Your Greatest Conspiracy Mistakes?

a reply to: Sahabi

That Y2K part made me cringe for you. Telling everyone disaster is imminent, being viewed as nuts, then being proved wrong does'nt sound good.

I don't believe none of these "will end on this date" rubbish. If these kinds of people are so privy to this information why the hell do the keep getting it wrong.

On the otherhand if the world is going to end I have nothing to worry about because I will be dead. End of the world or not your going to die and really who gives a #? Whilst your alive you may be worried about dying but once your dead you 1.Wont even know your dead, 2. Would become apart of nature, or the universe, or Heaven blah blah.. One or the other of those two.

You could get gang raped by rabid homosexuals then murdered, Who cares your dead.

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: Sahabi

That Y2K part made me cringe for you. Telling everyone disaster is imminent, being viewed as nuts, then being proved wrong does'nt sound good.

I don't believe none of these "will end on this date" rubbish. If these kinds of people are so privy to this information why the hell do the keep getting it wrong.

On the otherhand if the world is going to end I have nothing to worry about because I will be dead. End of the world or not your going to die and really who gives a #? Whilst your alive you may be worried about dying but once your dead you 1.Wont even know your dead, 2. Would become apart of nature, or the universe, or Heaven blah blah.. One or the other of those two.

You could get gang raped by rabid homosexuals then murdered, Who cares your dead.

As for your last sentence, I would care. I'd rather be murdered first, and THEN gang raped.

the philadelphia experiment sparked my interest as a kid.
around 5 minutes on the internet back in '99 bunked it, i realised 'theorists' like berlitz and the likes were in it just for the money.
and nostradamus and his end of the world in 1999, whenever someone claims he predicted other end dates now, it makes me chuckle.
fyi, nostradamus was famous for his books of jam recipes while alive.

two words:roswell slides

a reply to: TommyD1966

I don't blame you lol.

I used to believe Zecharia Sitchin was legitimate.

a reply to: Lassiecat
a reply to: Christosterone
a reply to: SlapMonkey
a reply to: intrptr
a reply to: Kali74
a reply to: solve
a reply to: Orionx2
a reply to: humanoidlord
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I do believe that all sorts of life exists and thrives throughout the universe, but I've never really developed a belief in extraterrestrial visitation or intervention here on Earth.

I absolutely love the on-site footage and physical evidence that the "Ancient Aliens" program presents, however, I loathe the commentary and interpretations of the hosts. The program is visually stimulating and intellectual engaging, but I find myself formulating rebuttal after rebuttal with every word the commentators utter.

The same goes for Zecharia Sitchin. The more I began to research and learn world religions, the more I found myself at serious odds with Sitchin's work.



a reply to: AMNicks

That's quite embarrassing! Must give you a good laugh looking back on that evening.



a reply to: Misterlondon

With conspiracy theories, it's especially difficult to get everyone on the same page. There are the variables of biases, differing knowledge, experiences, and the unfalsifiable nature of certain theories. "Gotta know your audience."



a reply to: intrptr
a reply to: DigitalVigilante420
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Everyone sees the chess game, but the distractions veiling the puppeteers are very great.



a reply to: FamCore

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Sahabi

I'm sure there will be a few more before I'm dead

That is what now stokes my skepticism for emerging theories.



a reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Sahabi

religion would be the greatest conspiracy mistake of my life. I'm guessing that I'm not alone in that one.

I completely empathize, I am both a former Christian and Muslim. I wouldn't call my adherence to religare a mistake, because it has helped me grow and learn about myself, others, and the greater world.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Jet fuel can melt steel beams

Oh, it can't? But, but,...



a reply to: BrianFlanders


"All I know is that I know nothing."



a reply to: WanderingNomadd

Even to this day, I feel my word and reputation has been tarnished by the foolery of Y2K and Elenin. I cringe at it all the time.

