Analyzing Conspiracy Theories 1
I have read into some conspiracy theories in my spare time, and it looks like there are tons of so called theories which are either just total hoaxes or misleading deceptive diversions, while some of them are laughably false and I can’t imagine how somebody would believe in such ridiculous things. That being said, there is no doubt that there are real conspiracies out there, but I can guarantee you that probably 90% of what people read on conspiracy forums and other places are false.
I have literally came across conspiracy theories that are claiming something extraordinary, yet lack the extraordinary evidence required to justify it, in some cases have no evidence at all behind it.
As I said in my other post about deception, the only thing you can be absolutely sure of are things that have been proven numerous times, by real hardcore evidence, and it can pass the scientific method every single time, and possibly are cheap to test, like anyone of the general population can verify it for themselves.
So when you have a fact that can be proven easily, by anyone, and cheaply, if somebody tries to displace your belief in that fact, he must give you extraordinary evidence. Not just testimonial, but literal hardcore evidence, and his theory must not have holes in it.
In most cases when such well known facts are getting disrupted, it’s always done with crappy arguments and almost no evidence, but circumstantial or testimonial, which is not enough.
In this article series I will share my beliefs with you about certain conspiracy theories, mostly the more popular ones. So let’s start.
Shape of Earth
Earth is a Globe, period. Anyone who asserts that it’s flat, or concave, has no mathematical evidence for it. Every single Flat Earther is probably an illiterate on 7th grade physics and geometry.
There are dozens of ways the globe can be proven, literally with just a GPS and a basic formula. To dispute the geometric formula, is retarded, however some people claim that the GPS system is rigged (might be).
No problem, it can be verified even more simply with just a stick in the ground in 2 distant places creating 2 sun clocks and measuring the discrepancy, or by measuring the stars with a telescope, or any other simple way.
Now the flat earth is easy to disprove, so then they fall back into the Hollow Earth nonsense and claim that it’s actually hollow.
It can probably be disproved too with some basic geology and a radio. But it doesn’t even matter since the Hollow Earth theorists don’t give any mathematical or physical model that would fit their theory, so it’s not even worth wasting your time with these people.
Actually the conspiracy here is probably that these movements are psyops meant to discredit investigative journalists and make them look like nutjobs.
But people are definitely susceptible to bullshit once they are open-minded. You know the saying, you can be open minded, just make sure your brains don’t fall out!
Moon Landing
I don’t think it happened. The Moon Lander looks like some junk made out of scrap metal and baking tinfoil that was made by highschool students in their garage. How stupid do they think people are to believe that that junk is capable of taking off from the Moon? (I guess very stupid since many people believe in the Moon Landing hoax)
Also the Van Allen radiation belt is very lethal, there is no way they can go through that with such junk spacecraft they had in the 60’s, in fact they later admitted that they can’t go past the Van Allen belt today, so that is strange, so how could they 50 years ago?
Also the footage is fake as hell, the shadows are dubious, and the 3rd cameraman still can’t be explained, not to mention the hopping. In some frames you can literally see a string pulling the astronaut’s suit like if it were a Hollywood studio set.
It was probably a fake psyop to show off to the Soviets, and who knows where the money went, but I am certain the Moon Landing never happened.
If this could have been faked 50 years ago so easily, then expect the Mars Missions to be a massive psyop with HD CGI and modern cinematographical technology.
ISS
The international space station probably doesn’t exist either. All the outside footage can be clearly seen to be filmed in a pool, you can literally see bubbles in some footages where they go outside. So it’s probably a giant pool in a Hollywood studio.
The inside footage is probably filmed in a reduced gravity aircraft, with the female astronauts perming their hairs up. It’s totally fake.
Some amateur astronomers claim that they can see the ISS with a telescope, but that is not true, they can only see a blip on the sky, which can be anything, they don’t see the shape of it.
Also they literally have a water pool for so called “simulation”, so the ISS might as well just be a hoax filmed with the help of that pool.
Why should the ISS be real when it’s just so easy to fake it?
Also some of those space footages look totally CGI, with weird lights like in a video game, and in some cases you can clearly see the glitches like it’s made in a video editing software.
