Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
coldel said:
Dagnir said:
Strange times aren't they.
I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Adverts are propoganda?I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Most adverts are designed to increase brand reach and ROI. Something that has been around for hundreds of years.
Have a look into Edward Bernays, fascinating character regarding this. The Adam Curtis docco “Century of Self” is really good delving into Freud (his Uncle) and Bernays. Actually “ All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” another Adam Curtis series is also a brilliant watch, possibly bears some relation about what you mentioned about data and how we misuse it.
Fun fact, have a look who founded Netflix. See who they are related to. This is not a coincidence!
jameswills said:
Everything in the media space in an advert, “news” is the greatest kind of advert. If you’re given some information simply ask what are they selling, and who benefits? That’s a very good rule to follow if you’re unsure on “truths”.
Except that, despite what you might think, the vast majority of doctors have absolutely no vested financial or other interest in pushing any particular treatment or vaccine, they just don’t. They’re just following the science filtered through a significant amount of training.So to characterise medical practitioners as part of this vast empire of deception in this way is just not credible.
Unlike YouTube grifters who most certainly are on the gravy train.
paulguitar said:
Who founded Netflix, who are they related to, and what is not a coincidence?
Come on, do your own research 
Marc Bernays Randolf. Clue is in the name…. To be fair meaningless to most unless you know about Bernays, just another twist in an interesting tale on the history of modern propaganda.
jameswills said:
paulguitar said:
Who founded Netflix, who are they related to, and what is not a coincidence?
Come on, do your own research Marc Bernays Randolf. Clue is in the name…. To be fair meaningless to most unless you know about Bernays, just another twist in an interesting tale on the history of modern propaganda.
jameswills said:
Everything in the media space in an advert, “news” is the greatest kind of advert. If you’re given some information simply ask what are they selling, and who benefits? That’s a very good rule to follow if you’re unsure on “truths”.
Have a look into Edward Bernays, fascinating character regarding this. The Adam Curtis docco “Century of Self” is really good delving into Freud (his Uncle) and Bernays. Actually “ All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” another Adam Curtis series is also a brilliant watch, possibly bears some relation about what you mentioned about data and how we misuse it.
Fun fact, have a look who founded Netflix. See who they are related to. This is not a coincidence!
That wasn't what I responded to though.Have a look into Edward Bernays, fascinating character regarding this. The Adam Curtis docco “Century of Self” is really good delving into Freud (his Uncle) and Bernays. Actually “ All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace” another Adam Curtis series is also a brilliant watch, possibly bears some relation about what you mentioned about data and how we misuse it.
Fun fact, have a look who founded Netflix. See who they are related to. This is not a coincidence!
How are 99% of adverts propoganda, as it was said in context of films and news as per the original post.
Boringvolvodriver said:
740EVTORQUES said:
...we have mainstream medical bodies representing a vast amount of accumulated knowledge and wisdom, backed up by peer reviewed literature. And on the other hand we have doing your own research on the internet. They're not equal. A big problem is the way that the media seem obsessed with balance to the extent that they resort to one of a small number of countervailing views and see that as legitimate balance to a much larger number of mainstream views.....
The point is though, that in some cases, the experts have been proven to either be wrong or taken a slightly different view.....I tend to agree with coldel above, that the answer is to actually teach people how to use data, look for different sources and apply a degree of critical thought.
Any one who has undertaken history will know the merit of checking a number of sources before one can confirm the true position although even then there is the issue that in general, history is written by the victors.
Absolutely agree on the need to critically appraise rather than deciding on a position then trying to justify it. If I was into horse racing I wouldn't take a punt on a horse just because it was grey, I'd want to do due diligence on the pedigree of each horse, whether they had had all their veterinary vaccinations
, the experience of the jockey, etc. etc. As for balance, if over the past year I had engaged a private geography tutor for my children and needed to find a new one, I wouldn't book someone who believed the earth was flat on the grounds that the one I used last year thought the world was round and it was only right for my children to hear a range of views on the question of the earth's shape.It's a bit nihilistic if some people think
Blown2CV said:
So, now it seems to be basically which do you prefer, rather than one refutes the other.
It doesn't need to come down to whose argument you prefer to listen to in a short soundbite.There is far more to assessing the validity of scientific research than being able to find a number in a table somewhere. For starters with journal papers there are authorships, declarations of interest, funding/sponsorship, even the choice of journal to consider. How was data collected, how was it processed, have appropriate statistical tests have been applied, how is it being presented, in what context is it being introduced, what do we already know about the subject and how does the study add to this. There is data, there is data analysis and then there is intelligence, the meaningful interpretation and application of that data analysis. It is a skill that can be learnt. It is taught in university degree subjects. I've taught it on critical appraisal courses myself (for example this program, though not for financial gain https://casp-uk.net/). I would expect an experienced medical or other scientific specialist to be able to do this to a high standard, and hence I would value their opinion on something rather more than what Clive the plumber down at the pub thinks based on what he's been reading on Facebook. Sure, both will get it wrong from time to time, but the likelihood of the specialist being wrong, especially in their field of expertise is likely to be lower. (I probably wouldn't want them to fix my leaking toilet though.)As for differences of opinion or taking different views, if COVID was so contentious, why are a pretty overwhelming majority of doctors in agreement over things of critical importance such as, is it caused by a virus, or the lack of evidence of widespread harms from vaccines? You only have to read papers submitted to the COVID Inquiry to see that for many areas there was strong agreement, though I find it just as interesting to see those aspects for which the members of government scientific advisory groups arrived at a range of conclusions.
