Conspiracy!

[JeffD1]

Thanks,
A phrase can always be made better with illiteration.

ETA: in that vein I suppose that 'Spook supposition' or Spook Speculation' would work for those CTs that involve dark agents of mysterious organizations(black helicopters and MIB)

[Donnie B.]

Or ghosts.

[SkepticJ]

A conspiracy claim becomes lunatic when it is both outrageous and there is no concrete evidence to back it up.

How to define outrageous though? That's a rather subjective judgement, isn't it?

I find the idea of alien abductions outrageous*, but many do not.

I don't find the idea of planted Soviet agents in the United States during the Cold War whose mission it was to poison water supplies, conduct sabotage on key industrial targets, etc. in the event of war between the superpowers outrageous at all. Even if there was no evidence that this occurred (and there is, there were), it's a plausible possibility. However, I'm sure you could find abduction-believers who'd scoff at this.

*As they are popularly believed to occur, with marks left on the body, implants that cause physiological responses, repressed memories and missing gaps in time. If intelligences from the stars truly were abducting people, no one would ever know. They'd be good at it. Just like we'd never detect their craft--they'd be too small, have active holographic camouflage, metamaterials to hide from radar and thermal imaging . . . or they'd be in plain sight, disguised as fauna. I don't believe this is happening, but it's possible; does wildlife know when they're being spied upon by us?

[Jerod S. V2.0]

...Area 51 is real, and while they don't have aliens or their technology, they do ultra-secret military hardware testing. Thousands of people, and they're not blabbing. How do they do it?

If I can jump in on just this tidbit: The answer here is possibly the signing of a Non-Disclosure Agreement. If violating such an agreement meant fines or imprisonment, a rational individual would weigh those consequences against the potential benefits of blabbing (which are...?) and realize it isn't worth it to violate the NDA. (Personally, I'd sign such a thing if required by an employer to do so, and then I'd keep my mouth shut for no other reason than the fact that I place tremendous value on my ability to come and go wherever I please, whenever I choose.)

[Tog]

It's more than a possibility. First there is an in-depth background check, then an NDA that includes fines and prison time for violating it. And that's just for outside contractors brought in to do construction-type jobs where the chance of actually seeing anything really secret is minimal.

[JeffD1]

How to define outrageous though? That's a rather subjective judgement, isn't it?

True, how about 'extrodinary' instead of outrageous then? As the phrase goes that extrodinadry claims require extrodinary evidence.

I find the idea of alien abductions outrageous*, but many do not.

Agreed so once again substitute 'extrodinary' and keep in mind that my choice of the word 'outrageous' was in a sentence that included an appeal for evidence.

I don't find the idea of planted Soviet agents in the United States during the Cold War whose mission it was to poison water supplies, conduct sabotage on key industrial targets, etc. in the event of war between the superpowers outrageous at all. Even if there was no evidence that this occurred (and there is, there were), it's a plausible possibility. However, I'm sure you could find abduction-believers who'd scoff at this.

Which does include, does it not, verified docuementary evidence that this did in fact occur? So once again I point out that I do not reject claims based soley upon their outrageousness or extrodinary nature but on whether or not there is solid evidence.

*As they are popularly believed to occur, with marks left on the body, implants that cause physiological responses, repressed memories and missing gaps in time. If intelligences from the stars truly were abducting people, no one would ever know. They'd be good at it. Just like we'd never detect their craft--they'd be too small, have active holographic camouflage, metamaterials to hide from radar and thermal imaging . . . or they'd be in plain sight, disguised as fauna. I don't believe this is happening, but it's possible; does wildlife know when they're being spied upon by us?

While this is all true it still puts in in the realm of possibility, perhaps even probability but simply cannot be said to be any more true than a claim that one is the reincarnation of Napolean. Clark said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic andthat is entirely true but to invoke the notion of such advanced technology would then be an appeal to magic. It is a common rebuttal from Cts that goes something like," well you don't KNOW what they have or don't have". It is an arguement that CTs use to shut down discussion yet all it really is , is an appeal to ignorance.

In my pet CT peeve this is essentially what one gets with the 'nuclear hand grenade' or the "DEW" from proponents of two opposing 9/11 conjectures, as to what took down the WTC towers. With UFOs one can simply assert that the craft can do such-and-such and it does this because 'you don't know' that it cannot. Surely you see how untenable this is.

I never got through enough of the trilogy to get to that quote in your signature, from Enoch Root

[publiusr]

Maybe this is something for untrue fact, but I'm gonna start a conspiracy that an Oil/Gas exec sabotaged OCO and GLORY, blew up the light sweet crude plant in Libya, and turned off the valves in Fukashima :0

[JeffD1]

Maybe this is something for untrue fact, but I'm gonna start a conspiracy that an Oil/Gas exec sabotaged OCO and GLORY, blew up the light sweet crude plant in Libya, and turned off the valves in Fukashima :0

You are late to the table with that. Its been proposed already, Icke forums IIRC.

