It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Proof! Hyper-intelligent Pan-dimensional Beings Live Amongst Us!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:04 AM
reply to post by Essan

This thread was inspired by recent ones on chemtrails but applies equally as an analogy for many, many others on ATS.

And the point is?

Are you going to change things with this thread?

You say analogy, but it feels more like a parody.

A skeptics' disguised insult to the believers.

A bit childish and more annoying than a chemtrail thread, at least in those you sometimes learn something.

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by ShadowArcher
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

I still say Hitchhiker's guide is the least amusing of his books - the two Dirk Gentley ones are much funnier. THe electric monk

Look, I'm not going to get involved in what could be a extinction level argument here ..........
but whilst I've not read the Gentley books for quite a few years, I do, by strange coincidence, happen to have just purchased both of them for a re-read

btw we probably should get back on topic - which is about debunking a deliberately improbable yet undebunkable conspiracy theory. And then we can move on to chemtrails, John Titor and all manner of religious arguments ...... which all fit the same profile. Well, according to the white mice they do .....

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:27 PM
reply to post by Essan


Let me introduce you to your technology. To do this, let us begin with the three dimensions of human logic plus the collective in 12 dimensions.
1 First, there is the material PLANE, which is horizontal beneath your feet, in three dimensions.
2 The second plane is behind your eyes in SIX dimensions so that, like a PERISCOPE into this dimension, as a slice of space-time, for all others, in fourth dimensional logic, are next to your mind, but all traveling forward on one SLICE OF NOW. This is why Leonardo never published his journals. He didn't invent Submarines. HE SAW THEM and sent triangulate-able data between the physical location of his body, the physical location of the submarines in space-time and the locatable state of his mind in six-dimensions to see this future event in space-time.
3 The third plane slices between your hemispheres in NINE dimensions, for the left hand processes ONLY right hemispherical logic and vice-versa, so this then allows you to JUDGE REALITY VERSES FANTASY logistics.
4 The fourth plane can only be found in conjunction with THREE OTHERS so that four MIND'S EYES become a RANGE in quantum SPACE-TIME, and all the tools are printed on the back of every US $1 bill as that is no longer a pyramid but a road away from you in space-time, and that's your own mind's eye looking at you here in the future.

We, as a species, exist in ALL 12 DIMENSIONS. However, to keep the game in the mind, you need a BARRIER BETWEEN FANTASY AND REALITY. This requires you to use your own hands for every decision so you LOVE YOUR ENEMY as it's ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION.

When you INSTINCTIVELY SHOUT, II can't believe this is happening!" this turns off the graphics of the subconscious mind. We were doing hypnosis DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS HOLODECK GAMING a quarter-century ago. All this work was done to REBOOT HEAVEN ON EARTH...something went wrong.

To use your analysis tools for this system, please label FOR ALL TIME, but ONLY IN YOUR MIND, from left index to right across your palms with the following terms: lie, scapegoat, dishonor, torture, steal, overwork, adulterate, kill. One note: The reason I use "adulterate" instead of "adultery" is because we are talking about the tainting of LOGIC OF ANCESTRY.

Left thumb represents IN YOUR MIND ONLY, the value to "Love ____ with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind." Right thumb represent IN YOUR MIND ONLY, the value to "Treat everyone as you want to be treated."

If you do not lie, then you RESPECT the TRUTH of your life's path FORWARD in space-time so you PROTECT THE BARRIER.
If you do not scapegoat, you RESPECT THE MISTAKES in your life's path BACKWARDS in space-time and learn from them.

If you do not dishonor, then you respect the peace you keep with your FRIENDS AND FAMILY as you all travel forward through space-time.
If you do not torture, you respect the WAKE you leave behind your entourage through space-time.

If you do not steal, you respect the burdens of OTHERS BEFORE THEY ARRIVE in your vicinity in space-time.
If you do not overwork, you respect the burdens YOU ADD TO OTHERS as they leave through space-time.

If you do not adulterate, you respect the rights of others to making ancestry that moves forward through space-time.
If you do not kill, you respect the rights of others to HAVING ANCESTRY that moves naturally backwards in space-time.

Notice how these are paired. Please pair these with your fingers. This is NOT HEBREW. This is its own language -- an error channel that allows you to SIGNAL when you have endured ENOUGH of any of these errors.

Notice how this draws a triangular plane in space-time, and in one sweeping decision, checks and balances all against the possibility of CHAOS. This is FOURTH-DIMENSIONAL LOGIC.