Yet there is a very small number of medics and scientists who take a completely contrary view, which begs the question, why. At least for the ones who I have come across and read their views, there seems to be a fairly limited range of reasons. Things like not having had experience of front line medicine during the pandemic, either through being retired, or working in academic or private practice and not having seen directly just how serious a threat COVID was at first. Others stray far from their specialist field and, in the process, trip up with what might be described as "rookie errors" that indicate a lack of familiarity of the subject and reveal a surprisingly limited understanding of data and how to interpret it methodically.
Upinflames said:
Professor Angus Dalgleish explaining how vaccines and their boosters are causing cancer.
Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
Early in the pandemic Prof Dalgleish became convinced that the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID could not be natural but had to have a man-made source. He believed this meant that conventional vaccines would not work and therefore a novel type of vaccine approach using peptides was required. He got as far as early design and acquired stocks in the pharma company that was developing the vaccine candidate. However, his attempts to promote the candidate for further study were unsuccessful and the vaccine candidate disappeared into obscurity. Is he a CT?
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4xFIgymUnrNShPLds...
It does seem ironic that someone who at the beginning of the pandemic sought to design a COVID vaccine using a novel technology not previously used successfully for any infectious disease, should later become such a fervent critic of a COVID vaccine using a different novel technology (mRNA).
That much has been in the public domain for a while. What is also now in the public domain, thanks to coverage by Computer Weekly (which of course exposed the Post Office Horizon saga), is a rather more elaborate version of the above synopsis. It sounds like the plot from a bad conspiracy theory movie (not least because allegedly the people involved did consider making a movie of it):
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366553435/Top-...
Having read that, does that change what you made of his Spotify interview?
Blown2CV said:
You do understand that I wasn’t saying what I think or what I think should rightly be; I was saying how I believe most of the public now see truth.
Yes I do realise that; I was borrowing your quote to indicate that even if a lot of people have come to think like that and have decided that credible evidence for a position doesn't matter or requires too much mental energy to be bothered with, it doesn't have to be that way.740EVTORQUES said:
jameswills said:
Everything in the media space in an advert, “news” is the greatest kind of advert. If you’re given some information simply ask what are they selling, and who benefits? That’s a very good rule to follow if you’re unsure on “truths”.
Except that, despite what you might think, the vast majority of doctors have absolutely no vested financial or other interest in pushing any particular treatment or vaccine, they just don’t. They’re just following the science filtered through a significant amount of training.So to characterise medical practitioners as part of this vast empire of deception in this way is just not credible.
Unlike YouTube grifters who most certainly are on the gravy train.
I know people that worked tirelessly to repurpose manufacturing facilities to achieve the volume of production required.
Contacts (some are friends now) in senior roles in Pharma and Biotech.
Are some of them involved in this conspiracy? I’m mixing with people i’ve known for 30+ years that were actively working to deceive and harm the public?
To achieve their aims they were willing to be - in some cases - amongst first groups to get the various vaccines. Insisted their families get this dangerous vaccine, knowing the risks to spouse, aging parents, in order to keep their deep cover?
Mate who is Chief Exec for a very large hospital - was going to work to make up stats with his cronies and order staff to fake deaths certificates?
Never had a crisis of confidence, blurting it out, whistleblowing….?
Seem likely?
Apart from my friend Nicky - I know she was injecting the 5G nanobots into vaccines…
(As an aside: I’ve been amazed that some people think these vaccines are manufactured in a lab by white coated PhD scientists mixing chemicals in test tubes. )
I know this sounds a bit ‘I know doctors, dentists and architects. Proper people, not like you, Reeves, you fop’. Just trying to get my point across.
Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 23 April 01:53
jdw100 said:
I have friends and business contacts that were involved in developing and manufacturing Covid vaccines. I have good contacts in various regulatory bodies as well, globally.
I know people that worked tirelessly to repurpose manufacturing facilities to achieve the volume of production required.
Contacts (some are friends now) in senior roles in Pharma and Biotech.
Are some of them involved in this conspiracy? I’m mixing with people i’ve known for 30+ years that were actively working to deceive and harm the public?
To achieve their aims they were willing to be - in some cases - amongst first groups to get the various vaccines. Insisted their families get this dangerous vaccine, knowing the risks to spouse, aging parents, in order to keep their deep cover?
Mate who is Chief Exec for a very large hospital - was going to work to make up stats with his cronies and order staff to fake deaths certificates?
Never had a crisis of confidence, blurting it out, whistleblowing….?
Seem likely?
