Conspiracy Theory and Reality

a reply to: CIAGypsy
Hi CIAG. Thanks for posting this interesting subject.
Would agree that everything is perception.
Everything, from out of nothing ?

The End of Materialism.


A bit longer one for QM fans:

"Everything that we call real, is made of things that cannot be regarded as real" --Niels Bohr.

And this one posted to ATS recently be member DFNJ:

originally posted by: carsforkids
It isn't " Conspiracy Theory " that is argued so much as it is alternative critical thinking.
The term conspiracy theory forwards a valid argument to the trash bin before it's
even considered.

So you're whole post sucks for those searching out truth.

I don't think it has to mean that kind of doom & gloom if your ultimate motivation is molding your own understanding of perception. If your goal is to convince others that your point-of-view is the only correct one, well...then yeah....chuck it.

a reply to: MaxTamesSiva

I'm not so much questioning the methodology with which they build the internal validation of their beliefs... Rather, it is that once that belief becomes entrenched, any opposing viewpoint is immediately dismissed and any supporting viewpoint is looked at as confirmation bias. Yet, as the article author mentioned with the dress photo, there is always the possibility that both sides are right and both sides are wrong....but that we are so rooted in our beliefs that there is usually little to no room for flexibility or fluidity in our idea of perception.

It was one of the wikileaks releases that first lead me to this website. I was on a Yahoo Q&A before but once that topic got banned I left and found this place, there was some good discussion going on about it here at the time.

The 9/11 topic has had a really good thrashing on this site. The controlled demolition of WTC7 is one of those clear solid facts that something is wrong. It was a very confusing time digging through all the conflicting stories and questionable allegations. In time and with the help of the debunkers a clearer picture of events did grow. Not much in the official version of events makes sense, except for all the butt covering and call for war.

So with the official story a mess it does raise some important questions of why and how. It was the work of people like Cathy O Brian and Fritz Springmeier that takes one down this rabbit hole. A dark satanic hole pushing the boundaries of science and the human condition. The recent take down of Epstein is trying to shine some light on this dark underworld. The rumblings of how deep all this goes does match up with how the world is.

To get to this stage I have made plenty of misunderstandings, sometimes got lost down the wrong track, sometimes failed to see the complexity and interactions. I like to keep my view on things evolving as new information comes along to support, deny or just add to the general confusion of things. The discussion that has taken place here has helped heaps to sort out the facts from the fiction.

Hanging on tight to the information you can trust helps when working with data that is uncertain. We all make our own perceptions based on what we know. The debates that have taken place helps keep those perceptions in reality. Stupid ideas get shot down pretty quick with a lot of merging of views going on.

One recent thread to push my perceptions of reality is Storm area 51 weather map. I am still trying to make sense with it, as with many other people in what is a potentially dangerous situation. In time I am sure it will sort its self out as I am just trying to limit any surprises along the way.

Mate we all know who you are talking about.

That could be the case, but i doubt it...

Maybe he should have said you might be right that it's an notch to the 80 but aren't there a lot of Rockband from the 80?
Why choose this one with a logo that reads like ZIZ seen flying by?
So maybe it a notch to the 80's and a notch to ZIZ?

Would that make you feel better?

How could your statement come over without denying, anothers point of view?

Sincerely NoClue

a reply to: CIAGypsy
Have tried a number of times here on ATS, but have had no luck getting others to examine their beliefs.
Always thought it was just me that was lousy at explaining things, but communication is a two-way street, is it not ?

Nobody asks questions anymore.
Is it because they think they have this whole gig figured-out ?
Folks post in the form of statements, or broadcasting (one-way communication).
"No. I'll tell how things are"; or "I'll set you straight"; or "Let me explain the way things work", etc...

Often-time beliefs are stated as though they are truths, in the form of claims, or declaration type statements.

Caveat:
(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations/thoughts/concepts).

a reply to: NoClue

This isn't a thread to argue whether your point of view on NIN is right or wrong. If that is what you are looking for, I suggest you (continue) to keep trying that debate on your own thread....

Please re-read my OP. I stated that today I read an article (which I also linked to) that triggered a more involved psychological analysis of the phenomena of confirmation bias and/or the constant repetitive volley that occurs between opposing viewpoints of various conspiracy theories. It isn't about the theory itself....but the process of arguing a given perspective that this thread is about.

