from around the world. Many of the dumbest ideas are already showing up. Does it matter if some may simply think parts are a good idea? I fail to see how anyone could think a virtual hovel for an apartment, or denying farmers basic water rights, or discouraging the removal of stagnant water is a good idea.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278198].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Yeah, being in the majority does NOT make you right! If anyone says it does, WATCH OUT! Some of the biggest discoveries and inventions have been so AGAINST the majority that the creators had their lives threatened. Some likely WERE killed.

      STILL, the idea that a conspiracy could never be one unless the majority believes it is ludicrous. FURTHER, if you believe one, that is not PRECISELY as believed, it does NOT make you an idiot. It is even possible that, while not being a conspiracy, you may be 100% right on everything else. Meanwhile, your detractors may doubt the most basic of facts.

      I long believed a conspiracy. The basic premise is fact, though some may choose not to believe, etc.... I thought the motivation was monetary greed, incompetence, and laziness. NOW, I hear people saying that the end result is/was PLANNED! They claim it was politically motivated. It IS mentioned in Agenda 21, which claims it is ECOLOGICALLY motivated!

      OK, OK! Who knows? I thought it was driven by a common condition which, though a conspiracy, was driven by such a common condition that it simply fell into place. Agenda 21 tries to give it common goal to get some to force it and accept it. Outside of that, they claim that a relatively small party created it. That last one is hard to believe until you realize that they really are a major driving force in the industry! Does it really matter if the motivation or origins are wrong? It is STILL a conspiracy!

      And people claim that A21 is nothing...., Just an idea, etc.... YEAH, one forwarded by the UN in meetings that many attend from around the world. Many of the dumbest ideas are already showing up. Does it matter if some may simply think parts are a good idea? I fail to see how anyone could think a virtual hovel for an apartment, or denying farmers basic water rights, or discouraging the removal of stagnant water is a good idea.

      Steve
      Although, I do admit I find the researchers' point about the sanity of people that use a lot of caps and exclamation marks vs. those that don't interesting.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278384].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    I don't need the site in question or any other for that matter to understand that what many people scoff at as "conspiracy" is very often truer and more relevant than what the mainstream media calls factual and relevant.

    There are at least a half dozen serious scandals in Washington at present and the focus this summer has been Paula Deen and sensational murder trials. Sorry, that news might be mildly interesting to some but hardly relevant in light of the blatant nonsense including loss of freedom and liberty at the hands of our so-called leaders for the last 20+ years.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278389].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      I don't need the site in question or any other for that matter to understand that what many people scoff at as "conspiracy" is very often truer and more relevant than what the mainstream media calls factual and relevant.

      There are at lease a half dozen serious scandals in Washington at present and the focus this summer has been Paula Deen and sensational murder trials. Sorry, that news might be mildly interesting to some but hardly relevant in light of the blatant nonsense including loss of freedom and liberty at the hands of our so-called leaders for the last 20+ years.
      When MSM reports something as a fact I automatically question it. No trust at all anymore. These days there are many other sources to draw from. But at the end of the day, what we choose to believe is what resonates the most with our own core values and belief system.

      The IDEA is to keep an open mind - which is something that conspiracy theorists sometimes have a hard time doing while accusing those who don't believe them of having a closed mind - you know... the whole "sheeple" thing.

      SOMEtimes, the simplest answers are the correct ones and the conspiracy theories are wrong.
      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278516].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    The article can also be seen as a clever satire of the pseudo-rationalist point of view of the mainstream media and most academic studies. There have been various attempts to "psychologize" the so-called conspiracy movement -attributing these beliefs to scientific sounding disorders. Here we see that the reverse can be done just as easily.

    It makes sense to be skeptical of everything, whether the source is mainstream or alternative.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278470].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    Well, we can talk all around this issue but no one has mentioned any particular conspiracy theory. Here's a doozy. I dated a woman a few years back who believed humanity was being guided by extraterrestrials and that their mother ship was orbiting the earth beaming people up and back as needed. They were able to clone various important individuals and the clones were silently working to change our culture to a utopia. She told me Bush and Cheney were clones and the real guys were being detained on the mother ship. She said there were tens of thousands of regular earthlings taking part in this movement.

