The Conspiracy Theory

Kieran_Burns

You really should pop over to the FE site some time. You will be shaking your head with exasperated disbelief in minutes.

I pop over sometimes when I need a good laugh.

ai_1

Kieran_Burns wrote:

You really should pop over to the FE site some time. You will be shaking your head with exasperated disbelief in minutes.

I pop over sometimes when I need a good laugh.

I'm tempted but it's a fine line between amusement and disillusionment.
Yes, these guys are idiotic to the point of being funny but their demonstration of fanaticism and a sort of cult groupthink is rather disturbing.

The absurdly illogical arguments that seemingly intelligent people fool themselves into shows a capacity for self deception that has scary implications. It's much the same capacity that's been demonstrated previously in many different scenarios but most often in geographically or religiously insular groups. That these conspiracy theorist guys think they're outward looking, open-minded, logical and indeed on the lookout for deception makes them a rather special example.

RDW

Maybe we've been thinking too small on this thread. Here's an idea put forward by serious academics, despite being far more outrageous than anything discussed here so far (except maybe the thing about the penguins):

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html

They think that the probability we are living in The Matrix (or rather a Matrix, somewhere in the Universe) is quite high:

'If each advanced civilization created many Matrices of their own history, then most people like us, who live in a technologically more primitive age, would live inside Matrices rather than outside them. If this were the case, where would you most likely be?

The so-called Simulation argument, which I introduced a few years ago, makes this line of reasoning more precise and takes it to its logical conclusion. The conclusion is that there are three basic possibilities at least one of which is true. The first possibility is that the human species will almost certainly go extinct before becoming technologically mature. The second possibility is that almost no technologically mature civilization is interested in building Matrices. The third possibility is that we are almost certainly living in a Matrix. Why? Because if the first two possibilities are not the case, then there are more “people” living in Matrices than in “real worlds.” As a “person” then the chances are that you are living in a Matrix rather than in a “real world.”'

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

No thats not the answer. The answer is: The horizon appears flat when it is slightly lower than dead center of the lens. This makes the natural curve of Earth become a straight line because the lens is slightly convexing the horizon making it appear straight.

The amount is so small it still looks like the horizon is in the middle of the frame, whilst actually being ever so slightly lower than center in the frame.

The thing is the videos prove nothing either way. People arguing the video proves earth is a ball are just as stupid as ones claiming it proves earth is flat - and it ain't got sod all to do with the "ball earth Vs flat earth" debate lol.

I thought the simpler answer was that a photo is a 2 dimensional image. i.e. flat.

Just to add something else sensible to the thread, why is it that in the Northern Hemisphere the sun appears to rise in the East, go South, and set in the West whilst in the Southern Hemisphere it goes East, North, West?

chris_bass

RDW wrote:

Maybe we've been thinking too small on this thread. Here's an idea put forward by serious academics, despite being far more outrageous than anything discussed here so far (except maybe the thing about the penguins):

http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix.html
http://www.simulation-argument.com/matrix2.html

They think that the probability we are living in The Matrix (or rather a Matrix, somewhere in the Universe) is quite high:

'If each advanced civilization created many Matrices of their own history, then most people like us, who live in a technologically more primitive age, would live inside Matrices rather than outside them. If this were the case, where would you most likely be?

The so-called Simulation argument, which I introduced a few years ago, makes this line of reasoning more precise and takes it to its logical conclusion. The conclusion is that there are three basic possibilities at least one of which is true. The first possibility is that the human species will almost certainly go extinct before becoming technologically mature. The second possibility is that almost no technologically mature civilization is interested in building Matrices. The third possibility is that we are almost certainly living in a Matrix. Why? Because if the first two possibilities are not the case, then there are more “people” living in Matrices than in “real worlds.” As a “person” then the chances are that you are living in a Matrix rather than in a “real world.”'

I heard about this when I was at uni, if this is a simulation I wish they would do something more exciting to my role in it!

Maybe the penguins are running the simulations? Can anyone prove for definite this isn't the case?

orraloon

Dem penguins is cunning little bleeps. Look what they did in Madagascar. And don't try to kid me that was an animation.

chris_bass

This is very long but worth a watch, the guys level of despair pleases me, proves to any rational person the earth is not flat, let's see if it is enough for our less rational friend


The Earth is Flat, Rory Cooper says so! Part II: The Horizon Problem: https://youtu.be/RIZbh3g16-8

pinno

Ai_1 wrote:

I would like to state for the record, my regret at having associated myself in any way with a thread riddled with such offensively ignorant and idiotic nonsense. My decision not to engage further in this conversation should not be construed as inability to address the comments made but rather the realisation that dealing with this level of stupidity makes me feel a little ill.

Oh don't be a party pooper.

RDW

Chris Bass wrote:

This is very long but worth a watch, the guys level of despair pleases me, proves to any rational person the earth is not flat, let's see if it is enough for our less rational friend

There's something heroic about his attempt, though I fear it's doomed to failure, probably because the Reptilians who program the Matrix make sure that anyone who believes this stuff is immune to logic. Which is another excuse to post this again:

https://xkcd.com/258/

pinno

Where do you buy one of these 'Penguins' ?

RDW

RDW

pinarello001 wrote:

Where do you buy one of these 'Penguins' ?

Ask Gillian?

Manc33

20,000 ice wall guards need quite a lot of penguins.

Up to the late 1950's, flat earth wasn't a "conspiracy theory". It was only after that (and Byrd finding the edge of the firmament) it has been a conspiracy. It used to just be a theory and the society was started in the 1800's.

Flat earth is the conspiracy theory even the conspiracy theorists don't want to touch, probably because of the absurd covering up needed.