The conjecture is that TPTB require that we be slaves to oil in order to make sure that profits rise. Therefore since the idea of nuclear power has been garnering greater acceptance in the world as a result of rising oil/gasoline prices that a major 'hit' to the public view of nuclear power was needed. Therefore HAARP was used to cause the earthquake and tsunami so that they could hide the sabaotage of the Fukashima plant.

Such a convoluted senario fails on several common CT levels of arguement. First one must accept the existance of a global cadre of powerful persons working solely and impersonally for their own base interests. There is little evidence of an NWO world wide shadow government.
Next one needs to accept that the technology of HAARP is capable of causing earthquakes, moving massive geologic structures and to this end one poster proposes that the HARRP antennea are constructed of alien tech. This is the appeal to magic.
Finally one must accept the idea that the core cooling systems were deliberatly sabotaged, an idea for which there no evidence.

So although parts of the conjecture are within the realm of possibility, those parts are not probable and there is no evidence to back them up. The invocation of alien technology is an appeal to magic.

fail, fail, fail!

One proponent of this is on the JREF forums
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=114

[SkepticJ]

How big can conspiracies get before they will ultimately become exposed? Is there a minimum size that could persist for practically indefinitely, if they were very selective with who they let into the group?

Some examples from fiction:

Quantum, from the recent Bond films

The League of Shadows, from Batman Begins

And the most plausible conspiracy I've seen in fiction, the CryptNet phyle, from The Diamond Age. Literally just a few, the top-tier members, know what the group is really up to. And even if they wanted to, they couldn't squeal before they died--kill device implanted in their bodies. Top-tiers' minds are linked cybernetically--no privacy of thoughts.

[HenrikOlsen]

How big can conspiracies get before they will ultimately become exposed? Is there a minimum size that could persist for practically indefinitely, if they were very selective with who they let into the group?

Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

Benjamin Franklin

[Strange]

How big can conspiracies get before they will ultimately become exposed? Is there a minimum size that could persist for practically indefinitely, if they were very selective with who they let into the group?

I think the largest conspiracy that can be kept secret is two people. And then only if they are both dead and never wrote anything down. And did something totally undetectable.


Happens all the time.

[Gillianren]

I would also imagine it depends on whether or not they actually succeed at what they're conspiring about, which is an important factor.

[moog]

If the conspiracy was dull enough it may also stay secret.

[R.A.F.]

Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

Benjamin Franklin

Darn you, Henrik...exactly what I was going to post...

[R.A.F.]

Conspiracies are like bank robberies...the truly successful ones are those which are never discovered.

[SkepticJ]

I'm pretty sure virtually all bank robberies are discovered. The thieves, however, are only caught some of the time.

It's theoretically possible that there have been co-working serial killers that've killed a few thousand people over their lives and gotten away with it. Perpetrators who've who inherited millions, so they didn't have to work for a living. They could just drive around killing people in subtle ways. But it's unlikely. As the death toll rises, it gets more and more likely that the murderers will be caught or killed in self-defense.

But it is possible for a couple of serial killers to work together to murder a few dozen victims without anyone knowing. Lots of people disappear without a trace every year.

[HenrikOlsen]

Darn you, Henrik...exactly what I was going to post...

It was a too obvious quote not to reference and since I couldn't find a way to pull the same trick I did with the Darrow quote in the dead Bin Laden thread I chose to simply quote.

[Swift]

I think the largest conspiracy that can be kept secret is two people. And then only if they are both dead and never wrote anything down. And did something totally undetectable.


Happens all the time.

The first rule of conspiracy club is you don't talk about conspiracy club.

[R.A.F.]

I'm pretty sure virtually all bank robberies are discovered.

The perfect bank robbery isn't discovered...in other words, the bank doesn't know it's been robbed.

I have grown weary of you disagreeing with virtually everything I say...for that reason, I am placing you on my ignore list. I generally wouldn't make a public statement about it, but thought you should know there will be no further responses from me.

Cheers...

[Swift]

I have grown weary of you disagreeing with virtually everything I say...for that reason, I am placing you on my ignore list. I generally wouldn't make a public statement about it, but thought you should know there will be no further responses from me.

And announcing such things publicly is considered a rule violation. In fact SkepticJ did not quote you nor say anything rude in his post. I don't care if you too have a beef with each other or not, but it will stop now.

[Spoons]

Heheheheh! Even a discussion of general conspiracy theory can draw out the bizarre and non-sequitous (is that a word? I'm not sure it is, but I reckon it works - maybe Gillian has a better alternative).

Conspiracies are a fantastic opportunity as a form of creative writing, but a disturbing study of mental instability if taken seriously.

As far as keeping conspiracies secret - how is it really any different to keeping any other secret? Is that pretty much the conclusion we've come to here?

[Tog]

As far as keeping conspiracies secret - how is it really any different to keeping any other secret? Is that pretty much the conclusion we've come to here?

The biggest difference is in the effect can be seen outside the circle that know. Take one of the most common "conspiracies", an affair. It involves 2 people (generally), and it may be in both their interests to keep it a secret. These can be hidden well enough, unless one of the people is also involved with someone else that could spot the signs.