    Obviously, this stuff didn't surface until I'd known her for a couple of months but she was dead-ass serious about it. She explained that very soon all of humanity would be united and prosperous. Everyone on the planet would be millionaires.

    So I asked what I thought was the obvious. "If everyone is going to be wealthy who's gonna pick the beans, change the tires and pump the gas?" Without missing a beat she explained that the mother ship had an endless supply of "replicator devices" and that everyone would receive one. All you had to do was point this gadget at anything you wanted and you'd immediately receive that item whether it was a turnip or a Boeing 777.

    She wanted me to attend a meeting where the enlightened earthlings were choosing folks to replace the present members of Congress at transition time. At the proper moment these people would simply assume the reigns of power but by then we would be so enlightened that leaders wouldn't be needed as they are now. I declined making the meeting explaining that I had to wash my hair.

    I actually did a few searches and found a lot of stuff out there that sounded similar. Now, that's a conspiracy theory to beat all theories.

    On a more realistic note, look at 911 as being an inside job. I'm not going to go too far with this because the thread will get nuked or locked. But in light of what we know (documented, factual stuff) about how WW I got started (the sinking of the Lusitania with our leader knowing about it beforehand) and WW II (Roosevelt knowing we were going to be attacked well in advance of it happening) I somehow don't have a lot of trouble believing we aren't getting the straight story on 911, far from it actually.

    Conspiracy or not, there is a long-standing cartel of highly influential families in Europe that want to rule the world. They've been trying for centuries. In effect, they already control a great deal of what goes on. One of their problems has been the United States and that pesky freedom and liberty thing. But it would seem they've got that under control in the last couple of decades. What they didn't figure into the picture was China.

    After thousands of years the sleeping Asian giant is waking up and it doesn't look like they're going to sit still for domination from any old school European boys club. Conspiracy? There's plenty of credible evidence out there if you want it. Pass the popcorn, wouldya?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278607].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Since I'm not an actual "social researcher", let's see what the real researcher, Mike Wood, has to say about the article written by Kevin Barrett:

    Setting the record straight on Wood & Douglas, 2013 | The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278623].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      There are levels of knowledge-insanity..maybe starting at the top on down;

      I call this "Claude's levels of insanity"

      1) People who really understand a subject-question thoroughly. The extreme minority. They are bright enough to know the reality, and smart enough to know to keep it quiet.

      2) People who are sane and make rational decisions based on the information made available to the public, but must be researched. Also exceedingly rare.

      3) Conspiracy theorists who are sane and base their theories on real inside information that isn't available to the public. These people are also exceedingly rare. They are usually geniuses. I'm not trying to be funny here.

      4) The lay public who thinks in sound bites and just mimics what they hear with little thought. Most of us.

      5) People who believe conspiracy theories, and they accept them without critical thinking. Most belong to groups of conspiracy theory fans.

      6) People who believe, and defend "theories" because they are either science illiterate or well, not very bright. They live in a fantasy world, and are sometimes on medication.

      7) Clinically insane people who are hospitalized.


      I know a few "conspiracy theorists". Of the ones I know, all are bright people...with very little science education. I'm not talking about people on this forum. These are people I know well.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      "Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a great battle" Ian Maclaren
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8278700].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        There are levels of knowledge-insanity..maybe starting at the top on down;

        I call this "Claude's levels of insanity"

        1) People who really understand a subject-question thoroughly. The extreme minority. They are bright enough to know the reality, and smart enough to know to keep it quiet.

        2) People who are sane and make rational decisions based on the information made available to the public, but must be researched. Also exceedingly rare.

        3) Conspiracy theorists who are sane and base their theories on real inside information that isn't available to the public. These people are also exceedingly rare. They are usually geniuses. I'm not trying to be funny here.

        4) The lay public who thinks in sound bites and just mimics what they hear with little thought. Most of us.

        5) People who believe conspiracy theories, and they accept them without critical thinking. Most belong to groups of conspiracy theory fans.

        6) People who believe, and defend "theories" because they are either science illiterate or well, not very bright. They live in a fantasy world, and are sometimes on medication.

        7) Clinically insane people who are hospitalized.


        I know a few "conspiracy theorists". Of the ones I know, all are bright people...with very little science education. I'm not talking about people on this forum. These are people I know well.
        I'm thinking you are the only one around here that completely understood my post and the purpose for it.

