Conspiracy theories (meta)

Article that pokes at whale.to

Out of Place Artifacts These produce some interesting conspiracy theories. A couple are actually proven though.

David Icke reptilians?! I thought even Alex Jones thought that was nuts. Scudamore must be pretty far gone.

The lizard man bit always makes me laugh.

It confuses me. I understand "aliens", but "anthropomorphic reptiles"? That's biologically absurd. What's this, V? Conan The Barbarian? Where does this common fictional theme come from.

Well, they're shapeshifting anthropomorphic reptiles. So it's not only biologically absurd, but rather hard to harmonize with the basic laws of physics. Not that this makes things any better, though...

Actually, some shapeshifting is quite possible in nature, haven't you seen the crazy shit a some cephalopds can pull?

[[youtube:H8oQBYw6xxc&feature=related]]

Still, those are a lot of burdensome details. Why reptile men?

edited 24th Jul '11 6:39:33 AM by GoodGuyGreg

Reptiles, probably because not only are they both distant from Mammalia and close to it, they also evoke their famous progeny the Archosauria, primarily the dinosaurs.

Ha! We found the solution! The queen is a cuttlefish!

Why? I have no freaking idea. I just admire the absolute seriousness and amazing boldness with which Icke keeps repeating his claims. And keeps on, and keeps on, even though everyone thinks he's mad. It's fascinating to watch, in a weird way.

Strangely enough, I have that effect on people even when I'm saying perfectly reasonable, empirically proven stuff. I don't know if it's my emotional intensity or something, people are just disinclined to believe me.

It's probably you decide to put facts over "winning", which is something admirable.

That said the problem with conspiracy theories is that they're hard to rigorously test.

... and they're a bannable offense on some fora.

@Good Guy Greg, I rarely convince anyone else but myself. In fact usually both I and any opponent in a debate usually end up more strongly in support of our respective opinions than before the debate started.

I suspect often "conspiracies" may actually be individuals acting alone in a way that mirrors a conspiracy ala Thirty Xanatos Pileup. For example, group A is trying to manipulate things in group B's favor not because of a conspiracy between group A and B, but because group B succeeding would hurt group C, which is standing in the way of group A's goals.

That said, there's nothing really all that odd or supernatural about conspiracies. Anytime two or more people get together to coordinate activity in a covert, illegal, etc., manner, is that not a conspiracy?

edited 24th Jul '11 8:20:58 AM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

No, there's nothing odd about conspiracies in that sense, but there is something odd (and hard to believe) about conspiracies that are supposed to last decades, involve thousands of people and complicated goals like controlling the ENTIRE WORLD!!!MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Incidentally, David Icke was a reasonably well-known footballer/presenter of TV programmes on sport before he got into conspiracy theorising. I recall that at the time it was seen as a Shocking Swerve by all concerned.

I'm reading Reclaiming History. It's a book about every single aspect of the Kennedy assassination, the product of twenty years of research, disproving and exposing outright deception in every single conspiracy theory the author (Vincent Bugliosi) has read in said twenty years of research. It's fifteen hundred pages in nine-point font with half-inch margins and more footnotes than Jonathan Stroud can shake a stick at. (Not to mention a freaking CD-ROM filled with citations and endnotes.) The introduction alone is forty-six pages. It's an amazingly readable book, though, and so far (midway through chapter one), I recommend it to everyone.

Sounds more fun than Atlas Shrugged.

There's no comparison. As a guy who made his name addressing juries, Bugliosi knows how to deliver a complex argument and keep his audience interested.

I mentioned Atlas because Door Stopper.

But this really does sound interesting...

Buglosi made his name prosecuting Charles Manson and his "Family" - that of course was a conspiracy, inspired by a conspiracy theory (Manson's crazy idea of a coming race war) and which has sprouted its own conspiracy theory that there were more murders committed by/on behalf of Manson than those he was convicted of. I'm not surprised he's writing books on the subject.