If anything I think flat earth theory was set up to poke a bit of fun at science, I mean there's that telescope experiment that "proves" the earth doesn't move (the stars/sun/moon does). Well we know the earth is a ball so doesn't it bring all other "scientifically done" experiments into disrepute?

ai_1

Manc33 wrote:

If anything I think flat earth theory was set up to poke a bit of fun at science, I mean there's that telescope experiment that "proves" the earth doesn't move (the stars/sun/moon does). Well we know the earth is a ball so doesn't it bring all other "scientifically done" experiments into disrepute?

All "scientifically done" experiments were already in disrepute. They always have been. That's why the inverted commas are there. Scientific experiments on the other hand are not in disrepute. That's not to say no one does them badly or makes mistakes. That happens with things humans do. It's not a big deal so long as we're willing to look for these mistakes in our own, and others work, and make corrects as needed.
That's the difference between science and what many others do. Science, done right, is about coming up with a theory and then challenging it to find out why it's wrong. If you can't, then you start to suspect it may be accurate. You don't prove theories, you try to disprove them. Ever see a conspiracy theorist do that? No, of course not.

RDW

Ai_1 wrote:

All "scientifically done" experiments were already in disrepute. They always have been. That's why the inverted commas are there. Scientific experiments on the other hand are not in disrepute. That's not to say no one does them badly or makes mistakes. That happens with things humans do. It's not a big deal so long as we're willing to look for these mistakes in our own, and others work, and make corrects as needed.
That's the difference between science and what many others do. Science, done right, is about coming up with a theory and then challenging it to find out why it's wrong. If you can't, then you start to suspect it may be accurate. You don't prove theories, you try to disprove them. Ever see a conspiracy theorist do that? No, of course not.

You've probably seen this already, but if you haven't it's a nice analogy:
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

ai_1

RDW wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

All "scientifically done" experiments were already in disrepute. They always have been. That's why the inverted commas are there. Scientific experiments on the other hand are not in disrepute. That's not to say no one does them badly or makes mistakes. That happens with things humans do. It's not a big deal so long as we're willing to look for these mistakes in our own, and others work, and make corrects as needed.
That's the difference between science and what many others do. Science, done right, is about coming up with a theory and then challenging it to find out why it's wrong. If you can't, then you start to suspect it may be accurate. You don't prove theories, you try to disprove them. Ever see a conspiracy theorist do that? No, of course not.

You've probably seen this already, but if you haven't it's a nice analogy:
http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

I'd forgotten about that. I did read "You must be Joking Mr Feynman" when I was a teenager, there was another one too, can't remember the title. Really enjoyable book. And you're right, that extract is very relevant to this thread.
I really liked Feynman, not that I ever met him of course!
I read his memoirs which are both fascinating and very amusing and I also read his book "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", which was slightly harder work!
QED is a book he wrote to try and explain Quantum Electro Dynamics for an audience not consisting entirely of advanced physics academics.
If I remember correctly, he made a big point at the start of QED to say that what he was going to explain would seem a bit crazy and very counter-intuitive but, as much as we might not like it, the theory had been demonstrated time and again to provide accurate results and predictions. So, no matter how much we might not like or understand the theory, we had little choice but to accept it. This is the opposite in many ways to how conspiracy theories work. These guys don't like an existing explanation so they come up with a new theory. They believe it because they want to, not because a proper examination of the evidence points them that direction. They then go about choosing arguments that support their view or that they believe they can manipulate to give that appearance. They do not present evidence that contradicts their theory or go looking for it. They have no interest in challenging their chosen world view.

harry-s

Good work chaps, Feynman was a hero of mine too (followed closely by Fermi). I even enjoyed the film about the Challenger disaster, with William Hurt playing a fairly convincing Feynman.
Oh God....I promised to myself that I must stay away from this thread.

RDW

Harry-S wrote:

Oh God....I promised to myself that I must stay away from this thread.

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked"

Manc33

What is this?

31 1 5.70 N 7 58 31.80 E

Looks like a load of man made canals with industrial areas coming off it, then with thousands of regular shaped objects covered in sand.

If I vanish you know why. :twisted:

Maybe its just where NASA films the Mars "expeditions". :roll: Everyone working there on the canals just thinks they are producing normal water from sea water or whatever they have been told, with secret areas for filming the rover etc.

MisterMuncher

Looks like.There's loads of rocks 80 miles up the road from me that look like a giant was building a causeway, too.

RDW

MisterMuncher wrote:

Looks like.There's loads of rocks 80 miles up the road from me that look like a giant was building a causeway, too.

http://ancientvisitors.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... eland.html

'Is all this just ancient legend and mythology? Or could some ancient giants actually have built the Giant’s Causeway? If so, for what purpose? Advanced technology must have been involved. Did ancient man have knowledge that we have lost since? Or were some alien forces involved?

Legend has it that Fionn mac Cumhaill is not dead. He and his troops are just asleep somewhere underground. They will arise some day when Ireland is in trouble. Could this actually have meaning? Will our ancient helpers actually return to Earth some day? '

Manc33

Giant's Causeway was built by giant bees as a resting perch so they can look out to sea.

It was abandoned by the giant bees in approximately 46,000 BC.

RDW

BC or Bee Sea?

Manc33

Even Putin is openly annoying people on YouTube.

chris_bass

would that make it a becauseway?

RDW

Beehave!

chris_bass

Sorry Honey

harry-s

What is this?

Petrochem processing plant, with worker accommodation, and surrounded by extraction units.
Is there something more subtle that I'm missing?

Noooo.....I've done it again!

RDW

Chris Bass wrote:

Sorry Honey

chris_bass

There isn't a topic in the land that isn't enhanced by her presence