        I thought this thread was hilarious..........and easy, too. Just getting a charge out of my play time. What a lark.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279120].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
          Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

          I'm thinking you are the only one around here that completely understood my post and the purpose for it.

          I thought this thread was hilarious..........and easy, too. Just getting a charge out of my play time. What a lark.
          Very nice back-pedal, Sal
          Signature

          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279165].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

            Very nice back-pedal, Sal
            Admit it - you had fun with this one, too. Want some real fun? I haven't even read the study yet. LMAO. I just thought this would lead to one hilarious bout of tinfoil screaming. And it did.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279443].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Admit it - you had fun with this one, too. Want some real fun? I haven't even read the study yet. LMAO. I just thought this would lead to one hilarious bout of tinfoil screaming. And it did.
              So when you tried to bite the heads off of Kurt,TimPhelan and Yukon it was just all a big joke and done for fun right Sal?

              Work dem calves
              Signature

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279594].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                So when you tried to bite the heads off of Kurt,TimPhelan and Yukon it was just all a big joke and done for fun right Sal?

                Work dem calves
                They were having the attitudes I expected to see. Kurt either didn't even fully read what I said to him before lampooning me or he just missed it completely. Tim was name calling instead of approaching anything about the subject with some logic.

                Yeah - at this stage of our political problems it was fun. I was called nuts for 30 years for saying the fed was a bank and not a branch of gov. We've got some serious stuff coming down the pike at us real fast here..........and unless people get off their high horses or their meds or start dealing with the slip programming, we're ALL in deep crap. So best to make the point right now. I tried to warn about one thing, and just got called 1. a complete idiot - 2. A tinfoil nutcase 3. a complete moron ------ and this was by people who had not even bothered to read what was going on. So I brought a nice enticing piece in here just to see the reaction.

                It was predictable. And what I said applies no matter what the study actually says. People had a preconceived notion of whether it was a good study or not just because of what the outcome was reported to be. So it's not like I wasn't responding correctly.
                Signature

                Sal
                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                Beyond the Path

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280261].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Yep. And just in case you didn't see check out her ridiculous over the top attack on me in the locked Zimmerman thread. Unbelievable. I guess that was a joke also. Back peddling is right.

                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                So when you tried to bite the heads off of Kurt,TimPhelan and Yukon it was just all a big joke and done for fun right Sal?

                Work dem calves
                Signature
                Over 50 Dating
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280431].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Yep. And just in case you didn't see check out her ridiculous over the top attack on me in the locked Zimmerman thread. Unbelievable. I guess that was a joke also. Back peddling is right.
                  1. Why would you assume that I got it locked -- did you run and tattle on me because I disagreed with you? Other people "attacked" you as well.
                  2. It's funny to me how everyone knows the WHOLE truth that didn't spend 1 minute in that court room. Was he lying? YOU don't know that. I don't know that. It's sheer arrogance to call someone a liar when you have only had access to media claptrap about the case.
                  3. When someone has an opposing opinion -- it is not an ATTACK. There were plenty of others that did not agree with you either. Yet I ATTACKED you because I responded to you directly and did not agree with your assessment and rather sided with the jury, who may or may not have thought he was guilty, but didn't have enough PROOF to convict if they thought he was guilty.
                  4. You were predictable to a T coming into this thread and calling anyone who agreed with any of the OP "stupid". Good logic, Tim. Really impressive.
                  Yep. Not only is it not sound it's very stupid to think this validates tin foil hat wearers. :/
                  YOU didn't READ the study either, so you have no way of knowing if it validates "tin foil hat wearers" (predictable slam, too) or not.
                  Signature

                  Sal
                  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                  Beyond the Path

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280477].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Yep. It is.
                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                    1. The Zimmerman thread is not locked.
                    I'm not going to debate the case here. I will say I resent you saying I was calling people bigots or that I was only interested in this case because of the color of the victim's skin. Then saying "Shame on you". Read or reread the thread.

                    After the decision came out I said I respected the decision because I could respect the jury thinking there was doubt. At least the way the case was presented and with the laws as they are in Florida.

                    Plus, I have commented in other major criminal trials here when race had nothing to do with it. The Casey Anthony trial is one example. :/
                    Signature
                    Over 50 Dating
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280503].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                      Of course it's a crock. Won't be long before some stupid crap is "released" about Snowden either if they think they can pull it off. This time the evidence just keeps putting things further down the rabbit hole, though, so they might just lay off completely. ANYTHING they say or do right now might backfire. People are awake and extremely pissed off about this one and the resultant IRS scandal.