Now, for the graphics supports, programming access to the matrix, and all tools thereof, having earned 5/5 stars, "The Future's Toolkit" is the first book to teach PARENTS & PROGRAMMERS how to write software for the mind. The book is filled with comedy, poetry, and TABLES so you can instantly get the success of a seasoned expert, for the tables are set up, "if you want to achieve THIS, then you might write your code like THAT."

So, now, let me introduce you to TWO DIFFERENT NON-HUMAN intellects. There's the one that made the hand tool system. There is the one that turned its shape into letters in a BRAND-NEW ALPHABET, and then set this letter to being the first of the word SHALOM so today, when you see how we were deceived, you can see all the PEACE WE MISSED

Find all these tools at

To see how I've used them as PEACEMAKER:

Help Me RAISE THE MARINES!! FBI gave green light!!!

David Brager

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:40 PM
Whatever happens as far as people giving you guff just remember "DON'T PANIC"

how do I get the words to flash?
edit on 27-10-2012 by Bilky because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2012 by Bilky because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:51 PM
I hope, I pray that your theory is wrong, dead wrong and just a really out there idea not based in any reality. To even think it takes chances...

The white mouse is along with the monkey one of the most abused creatures on the planet. Horrible thought.

posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:09 PM
Why wouldn't these aliens chose to be cats or dogs so they can truly observe us. I haven't seen a white mouse since I sold my snake 15 years ago. Why would beings from another dimension need to take any physical form to observe us?

I'm not doubting alien beings from another dimension, but little white mice posing as such sounds silly.

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:30 AM
a reply to: Essan

The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Fallacy

“Earthman, the planet you lived on was commissioned, paid for, and run by mice.” – p. 124

I could be writing this paper because the mice made me. If I tried to argue that this was the case, though, how rationally convincing would it be? Conspiracy theories are a type of abductive inference argument; they try to offer the best explanation of a scenario. By their nature they are scant on evidence, however, this doesn’t prevent them from occasionally turning out true. This paper analyses a conspiracy theory presented in Douglas Adams’ The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, and critically analyses the way in which such conspiracy theories rest on appeals to ignorance and ‘cover-up premises’. From this discussion the paper extrapolates the general form of a conspiracy theory argument and lists five reasons why this general form is fallacious. The paper concludes with an examination of true conspiracy theories, and the non-fallacious form that a ‘good’ conspiracy theory argument takes.

First, it is necessary to outline Adams’ conspiracy theory. The theory states that planet Earth is actually an organic computer – commissioned by hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings – running a research program. On Earth these hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings take the form of mice, and in this form control humankind by manipulating the experiments we think we are conducting on mice in order to learn about our own behaviour. Humans would have no idea about the supposedly true nature of mice, because the mice have successfully manipulated us into thinking we are experimenting on them.

This paper will argue that this conspiracy theory is not rationally convincing because it follows a general structure that is based on a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

Appeals to Ignorance and Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories exist as one of the abductive possibilities in the rationally indeterminate space left by appeals to ignorance. The general form of an appeal to ignorance argument is:

An appeal to ignorance is not a fallacy-proper, nor is it prima facie rationally convincing; rather, the extent to which each appeal to ignorance is rationally convincing depends on the logical implication of the non-existence of evidence. Where this implication is auto-epistemic – that is, where it is likely that one would know about p if p were true – the appeal to ignorance will not be fallacious.

There often is evidence against conspiracy theories, so in order to create the appearance of rationality conspiracy theories have to distort the significance of this disconfirming evidence. Unsurprisingly, it is in the attempt to appear rationally convincing that conspiracy theories commit their fallacious move. This move is best illustrated by examining Adams’ conspiracy theory. The argument claims:

PC* If mice were hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings secretly controlling humankind, then we would have no evidence of such because the mice have manipulated us into believing otherwise
P1 We have no good evidence that mice are not hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings secretly controlling humankind
C Therefore, mice are hyperintelligent pan-dimensional beings secretly controlling humankind

As can be seen, Adams’ argument follows the basic structure of an appeal to ignorance, with the addition of PC*. The premise PC* does the majority of the persuasive work in Adams’ argument. While humans clearly do have evidence that mice are not an alien species (see; zoology generally), PC* discounts such evidence by claiming that mice fabricated it in order to conceal their true forms. PC* validates P1 by arguing that the evidence disconfirming Adams’ theory is part of the conspiracy. In fact, premise PC* works to discount any disconfirming evidence; it operates as a universal defeater to any counter-argument.

An equivalent of PC* can be picked out in many conspiracy theories. The Queen, Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey – as members of the Reptilian Elite – are obviously powerful enough to cover up their bloodthirsty true forms. Similarly, if the Illuminati can orchestrate the French Revolution and assassinate John F. Kennedy without us knowing, then shrouding their plot for a Satanic worldwide government should be a cinch. And of course the U.S. government doesn’t want us sheeple to know that they planned 9/11, otherwise they wouldn’t have an excuse to invade Iraq for its oil: duh! The claim of a cover-up is a staple element of conspiracy theories.