But you know what? The end is near after all! None of us will live this life forever, we all get to meet the reaper



a reply to: stinkelbaum

Life before the internet was the golden age of conspiracy theories, in my opinion. There was no quick and easy way for us laypeople to fact check,... library research is tedious. "Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World", "The Twilight Zone", "Unsolved Mysteries", "The National Enquirer", and "Coast to Coast AM" laid my foundation for the interest in the unknown.

mine wasnt really a conspiracy as such ... but ... I used to closely follow Alex Jones and use him as a reliable source ... over the years I came to realise he was just a right wing nutcase ...

a reply to: johnrobca

Yeah, I have noticed that he has an agenda to stimulate, within his audience, the base-level emotions, such as fear, worry, anger, and hate,... yet, he offers absolutely no constructive solutions and no hope. "Bilderberg, Bilderberg, Jesuits, go feel hostile, go feel afraid, woo-woo!!!"

The, "Alex Jones is Bill Hicks", theory is very interesting, but what pushed me over the edge with Alex was when he crashed and ruined the peaceful Austin, Texas gun rights rally by acting as a distractive Agent Provocateur, then went on his own show and utterly lied about the entire event.

R.I.P.
Milton William "Bill" Cooper

a reply to: Sahabi

for me it started when watching his videos and he started mentioning events in the UK. I live in the UK, now whilst I dont purport to be an expert on UK affairs, his reporting frequently twisted the truth. I then saw him on TV and heard him on the radio, both times he had a great opportunity to spread the truth but all he did was rant on like an idiot completely feeding the belief that conspiracies are only believed by idiots ... shame

I never really got into Bill Cooper but I think I should revisit his work as Im not sure Ive ever heard a bad word said against him

a reply to: Sahabi

As far as the Y2K 'hoax', I just want to remind everyone that tens of thousands of people put in millions of hours to update code before the turn of the century. There is a high liklihood that those people saved our collective butts and to not honor or mention or assume otherwise is extremely disrespectful.

At a very young age the school had me convinced that we were on the verge of disaster due to man made global cooling (I guess our curriculum was out of date). Upon being told by the same school system that the scientists of today have figured out that pollution actually causes global warming, I believed that without question. It took me a long time to realize that school didn't provide reliable information.

originally posted by: Sahabi
Why is it, that we so easily buy in to the garbage in light of truth?

See my signature, 2 Timothy 4:3,4 and the information about the current system of things. My thread Guard against being deceived may also have some clues for ye. Other big factors are the agnostic philosophy of vagueness and the effectiveness of propaganda (or marketing*) techniques described in my comments in these threads:

The Greatest unanswered Question of all time, What is Truth?
What is knowledge?

* = marketing of false stories/myths, see 2 Timothy again, 'tickling people's ears', telling them what they want to hear as well as making it sound interesting, entertaining, exciting, sophisticated and as if a person has information that others are asleep to; instilling some sense of superiority over others and playing on pride and fear of seeming stupid or asleep, or "sheeple" (or "cretards" for that matter).

And because:
One myth leads to another

Note that the word "inexperienced" can also be translated to the word "naive" in my signature.

My major conspiracy mistake? Believing what other people told me about conspiracies.