                      There are paraders right in here, Shane. There's one on my rock forum, too. They're all over the place. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
                      Yep, had one on my "Free Energy" post here, as you know!

                      Smooth talking, and he tried to make out we were all silly for believing it was possible!


                      Thankfully l and others chewed him out and he did a runner, but no doubt still here.

                      If they can't control a online site or hub, then waiting in the wings, to discredit, etc anything that threatens their lifestyle or has a real chance of going viral, (serious threat that they haven't been able to put a lid on yet) then they will show up!


                      But as Einstein has said, stupidly is infinite, so sometimes it is hard to tell?

                      Shane
                      Signature
                      `
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280869].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      Yep. It is.

                      Not worth it my man. Read people long enough you know where their thought processes come from. The backpedalling is evident and illogical to deny and the various positions people and certain groups take on this and other things - Entirely predictable.

                      Its all in the mindset not in any ability to logically process and debate on facts. So beyond a certain point you are not going to get through.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282818].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                        Not worth it my man. Read people long enough you know where their thought processes come from. The backpedalling is evident and illogical to deny and the various positions people and certain groups take on this and other things - Entirely predictable.

                        Its all in the mindset not in any ability to logically process and debate on facts. So beyond a certain point you are not going to get through.
                        Which is not exclusive to one side or the other.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282900].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          Which is not exclusive to one side or the other.
                          To a degree. There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread so though it is not exclusive to a side it need not rationally be equal for all sides.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8282972].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            To a degree. There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread so though it is not exclusive to a side it need not rationally be equal for all sides.
                            Why can't people from both sides reason logically?

                            I think Thom is on the other side than you and he just did.

                            If that is what you meant by your post. The way you worded it in that awkward sentence makes is hard to determine if that is what you indeed meant.

                            Terra
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283023].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                            Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                            To a degree. There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread so though it is not exclusive to a side it need not rationally be equal for all sides.

                            As far as being cognitively able to process and synthesize chain of events with facts, precedences, etc - yes many people who seem apparently unable to do so, are, in fact, cognitively capable of doing so. They are emotionally unable to look at some issues.

                            It's called slip programming - and it's not always done on purpose - it's not a conspiracy of any kind. It's the way our survival system is set up within our linguistic/emotional/ and memory systems. In another thread I just talked about my anger at finding I had been slip programmed against math. I'll guarantee that nobody actually MEANT to do that to me. The educational system in the US is set up for it, but it wasn't intentional programming on the part of the people who instilled it into me.

                            What happens in slip programming is that ideas or words are negatively reinforced by others we trust when we are growing up. As we begin to see the idea or word as a danger of negative reinforcement, we start to produce a chemical reaction against it (fight or flight chemical reaction) and it is recorded in our instinctual hardwiring as a "danger". So any time the subject is approached we shut down cognitively and either lash out or flee. There is NO consideration of the issue at all - complete and abject denial. Anyone who is comfortable with the ideas is also seen as "enemy". That's why you see people name-call just because someone has an idea they don't "agree" with.

                            Put on top of that, the fact that many who are slip programmed against "theories" -- is the fact that most of those people are extreme in empathy and are very caring people. It would be hard for them, even if not slip programmed, to be able to absorb the idea that there's a lot of people that just really don't give a rip about anything but their own comfort. They cannot understand that mindset at all. Is this a good thing? It would be if everyone was like them, but unless they have a little bit of expertise and/or power of their own that allows them to create a comfortable living, they get eaten alive by the rest of us.

                            You don't just need to cut through long held "belief" systems to remove slip programming so people can think clearly about that issue they react to -- you have to get them to a point they are no longer producing chemical reactions to it. It takes time and some intensive work. It can be extremely difficult, frustrating to excesses, and sometimes completely impossible.
                            Signature

                            Sal
                            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                            Beyond the Path

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283206].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
                              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                              As far as being cognitively able to process and synthesize chain of events with facts, precedences, etc - yes many people who seem apparently unable to do so, are, in fact, cognitively capable of doing so. They are emotionally unable to look at some issues.
                              So for example someone who might say be backpedalling but is too emotionally invested to admit it?