But in the most basic version, two people share a secret that affects no one other than those two people.

A conspiracy of the type most people mean requires influencing something outside the core group. That influence can be noticed and investigated. Whether that investigation leads to anyone involved or not is a different matter, but the main point is that it's not just a secret. It's a secret that will ultimately get out and annoy others.

[Gomar]

I've gots one. So Lee Harvey Oswald joins the Marines, learns Russian, moves to Russia, marries a Russian woman,
returns back to the U.S. moves to Texas. ok. Sounds credible thus far.
But then, he joins a pro-Castro group, and finds a job at a school book depository. fine.
Then he orders an old Italian rifle by mail order using a fake name. Then, he takes the rifle to work, walking down
the street, taking a bus, walking into the building and yet _no one_ is alarmed that a man is walking around with a rifle. fine.
This is Texas afterall, people routinely walk around loaded for bear.

Then, JFK drives around in an open roof car. right whatever. Convoy drives by the road exactly where Oswald works.
Oswald takes 3 shots from a distance facing JFK's back. Then, he hides the rifle behind boxes, calmly walks out the building.
Is stopped by a cop. Oswald kills the cop, and walks into a movie theater.
But then, Oswald is himself shot by Jack Ruby. Right.

[Swift]

I've gots one. So Lee Harvey Oswald joins the Marines, learns Russian, moves to Russia, marries a Russian woman,
returns back to the U.S. moves to Texas. ok. Sounds credible thus far.

I will repeat my earlier warning...

Folks,

This is a very borderline topic. A general discussion of conspiracies is OK, but we are already getting into discussions of specific conspiracies (like JFK's assassination) and specific groups (the Masons) that have nothing to do with space or astronomy. I'll leave it open for the moment, but ask people to try pick more BAUT-appropriate examples.

Really, this thread has almost no place on BAUT. Any more rudeness or inappropriate topics, and this thread is done.

[NEOWatcher]

I've gots one.

One; It was brought up already. Two; how does your post relate to conspiracies in general?

Edit: Crossed paths with Swift who brings up a valid point (officially).

[Gillianren]

Which is why I'm not going to bother pointing out one or two glaring errors of fact in the summary.

[CounterWeight]

The term conspiracy theory is interesting all in it's own, adding the word 'theory' IMO gives the thing wheels it doesn't deserve. Number theory, operator theory, relativity theory, theory of transport phenomena, remainder theory... - these are all active topics in ways and are are not conspiracy oriented but are a work in progress with usually at the very least some sort of proveable results at some level within what is being dealt with... a term used IMO for a horse still being fit to the harness... not that either do not exist, just that there are critical and sometimes significant details or issues seeking resolution.

I don't really have a better word and the phrase has come into common use so I go with it, I do like those suggested alternatives though.

I agree with what has been posted that there is usually some obvious point where the story will fall completely apart. Milk is white, my shirt is white... my shirt is made of milk. My shirt is white, I don't know what it is made of, it was made by aliens and it controls my mind. The more clever ones don't go to such extreme and blend some obvious known like the DSN and then go on to say that it's really used to talk with aliens, that Mercury/Gemini/Apollo was some cold war gaff, HAARP is used for alien invasion standoff, celebrity or historical person 'X' was an alien, that the moon pictures from Apollo were doctored so as not to reveal the alien structures found there / or UFO's watching... or Elvis' secret hideout (of course Elvis was an alien).

With the clever ones I do enjoy seeking out the sometimes subtle shift from reality (at least the one I know) to supposition or fantasy. I think within the confines of space and astronomy in general (and by extension some physics, chemestry, math... and sometimes history) it's interesting to me what some folks are willing to believe, others want to believe. This recent thing about planet Niribu(?) interests me as it requires, depending on which flavor you get... fantastic leaps in several directions at the same time. As a sort of follow on to all, I am interested in how believing in these things affects folks lives, outlook, perspective... the psychology of it all. It seems there is something there they are looking for and if it didn't come from our field of interest it would be fabricated from somewhere else. (I am hoping that doesn't violate the forum rules)

[Luckmeister]

I am interested in how believing in these things affects folks lives, outlook, perspective... the psychology of it all. It seems there is something there they are looking for and if it didn't come from our field of interest it would be fabricated from somewhere else. (I am hoping that doesn't violate the forum rules)

Googling psychology of conspiracy theories brings up a number of books and blogs that discuss this very interesting subject. Of course the mission at BAUT is not to psychoanalyze CT proponents but to insist they back up their beliefs with facts. Actually, mods ask us not to play the role of psychologist with them, so it's good to have an understanding of the psychology of CTs but we must be careful about applying it in-thread.

[Halcyon Dayz]

The term conspiracy theory [..]

I don't really have a better word and the phrase has come into common use so I go with it, I do like those suggested alternatives though.

I often refer to them as "Conspiracy Fantasies".
Many of them seem to lack any connection to reality.