1) Conspirators aren't omnipotent and most aren't even that competent.
2) Quite a few conspirators are themselves being 'used' and never fully understand what they are taking part in (I could name some famous examples here).
3) Money and power are almost exclusively the motivations, conspiracies are so rarely esoteric as to be non-existent (e.g., Merovingian bloodline nonsense).
4) At some levels, the distinction between 'conspiracy' and 'cover-up' is linguistic and philosophical rather than practical.
5) Conspiracies are largely fixed 'on the fly', evolving with events, rather than according to a strict predetermined plan or order of battle (although there may be prepared tactics for some anticipated situations, and sometimes these tactics are useful)
6) You can't rely on creating an "evidence jigsaw" out of details from the mainstream media. Not because media are 'conspiracy-blind' (although that's often true) but because nearly everything the average reporter writes is riddled with error and misunderstanding
7) There is no term in the English language for a conspiracy theory that has been proved true, and you will rarely find the word 'conspiracy' used in orthodox historical writing after about the time of the First World War
8) What the average person believes might be a reasonable basis for a conspiracy is limited by their own experience and you are wasting your time if you try to convince them by argument
9) Ignoring unpleasant information gives the brain a dopamine rush, so it is actually rewarding to dismiss a conspiracy theory because it poses a threat to your construction of reality (this is a scientific fact, look it up)
10) The mainstream media are not anti-conspiracy on ideological grounds; their major problem with even the most respectable-looking conspiracy is that it will take a lot of time and effort to investigate, and if they get it wrong it will be hugely damaging to the outlet's reputation not to mention a fast-track to the libel courts. Every editor wants a Watergate, but every editor remembers 'Dark Alliance'
11) Conspirators sometimes hijack the conspiracy in which they are taking part, for their own ends, because they believe in the cause even more strongly than the people who recruited them (in fact, that's why they were recruited to begin with). The original conspirators then end up covering for something they never anticipated.
12) If you treat organisations or social groups as though they are a conspiracy, or shielding one, they will soon start acting like a conspiracy whenever you show up. This is called the Hawthorne Effect and it can be catastrophically misleading.
13) More often than not, if spooks or police start stepping on your toes, they are protecting a source
14) It is stupidly easy to evade surveillance, whether physical or electronic.
15) It is stupidly easy to protect documentation from discovery
16) The 'public interest' defence will cover your ass in most investigations, as long as you can genuinely justify any apparently unethical actions you have to take in terms of serving the public good
17) Record everything. Everything. This will seem insane at the time, but the day will come when you thank God that you did. Keep every receipt and itemised phone bill, regularly back up your HD to an external, make contemporaneous notes if at all possible (even if this means going to the bathroom every 15 minutes, and if it's not possible then write them up as soon as you get the chance)
18) Sometimes you've already made the breakthrough and it suited someone else not to point this out to you
19) ...

Actually, this list is starting to morph from 'Your Greatest Conspiracy Mistakes' into 'Advice You Would Have Given Yourself Before Making Your Greatest Conspiracy Mistakes', so I ought to break off there.

Hard to tell, it's nothing I DO believe exactly.I just feel the need to adapt to possibilities.
I still can't figure out EXACTLY what a black triangle is,and I KNOW they are real.

a reply to: Sahabi

Well, believe it or not I thought New Zealand had moved. This was before I even joined ATS. I had thought it was to the northeast of Australia. In fact that issue may have brought me to ATS in the first place! Once I started looking I thought Australia had moved, why is it so close to New Guinea, all that... I think I had drafted an introduction talking about then I never ended up posting one because I felt silly.

a reply to: Sahabi
Von Daeniken and Graham Hancock got me looking into the ancient aliens factor, Archaeology 101 cured me of that. AlterNet, Robert Anton Wilson, and Umberto Eco got me into hard core conspiracy...some of which remains. UFO's? Inter-dimensional makes more sense than interstellar. I don't believe in coincidence and I fall back on' cui bono?'
When the weirdness factor is invoked, among my questions is 'why are we encouraged to accept this as truth?'

And I firmly believe that we are fed memes and our reactions are closely monitored.

I used to believe the 'magic bullet' theory (JFK assassination).

I no longer believe it, but I still have doubts about the official story. I've learned a lot about the theory that he was shot from behind by one of his bodyguards. It's a compelling narrative.

a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish
I like this narrative:

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
I used to believe the 'magic bullet' theory (JFK assassination).

I no longer believe it, but I still have doubts about the official story.

It took me several goes to resolve that statement, and even now I am entertaining doubts that I have got your beliefs the right way round. In fact, I'm deliberately not going to re-read it in case I change my mind again.