                              So any time the subject is approached we shut down cognitively and either lash out or flee. There is NO consideration of the issue at all - complete and abject denial. Anyone who is comfortable with the ideas is also seen as "enemy". That's why you see people name-call just because someone has an idea they don't "agree" with.
                              Right like in your responses to Tim and Kurt.

                              You don't just need to cut through long held "belief" systems to remove slip programming so people can think clearly about that issue they react to -- you have to get them to a point they are no longer producing chemical reactions to it. It takes time and some intensive work. It can be extremely difficult, frustrating to excesses, and sometimes completely impossible.
                              Yes and even more profoundly difficult when the slip programming has them believing that others are slip programmed. You can see that the most powerfully in conspiracy theorists who hold to a series of beliefs that have them convinced that they are right and have to convince the others - who they SWEAR - are the real slip programmed ones.

                              Its a a truly powerful delusion mixed with a cocktail of supremacy and mistaken sense of purpose that their delusions will somehow save the world.

                              The calf muscles however at some point need a rest or the muscle/mental spasms will be painful
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283262].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

                                So for example someone who might say be backpedalling but is too emotionally invested to admit it?



                                Right like in your responses to Tim and Kurt.



                                Yes and even more profoundly difficult when the slip programming has them believing that others are slip programmed. You can see that the most powerfully in conspiracy theorists who hold to a series of beliefs that have them convinced that they are right and have to convince the others - who they SWEAR - are the real slip programmed ones.

                                Its a a truly powerful delusion mixed with a cocktail of supremacy and mistaken sense of purpose that their delusions will somehow save the world.

                                The calf muscles however at some point need a rest or the muscle/mental spasms will be painful
                                LOL -- you are not on the mark in this case -- but your argument is logical and will hold water at some points.

                                My reason for posting this thread was 1. someone said something to me that pissed me off - 2. I felt like starting a little bit of discussion. 3. I'm a psychopath.

                                No - I'm not backpedaling - even though I can see exactly how people get that impression. Not a problem. The discussion is going on.

                                Yes - conspiracy theorists can also be slipped program to see EVERYTHING as a conspiracy. Some are so far gone that they actually believe things like our leaders are alien lizards in human disguise.

                                Am I slip programmed? Used to be in certain areas. Now I recognize the symptoms so can work off the chemical reactions. Math was the worst of them. Serious. Math. Scared me sh*tless. Very difficult to remove that one for myself - and I had the help of a few professors to knock it out of me.

                                I have associates who seriously believe that any strong earthquake is caused by HAARP. Okay - I studied earthquakes. They have elevated only slightly in the last decade and much of that elevation has extenuating circumstances that don't involve human activity at all. But are they right that HAARP is causing earthquakes? I don't think so. I'm not going to call them nut cases - stupid, rabid, or paranoid, though -- because I can't say with any conviction either way. I haven't studied enough about HAARP to know what activities would be logical for them to engage in. I really don't. I do know that legislation was passed some years ago that forbids using weather control for warfare or for power gains. So some sort of control is possible. Earthquakes? Maybe. Fracking can cause them, so I'm sure they could design some quakes. But do they? I'm not convinced. I'm inclined to say that "theory" goes too far. Further than I can swallow at the time being at any rate. I would not run the other direction or start name calling if someone could hand me enough verifiable chain of events and scientific evidence that it is being done, though.

                                While corruption in about every system we have is rampant right now -- I can still see that there are those in office that actually understand they work for us and are trying very hard to stop the BS and the move into crony capitalism and fascism. When they initiate any action that speaks of actually defending personal liberty -- I am very quick on the email button to send them a "thank you".

                                No - I don't believe at all I am slip programmed in the area of politics. Well educated in politics, logic, and cognitive science -- and know enough people in actual positions of power and science to understand what goes on in their fields politically. Find someone with actual raw evidence that what a "theorist" says about something is less true than what the "non-theorist" says and I'll take the route of the non-theorist. It's not whether you can or can't be considered a theorist - it's to what degree that determines the strength and breadth of programming.

                                Given time, I will actually read the study the article I posted was written about. From what the article says I believe it will be based on the work of Barnard J. Baar and Stan Franklin (The Neurosciences Institute and Institute for Intelligent Systems) regarding how memory, sensory, and reasoning departments work together to build our perceptions of everything. So I'm kinda guessing that I already know what they were doing.