ETA - ultimately this phenomena isn't just about conspiracy theories.... Let me be very clear about that. As I mentioned in regards to the research done with participants of alleged paranormal phenomena or discussions about cognitive dissonance, people seem to be hard-wired to cling to their belief systems no matter what kind of evidence or opposing viewpoints are put forward. So my conclusion was that based upon this opinion, it seems moot to argue with someone in an attempt to persuade them to change their beliefs to adopt your point of view. Maybe you agree...maybe you don't. But I would still like to know the following:

1. Have you ever changed a closely held belief about something? If so, what and why? I want to understand the process you took to get there.

2. Have you ever convinced anyone else to change their belief about any conspiracy theory to an opposing point of view?

a reply to: CIAGypsy

So is my response in this thread...

I'm trying to show you how a synthesis works so we can stop the back and forth you seem to not enjoy but are obviously playing along just fine.

Here is another synthesis for free:

Many conspiracy theories turned out to be reality.

Taking my thread as an example for rigid POV's we can clearly read the difference in how i formulated mine compared on how you formulated yours.

But you probably just wanted to make a point and thats why you put yourself into opposition I hope i could help with the thesis antithesis synthesis thing

Sincerely NoClue

a reply to: CIAGypsy

1. The biggest change in beliefs I had was watching WCT7 fall in 2008. It all just clicked that for this to happen it was a government backed operation. To get there I saw some fake videos of planes and missiles hitting the Pentagon. As some one who accepted the official version of events it did make me question what was going on. I did not see it as the kind of thing to joke about at the time, now I see those videos as a call for help.

2. I have help people expand their point of view, it is usually a gradually process with bits and pieces at a time. I have not knowingly changed a mind that did not want to change.

a reply to: NoClue



You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

See? I won't go on this carousel with you. And your insistence to carry the debate in this thread only underscores the insistence that is the subject of my post. The fact that I referenced our initial discussion is really not relevant because the nature of the conspiracy theory or dispute doesn't really matter. It's the underlying psychology of the "perspective" tennis match that I'm really talking about.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Sure and it needs two to play.

Is it about winning or finding common ground in discussion?

If you can only be right when the other is wrong you have already lost any meaningful discussion.

Can both be right or both be wrong is that even an option?

Sincerely NoClue

a reply to: kwakakev

Thank you! I did see your previous post.... And wrote a long reply....only to have my computer blue screen and I lost it all. *sigh*

originally posted by: NoClue
a reply to: CIAGypsy

Sure and it needs two to play.

Is it about winning or finding common ground in discussion?

If you can only be right when the other is wrong you have already lost any meaningful discussion.

Can both be right or both be wrong is that even an option?

Sincerely NoClue

Now we are beginning to find common ground. This post has never been about winning anything... And if you read the link about the dress in the OP, then you would see the correlation that it must be considered that each debater's perspectives may be equally correct and equally incorrect. So what does that mean for the purposes of debating at all?

ETA - you can't "teach" people things they are not ready or willing to learn.

a reply to: CIAGypsy

Thanks for that. Had that happen myself at times, it hurts. I am noticing I do get quicker and clearer having to go through it again.

a reply to: kwakakev

I've blue screened 3 times in the past hour. I'm calling Uncle for the evening. I'll come back and write it all out again after I dig into the shenanigans causing my computer to be a ****.


I hate windows.

(Not directed at you, kwakakev, but I really wanted to add "put that in your conspiracy pipe, Bill Gates, and smoke it....grr....)

Only speaking for myself, it takes genuine life experience to truly change my worldview once set.

There is no scientific study that can prove to me that people are inherently good. I’ve seen all the evidence I need that people (in general):

Are selfish
Blame others
Take the easy way
Have no goal or drive in life
Think they have it all figured out
Believe other generations have it completely wrong and they are right
And so on...

Present me all the scientific facts you want about human altruism, I would not be convinced unless I see a change in the characteristics of people around me. Surveys and anecdotes mean nothing. Dave Ramsey says something to the effect of “a man with an opinion holds no sway with a man with experience.”

I am at the point that if someone doesn’t ask lots of questions (they think they have things figured out) I tend to not want to spend time with them. This is because my experience says curious people who ask questions are the healthiest people around. I may be wrong, but my experience is an important part of my reality.

I saw a UFO when I was 6 or so, so I’m inclined to believe.