The basic form of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories thus take the form of an appeal to ignorance, qualified by a general form of the premise PC* (what this paper will the ‘cover-up premise’). The general form of a conspiracy theory is:

This basic form, however, is fallacious for at least five reasons:

1. Conspiracy theories of this form argue that since the existence of disconfirming evidence is consistent with their theory, then their theory is more likely to be true. However, conspiracy theories only fit with the evidence because the theory distorts the significance of the evidence. It is this distortion that lead to the rationally absurd result that disconfirming evidence equals confirming evidence.
2. This rational absurdity begets further rational absurdities. Consider the argument that may follow a conspiracy theory of the above form: If there really was a group covering up a conspiracy, their cover-up wouldn’t have been so obvious as to leave confirming evidence of the cover-up (in the form of disconfirming evidence). Therefore, the evidence confirming the cover-up is proof that no conspiracy occurred. The above argument form leads to impermissible epistemic anarchy where the same evidence can either confirm or disconfirm a theory, and where opposing conclusions flow from the same premises.
3. Moreover, the basic structure of a conspiracy theory takes the form of an invalid conditional argument that affirms the necessary condition. This is easy to see if the basic structure is rearranged:
PC If c is true, then there will be no good evidence that not-c
P1 There is no good evidence that not-c
C Therefore, c
Obviously, invalid arguments are not rationally persuasive.
4. In the rearranged form it is also easy to see the question-begging nature of a conspiracy theory. PC assumes the truth of the conspiracy theory in explaining away the disconfirming evidence, the explanation of which supports (albeit invalidly) the truth of the conspiracy theory. The circularity is clear, and clearly bad.
5. Conspiracy theories in the above basic form are – in all the relevant ways – analogous to unfalsifiable scientific claims, and as such are not convincing. Both unfalsifiable scientific claims and conspiracy theories feature clauses which explain away any disconfirming evidence. As such, both unfalsifiable scientific claims and conspiracy theories will fit with all possible observations. Karl Popper argued that it is this feature of unfalsifiable scientific claims which makes such arguments into unconvincing. Applying the analogy, conspiracy theories that fit with all possible observations are thus unconvincing.

posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:31 AM
a reply to: DisCogito

A ‘good’ conspiracy theory?

Obviously, some conspiracy theories do turn out to be true. This makes sense, given that there are groups who try and achieve certain goals in secret. For example, the National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden in 2013 revealed the extent of the mass surveillance carried out by the U.S. government. Prior to 2013, the suggestion that the U.S. was collecting citizens’ phone records, infiltrating Google and spying on Angela Merkel would have been laughed off as a conspiracy theory. Snowden’s revelations proved all of these to be true.

Following the analogy above concludes that a ‘good’ conspiracy theory is one that is testable. Karl Popper argued that a good scientific theory was one that is falsifiable; that is, one that can be tested. Similarly, a ‘good’ conspiracy theory is one that can be proved false. Any conspiracy theory with a universal cover-up premise that operates to defeat any opposition – such as Adams’ mice-as-pan-dimensional-beings-who-control-us theory – is hence not a ‘good’ conspiracy theory. Since such theories cannot be tested in any meaningful way they should not be permitted in rational discourse.

Therefore, only testable conspiracy theories – conspiracy theories that leave room for disconfirming evidence – should be considered ‘good’ conspiracy theories. Which is not to say that every testable conspiracy theory should be believed. A testable conspiracy theory should make obvious where/how the disconfirming evidence could be found, and ought to be believed if and only if the relevant tests produce no disconfirming evidence. Note that the argument for believing ‘good’ conspiracy theories also rests on an appeal to ignorance, in the form of:

P1 If the conspiracy theory were not true, then you should be able to find evidence that it is not true
P2 There is no evidence that the conspiracy theory is not true when there should be
C Therefore, it is true

This is an auto-epistemic and hence non-fallacious appeal to ignorance.

The difference between a ‘good’ conspiracy theory and a fallacious one is testability. If a conspiracy theory cannot be tested because the conspiracy is supposedly so complete as to introduce a sort of global scepticism over any evidence (or absence thereof), then the conspiracy theory will be based on a fallacious appeal to ignorance. Where a conspiracy theory leaves room to be proved wrong, then it is worth investigating. If disproving evidence does not emerge, then it is not fallacious to mount an appeal to ignorance in support of the unfalsified conspiracy theory.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in