                                I actually was playing around when I posted it. If you ask people who actually KNOW me here, you'll find I have a propensity to do this kind of crap now and again. It's an annoying quirk of mine I guess.
                                Signature

                                Sal
                                When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                Beyond the Path

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283441].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Admit it - you had fun with this one, too. Want some real fun? I haven't even read the study yet. LMAO. I just thought this would lead to one hilarious bout of tinfoil screaming. And it did.
              I always have fun with your stuff Sal. You know that.

              As for tin foil hats - YOU bring that up more than anyone else on this forum. Food for thought there...
              Signature

              Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279767].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Like I said, the OP/link was link bait.

      All you had to do was look at the OP link + the authors own blog which is religious propaganda.

      Want to buy a book?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8279803].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author myob
        Conspiracy theories can be fun - and profitable.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280036].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David Maschke
    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

    I can now say STFU with integrity again.
    I didn't know when you were telling me to STFU in the recent past, you were doing it without integrity at the time. If I only knew
    Signature

    I

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280208].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by David Maschke View Post

      I didn't know when you were telling me to STFU in the recent past, you were doing it without integrity at the time. If I only knew
      LMAO - you happen to be one guy I wish would talk more.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280267].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
      Yet - there's no way a conspiracy theory can be true. Right. There's no way the people can be fooled.

      Where I differ from the researchers are in thinking that there is quite a large amount of arrogance in saying there is no way in hell that you could be fooled so you don't need to look at evidence of it happening. I've been fooled on the other side of the line with people saying something was not on the up and up that turned out to be just fine. But to think something might NOT be? You have to be just sick in the head to think that rich powerful people might have a plan. Check - IRS for the first one of those. I was called a complete fruit loop for insisting that the FED is a bank and not a branch of gov -- for 30 years. Now most people are catching up with that one, but it was like trying to freeze fire getting people to even look at why I was telling them that. Then they figure it out and now it's "why didn't anyone tell us?" Um.....yeah, whatever.
      Yep, look into Julia Estranges website, and see their current legal battle to have the bulk of their funds reinstated by the US Gov, blocking PayPal, Visa and American Express!

      Eventhough they have initially won a court battle to state that it is an illegal move, but the block is still there? Funny that!

      Some conspiracy theory's are genuine, but the social paths of this world make it look like something else.

      Give away too many of their secrets, and your funds will be taken away or spoon fed back!

      And they didn't do anything that would normally get their accounts blocked, (remember they have already shown that the blocking of their funds is illegal).


      Big brother will squash you and call it something else so the general population will feel safe!

      Shane


      PS Ok, Sal l get that you were taking the p*** out of us, so l will change that to "clever and devious"! LOL
      Signature
      `
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280280].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by tagiscom View Post

        Yep, look into Julia Estranges website, and see their current legal battle to have the bulk of their funds reinstated by the US Gov, blocking PayPal, Visa and American Express!

        Eventhough they have initially won a court battle to state that it is an illegal move, but the block is still there? Funny that!

        Some conspiracy theory's are genuine, but the social paths of this world make it look like something else.

        Give away too many of their secrets, and your funds will be taken away or spoon fed back!

        And they didn't do anything that would normally get their accounts blocked, (remember they have already shown that the blocking of their funds is illegal).


        Big brother will squash you and call it something else so the general population will feel safe!

        Shane


        PS Ok, Sal l get that you were taking the p*** out of us, so l will change that to "clever and devious"! LOL
        Julia Estrange? Are you talking about Julain Assange?

        Our gov was able to make a LOT of people think he's a traitor. Truth told - what he posted other than some really sick emails between some of the main players -- wasn't even top secret. Hundreds and possibly thousands of people had access to that info.

        What they did to him is the same as they did to instate slip programming on people so they wouldn't question what they did. Slip programming can backfire......and does so often enough that we now have an open line to a lot of conspiracies...that are conspiracy fact, not "theory". Now they are villianizing whistleblowers - the very people that can help keep us a free people. It's sick to see how easily some people are being converted to thinking they are bad people, too.

        Being watched was considered a conspiracy theory just a few years ago -- the latest bunch of scandals opened that one up into reality for non-believers. Still, some people, even though they know they are being tracked still don't get what the big deal is about it.