I also saw a flying car on a highway when I was 8 or 9. You can’t tell me I was wrong, even if I was, as that experience was real to me.

My great uncle saw Champ in Lake Champlain... i’m inclined to believe.

I have spent hundreds of hours in the woods with no sign of Bigfoot. I’d like to believe, but probably never will, barring an earth-shattering event. Same thing with lizard people.

With something new to me, say the OP example, i’m fairly open until my research (should I actually care) brings me to a conclusion. I tend not to conclude until research and life experience line up. But once the 2 agree it’s hard to move me.

I have no way to prove I saw a flying car on the road in the 80’s. Good luck trying to convince me otherwise, though. I’m sure most of us don’t come to our beliefs lightly, and even though we all know that none of us hold a perfect worldview, it’s the best we have until that worldview gets shaken.

That being said, if you are asking questions and willing to make me defend my beliefs and are open to questions yourself, it would be the best way to get me, and I suspect many others, to be open to other possibilities. But if you come at me with “there were no flying cars on the 80’s” rest assured I have no care to listen to you any further.

(Disclaimer: Examples only for discussion of this topic and not for debating)

There is a very important distinction that I have not yet seen made in this topic. Conspiracy Theories exist in reality. They are bases in reality. Sure some of them are far fetched, but there are also actual conspiracies that are ongoing at all times. That is the nature of humanity, we conspire with one another due to our social nature.

The negative connotation that "conspiracy theories" have been given is to discredit all of them. It is a term that is thrown out quickly and loosely at any applicable moment in order to discredit things that another person has seen heard or known. Calling something a conspiracy theory at this time has become an stealth straw man attack. The entire point of this is that some of the most outlandish things with no basis are associated in our minds with "conspiracy theories". This is due to popular media portraying them as such.

If I were to say "Trump and Manafort conspired with one another to take control over the most powerful country in the world", it is both true and not true due to the color of the way it is said. But Trump and Manafort did in fact conspire with one another with the end goal of winning the Presidency of the United States. Because I formulated a theory that this was the case does that make me a "Conspiracy Theorist"? The answer is yes, that does make me a Conspiracy Theorist. However does that make me a complete nutjob? It shouldn't because it is the reality of the situation.

Now that I have attempted to illustrate an example of this, there comes the bias that others have mentioned. This inherently "colors" people's opinion of the statement even if it is factually true, it can be misleading due to unknown intent.

This leads me to believe that this same problem appears over and over again in popular media. We see headlines that we do not agree with, though they may be factually correct they have been editorialized to color the perception of said given facts.

All of this is gamified, it is the realization that german idealism is inherent in human nature (german idealism isn't likely what you think it is). It is based on the notion that we, do to an imperfect perceptive nature of information, have our own idealism; and this adds uncertainty about our knowledge of the world surrounding us. What this does is it allows for people who are knowledgeable of this imperfection to steer public consciousness through suggestibility.

The notion of "conspiracy theories" is one of the situations that is used to steer public consciousness, through the color of language and the general connotation given to this phrase through popular culture. Conspiracy theories are reality! They all exist be they a figment of imagination or a physical provable thing. The problem is the demarcation between these realities, those of the mind and those of the physical world.

An example of this then is, I could say "fluffy pink elephants run the universe!". But this is demonstrably false to everyone but myself, unless I were to tell you that fluffy pink elephants is a slang term for energy or some such in my mind, then we could actually communicate using the same terminology, and all of the sudden my conspiracy theory makes a whole lot more sense and could possibly be true.

I think I have waffled on enough now, so

tl;dr:
forced perception is a tool to control thought, it is being used; it is all a massive conspiracy whether you like it or not and it is very much real.

a reply to: SuperStudChuck

For genuine life experience to show more often than not quite lengthy discussion is needed and many questions and answers have to be exchangd. Until one can be shure he gets the other position. If he asks questions and tries to understand the others position and there is a genuine interest shown in answering the questions posed one can still agree to disagree.

But more often than not this argument is used to kill the discourse because you know there are heavy arguments and there are shalow ones, and you're POV is fixed on shallow ones and you don't really want this to be publicly shown.

Yet here we are...

Sincerely NoClue

a reply to: CIAGypsy

So the more honest bail out would be I'm not ready and willing to learn instead of we have to agree to disagree

NC