Satellites & Hubble Telescope
It doesn’t exist either. It looks like all footages might just have been taken from an airplane named SOFIA, in a photo editor the footages from SOFIA can be edited to look exactly like Hubble. So Hubble might not even exist:
I am not even sure Satellites exist either. For radio communication you can just have big radio towers where the radio wave just bounces back from the ionosphere, an effect called Sky waves:
The Skywave effect is exactly that of Satellites, and it’s even better since the reflection happens closer, thus the signal is stronger, whereas with supposed Satellites the distance is bigger and the signal gets weaker. Also some engineers have theorized that the signal of the radio waves can’t even go farther than 10,000 miles. So how can Satellite based radio communication happen? How did they communicate with the Apollo crew which was 300,000 miles away? It’s a total hoax!
So why have Satellites when the Skywave effect is just there? Also the GPS system can be built like this, it doesn’t have to be Satellite based..
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
https://www.pexels.com/
You started off strong with debunking flat earth and went full retard with, "sattalites don't exist" x)
Why? The question is, what evidence do we have that satellites exist? The TV told us? Our teacher told us? How do they know?
You can easily see, knowledge and information beight tightly controlled by the education system and the media. And those that control those instruments, can just make up stuff, and people will believe it.
To be a good skeptic you start off by denying everything, and then if you find evidence for something, only then accept it as true.
Your making a lot of assumptions and giving advice on how to find the truth, yet completely fail to mention how satallites you know, aren't real..
You hardly exist as you (and every other human) are populated with some trillion bacteria by which we are populated with by birth. So, just how much of you is you and not the bacteria (and the same for anyone else)?
IMHO it does not necessarily have to be one or the other.
Globe or Flat, there is quite a lot evidence supporting each claim.
It is possible that reality it is something we have never considered.
Something our brain is not designed to grasp.
The only thing we can say for certain, as in most things from History to politics to science is that we are NOT being told the truth in ANYTHING.
It's certainly like that on it's core, but not at the surface.
On the surface, with whatever tools of measurement we have, and our sensory inputs, it certainly follows a pattern of logic.
There is little we can know for certain, so we shouldn't even talk in terms of certainly but in terms of probability.
wow awesome post thanks for sharing good theories.@profitgenerator
waiting for your next theory .
Well, lets start with your first statements.
Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof...
which can be performed cheaply by normal people.
Bang, there goes the theory of gravity.
Gravity being caused by mass has only been "proved" by this insane guy with insanely huge balls and a telescope.
But, almost everyone believes it, no questions asked.
There are, many other explanations, but don't try any of them at home... the assuredly do not work. Floating platforms can't exist. That would be defying gravity.
Be prepared to see massless objects in the near future.
Gravity is certainly weird, but I would not dismiss it entirely.
It's true that the theory has been band-aided many times, Einsteins cosmilogical constant has been debunked I think, a lot of the math doesn't make sense.
Yet when I drop a pencil, it falls down. That is a simple way to prove it? How can you counter-argue against that?
I am not disputing gravity, I am disputing the theory of gravity,
which is to say, gravity comes from mass.
You know of the right hand rule? electricity, magnetism, force.
It is possible that force is the same as gravity.
Or, one of the aether theories is that aether is constantly flowing downward. And it is that movement which pushes us groundward.
It might as well just be magnetism though. The Earth is a giant magnet, the solid core is a giant iron ball. We are also made of a lot of water, over 90% which is ionized due to the salt so we might be pulled because of that.
Maybe only the electromagnetic force exists, and the other forces are just a result of it?
There is a lot of evidence to support this.
I have studied conspiracies as a logic problem. One of the best thought experiments I have to distill the core of them is this:
Suppose Earth starts getting bombarded by asteroids and the frequency and size goes up a large significant amount. Your job is to determine if an undetectable hostile alien race is hurling asteroids at us or if it is a natural phenomenon lacking intention. Trillions of dollars depend on your determination because there are real actionable differences in how you respond if it is an enemy or natural phenomenon. All you have to work with is the trajectory and target information.
The form of your statistical argument will have much in common with all conspiracy theories. Clearly no matter what determination you take - a physical explanation or an alien one, it will amount to choosing a (conspiracy) theory.
Consider the allied tactic during ww2 where after they had cracked enigma and could accurately locate attacks on ships, they had to choose between saving some lower value ships or revealing to the enemy that their code had been compromised.
I have a counter-principle to Occam's razor which inverts it in domains where competition of some form occurs. In competitive domains, players at the lowest skill produce actions identical to Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is the best fit description. As the players increase along the skill axis the simplest explanation becomes increasingly less likely until at godlike skill levels the actual reason for each action is a hierarchy of reasoning that contains the entire information content of the universe.
A necessary trait of conspiracy theories is that they always attribute the causality of a conspiracy to an intelligent actor.
postingan yang bagus good luck brader
salam kenal dari saya