        I LOVE Julian Assange. He's a highly intelligent man with the courage to use his mind for the benefit of the masses. Bradley Manning, too. And of course Snowden. All heroes. All controversial - and ALL targeted by a gov who wants to keep us ignorant and caged.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280342].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
          Julia Estrange? Are you talking about Julain Assange?

          Our gov was able to make a LOT of people think he's a traitor. Truth told - what he posted other than some really sick emails between some of the main players -- wasn't even top secret. Hundreds and possibly thousands of people had access to that info.

          What they did to him is the same as they did to instate slip programming on people so they wouldn't question what they did. Slip programming can backfire......and does so often enough that we now have an open line to a lot of conspiracies...that are conspiracy fact, not "theory".

          Being watched was considered a conspiracy theory just a few years ago -- the latest bunch of scandals opened that one up into reality for non-believers. Still, some people, even though they know they are being tracked still don't get what the big deal is about it.

          I LOVE Julian Assange. He's a highly intelligent man with the courage to use his mind for the benefit of the masses.
          Yep, sorry, he has a tricky second name, but l agree, l would bet anything that the pedophile case is a crock, just to shut him up, but thankfully he is a few steps about of them!


          And if you log onto their chat forum, "Wikileaks" they say that gov, officials parading as members will be on this forum, and eventhough our servers are encrypted, you need to watch what you say or disclose.

          No conspiracy theory's, LOL, there are a good one or two on his site!!!!

          Some Ostrage's need to wake up, or they may get run over!

          Shane
          Signature
          `
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280380].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Of course it's a crock. Won't be long before some stupid crap is "released" about Snowden either if they think they can pull it off. This time the evidence just keeps putting things further down the rabbit hole, though, so they might just lay off completely. ANYTHING they say or do right now might backfire. People are awake and extremely pissed off about this one and the resultant IRS scandal.

    There are paraders right in here, Shane. There's one on my rock forum, too. They're all over the place. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8280418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
    To a degree - There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread, so though it is not exclusive to a side, it need not rationally be equal for all sides.

    Missed the commas.

    I think Thom is on the other side than you and he just did.
    Where might Thom have articulated any side Terra? or did you just feel compelled to claim it?

    Why can't people from both sides reason logically?
    I don't know. You will have to ask the sides that don't.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283172].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      To a degree - There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread, so though it is not exclusive to a side, it need not rationally be equal for all sides.

      Missed the commas.



      Where might Thom have articulated any side Terra? or did you just feel compelled to claim it?
      I claim nothing darlin'.

      But Thom quoted you and said that works for both sides. If he were on your side, and yes, it is evident in reading through your posts that you have chosen a side whether you wish to "claim" it or not, would he have said that?


      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283188].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mike Anthony
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        I claim nothing darlin'.

        But Thom quoted you and said that works for both sides. If he were on your side, and yes, it is evident in reading through your posts that you have chosen a side whether you wish to "claim" it or not, would he have said that?
        So ahem - merely stating that

        "Which is not exclusive to one side or the other."

        is a logical articulated position of a side? Perhaps :rolleyes: but has absolutely nothing to do with the kinds of positions being discussed.

        So...Congratulations on the point besides the point.
        Signature

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283212].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

          So ahem - merely stating that

          "Which is not exclusive to one side or the other."

          is a logical articulated position of a side? Perhaps :rolleyes: but has absolutely nothing to do with the kinds of positions being discussed.

          So...Congratulations on the point besides the point.
          Thanks! I like scoring and now, according to you, I have two side by side points! And she scores! Two points!! :p

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283311].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Mike Anthony View Post

      To a degree - There are people who come from a mostly fact basis and who can reason logically. I've seen some in this thread, so though it is not exclusive to a side, it need not rationally be equal for all sides.

      Missed the commas.



      Where might Thom have articulated any side Terra? or did you just feel compelled to claim it?



      I don't know. You will have to ask the sides that don't.
      I was trying to be neutral.
      There are some conspiracy theory's I believe in just as there are some I don't believe in.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283397].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Lol, you folks are in the middle of a sales funnel.

    Keep debating, Kevin Barrett needs more Amazon book sales in the religion category.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8283452].message }}

Trending Topics