Apart from my friend Nicky - I know she was injecting the 5G nanobots into vaccines…
(As an aside: I’ve been amazed that some people think these vaccines are manufactured in a lab by white coated PhD scientists mixing chemicals in test tubes. )
I know this sounds a bit ‘I know doctors, dentists and architects. Proper people, not like you, Reeves, you fop’. Just trying to get my point across.
Its an interesting thing when you 'humanise' people - when you read patter from a CT the language is always 'they' or 'them' a completely non defined entity that by implication has evil intentions. But, these are people, not things, people with families and friends. I know people that worked tirelessly to repurpose manufacturing facilities to achieve the volume of production required.
Contacts (some are friends now) in senior roles in Pharma and Biotech.
Are some of them involved in this conspiracy? I’m mixing with people i’ve known for 30+ years that were actively working to deceive and harm the public?
To achieve their aims they were willing to be - in some cases - amongst first groups to get the various vaccines. Insisted their families get this dangerous vaccine, knowing the risks to spouse, aging parents, in order to keep their deep cover?
Mate who is Chief Exec for a very large hospital - was going to work to make up stats with his cronies and order staff to fake deaths certificates?
Never had a crisis of confidence, blurting it out, whistleblowing….?
Seem likely?
Apart from my friend Nicky - I know she was injecting the 5G nanobots into vaccines…
(As an aside: I’ve been amazed that some people think these vaccines are manufactured in a lab by white coated PhD scientists mixing chemicals in test tubes. )
I know this sounds a bit ‘I know doctors, dentists and architects. Proper people, not like you, Reeves, you fop’. Just trying to get my point across.
Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 23 April 01:53
Now thats not to say some people are complete a
holes, those people exist, but to blanket involve anyone in a conspiracy theory by association and labelling those people as 'them' just demonstrates poor understanding and surface knowledge of a subject. 
coldel said:
Dagnir said:
Strange times aren't they.
I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Adverts are propoganda?I think we've simply come to understand ourselves too well and thus how to influence people/society.
It sounds crazy but almost everything is 'propaganda' these days; films, adverts, TV shows, social media, 99% of news...Nearly everything has to go various though steps of social engineering, be it overt or otherwise.
It creates a peculiar reflection of reality.
Most adverts are designed to increase brand reach and ROI. Something that has been around for hundreds of years.
But they are so manipulative, its verging on the immoral. You can generally work out what psychology they trying to use in real-time.
Every pixel has been though a process to maximise subconscious manipulation.
Like I said, we've come to understand ourselves far too well and can literally control people's thoughts with the right triggers.
What doesn't help is the blatant bias towards a progressive, post-modern world.
I have to watch stupid people being mislead......and I hate it.
Blown2CV said:
and that's the post truth world we live in. Previously we overall trusted empirically-derived evidence as an indicator towards truth/facts. If we didn't understand what that meant, we trusted people that were verified experts. If we didn't know how to verify an expert, we trusted people who reached the public arena by virtue of their excellent contributions to the single body of knowledge which was 'science'. Yes we just had to sort of put faith in it for the most part, but it was accepted truth.
Now we have a parallel world including its own body of 'knowledge', 'experts' and means to 'verify' them, approaches to 'research', 'evidence' and of course its own 'facts'.
It's all pretty fked up now because for the vast majority of people, either of these worlds requires at some level just a bit of faith as it reaches the boundary of expertise and understanding.
So, now it seems to be basically which do you prefer, rather than one refutes the other.
Well, when these 'verified experts' are clearly also misrepresenting things (as seen over the pandemic) because they believe it is important to get compliance in the belief that it is for the greater good, it can't really be a surprise that they have, in many ways, directly exacerbated the whole mess as well.... People, and not just the bad conspiracy theorists, can and do believe in whatever they want to. Now we have a parallel world including its own body of 'knowledge', 'experts' and means to 'verify' them, approaches to 'research', 'evidence' and of course its own 'facts'.
It's all pretty f
ked up now because for the vast majority of people, either of these worlds requires at some level just a bit of faith as it reaches the boundary of expertise and understanding. So, now it seems to be basically which do you prefer, rather than one refutes the other.
Dagnir said:
Not literally
But they are so manipulative, its verging on the immoral. You can generally work out what psychology they trying to use in real-time.
Every pixel has been though a process to maximise subconscious manipulation.
Like I said, we've come to understand ourselves far too well and can literally control people's thoughts with the right triggers.
What doesn't help is the blatant bias towards a progressive, post-modern world.
I have to watch stupid people being mislead......and I hate it.
Well of course every advert has an agenda and works hard at convincing you, otherwise whats the point. But they are so manipulative, its verging on the immoral. You can generally work out what psychology they trying to use in real-time.
Every pixel has been though a process to maximise subconscious manipulation.
Like I said, we've come to understand ourselves far too well and can literally control people's thoughts with the right triggers.
What doesn't help is the blatant bias towards a progressive, post-modern world.
I have to watch stupid people being mislead......and I hate it.
Unless of course someone has an inherent paranoia and sees them as manipulating the public into something nefarious instead of just selling more chocolate bars, holidays or cans of coke.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff