Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
pincher said:
O/T but could someone point me in the right direction of something/anything that completely debunks the chemtrails theory please? I know there is loads out there on this but I want something that is easy to digest/understand for even the most cynical theorist.
Look up con trailV6 Pushfit said:
pincher said:
O/T but could someone point me in the right direction of something/anything that completely debunks the chemtrails theory please? I know there is loads out there on this but I want something that is easy to digest/understand for even the most cynical theorist.
Look up con trailhttps://www.britannica.com/science/vapor-trail
67Dino said:
It depends what you mean by “really dangerous”. At no other point in yours or my lifetime (other than the previous Covid waves) has a disease put 20,000 people in hospital and several hundred on ventilators. That’s what the NHS report (see graphs).
I’d say that was “really dangerous”. A lot fewer than the 40,000 and 1,000 of the previous waves, in part thanks to vaccination and other measures. But “not that bad”? Like I say, depends on your definitions.
In terms of the data being suspect, numbers in hospital beds is fairly straightforward to measure. Some question the definition of “with Covid”, but then you have to explain what else would be causing this shape of variability? Unless the data is completely faked, which really does take us into conspiracy theory territory…
Hospital bed data cannot be clearly defined.I’d say that was “really dangerous”. A lot fewer than the 40,000 and 1,000 of the previous waves, in part thanks to vaccination and other measures. But “not that bad”? Like I say, depends on your definitions.
In terms of the data being suspect, numbers in hospital beds is fairly straightforward to measure. Some question the definition of “with Covid”, but then you have to explain what else would be causing this shape of variability? Unless the data is completely faked, which really does take us into conspiracy theory territory…
Because there is no direct data easily published (it is there but masked) to do with admissions and Covid
For example, you were counted as Covid admission if you had a positive test, not for your primary reason for admissions being due to Covid.
If you break your leg but happen to test positive that's a Covid admission even if you don't have any symptoms.
Then you have the shut down of NHS for 12 months to all care other than for Covid combined with many GP surgeries refusing to even see patients so your layman had no choice but to attend hospitals. Meaning a general influx of patients.
Omicron was known about not being dangerous from SA, but our Government ignored the data (well key people did) and other data such as catastrophising the 4000 deaths a day metric to push compliance in fear or what?
Noone is debating Covid affected many. Not only health but financially.
But to call our Government out for deliberately mis leading the public and the media (and by getting Ofcom to muzzle any counter-balance) is not a conspiracy theory, it is fact.
A lot of actions and messages don't make sense.
I think you have hard core Pro Government believers who believe everything and are incredibly naive, and then you have proper Loons who think 5g turns you into a Lizard who are obviously stupid. Both of those groups are "a bit thick" but there are a big chunk of people probably feel the same but are too afraid to say anything.
I don't post a lot on FB for example but I've posted a few articles or posts about how I felt we were being mis lead during Covid and also regarding vax passes etc.
I had very little interaction on the posts - but I had literally loads of people say to my face words to the effect of "I saw it and agreed but didn't want anyone else to see that I agree".
I guess a lot of people are a bit thick then
As for conspiracy in general, I believe we landed on the moon. I'm open to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job but suspect it was a horrific terrorist attack. I'm sure Bin laden is dead. I think vax passports are Digital ID and priming for a social / green credit system.
You can have a variety of views and we aren't all idiots for having our own views. Just because you may have an "extreme" view on one thing doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist in general.
paulguitar said:
CarCrazyDad said:
I'm open to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job but suspect it was a horrific terrorist attack.
Why would you be open to that? There's zero evidence to support it.Personally I tend toward the horrific terrorist attack.
deckster said:
RemarkLima said:
Please, I've only posted what I know of the smoking situation, and not an expert
Right. So why weigh in with it? Why present something that you know little about as a great example of, well, anything?A cursory glance at what actually happened will show that the suppression of studies was done by the tobacco companies, not "science". Which takes us right back to the original point: critical evaluation of your sources.
So just saying "it's the Corp bad guys" doesn't really tell the whole truth... Surely? And given the subject of corporate corruption, it may be worth of further consideration.
Anyway, seems like NP&E is the usual right or wrong absolutism, so I'll not weigh in, as clearly you have to dedicate your life to a subject to discuss it here. I'll leave the you all to it...
stitched said:
paulguitar said:
CarCrazyDad said:
I'm open to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job but suspect it was a horrific terrorist attack.
Why would you be open to that? There's zero evidence to support it.Personally I tend toward the horrific terrorist attack.
stitched said:
paulguitar said:
CarCrazyDad said:
I'm open to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job but suspect it was a horrific terrorist attack.
Why would you be open to that? There's zero evidence to support it.Personally I tend toward the horrific terrorist attack.
RemarkLima said:
OK, I thought it may be a point of interesting discussion, given that science was buried, and it was scientists in the pay of tabacco (who would have been qualified, with PhD's, letters, Dr titles and the rest) who did the dodgy studies, and helped suppress the actual science... Right?
So just saying "it's the Corp bad guys" doesn't really tell the whole truth... Surely? And given the subject of corporate corruption, it may be worth of further consideration.
I think we're actually arguing the same points here. Which is to look at sources, understand who is saying what, and what their motivations might be.So just saying "it's the Corp bad guys" doesn't really tell the whole truth... Surely? And given the subject of corporate corruption, it may be worth of further consideration.
Appealing to job titles & qualifications is a very CT-ish behaviour (look at the number of YT videos out there from "ex-NASA engineers") whereas in reality, they are interesting but generally speaking only in a roundabout way. Argument from Authority is after all one of the classic logical fallacies. Looking at somebody's actual background and history - and, crucially in this case, who has paid for their research - is far more enlightening. Ben Goldacre's Bad Science books and blogs are excellent background reading in this area.
But fundamentally it all comes down to the same point. Look at who has produced the research/article/YouTube video, understand what their motivations might be, and make an informed judgement. Which might sound a bit like "Do Ur Own ResEArch" but actually is the diametric opposite.
DanL said:
Blown2CV said:
CarCrazyDad said:
I guess a lot of people are a bit thick then
correct.
paulguitar said:
stitched said:
paulguitar said:
CarCrazyDad said:
I'm open to the possibility 9/11 was an inside job but suspect it was a horrific terrorist attack.
Why would you be open to that? There's zero evidence to support it.Personally I tend toward the horrific terrorist attack.
There are things we know happened, know the full story but enough mystery remains that we can imagine some wild things, like with MK Ultra, Iran/Contra.
Then you've got things that have unanswered questions that develop plausible but likely incorrect theories like the JFK assassination.
Then you've got completely implausible theories that are relatively harmless. Things like UFOs or Elvis being alive.
The "911 was an inside job"* is where we have left reality for the implausible and start to venture into wrong and dangerous territory. The kind of things that aren't just completely disproven but quite obviously wrong to begin with like COVID conspiracies, 5G, microships in vaccines. This is where we stop having fun and start having to deal with the terminally thick and gullable.
Finally we've got the worst kind, not just wrong and dangerous but motivated by hate. Here is where we meet the likes of Qanaon talking about secret Zionist cabals, pizzagate and holocaust denial.
This chart tends to focus on the anti-semetic but is a good example of the difference between harmless and dangerous CTers.
*Unless we're talking about the Porsche 911 in which case there is no way that isn't an inside job.
Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 10th May 12:17
DanL said:
V6 Pushfit said:
pincher said:
O/T but could someone point me in the right direction of something/anything that completely debunks the chemtrails theory please? I know there is loads out there on this but I want something that is easy to digest/understand for even the most cynical theorist.
Look up con trailhttps://www.britannica.com/science/vapor-trail
*I'm aware that this is true to a certain extent
Blown2CV said:
DanL said:
depends on your definition of thick. I would class below average intelligence as a bit thick, so assuming that this is in fact a totally normal distribution (you didn't state your source.....) it will be 50%. IQ does have some definitions for being smart and (politely) not so smart. An IQ if less than 85 means you’re not smart, all other things being equal. Being in the ~50% with an IQ of less than the average (100) doesn’t necessarily make you dim.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification
pincher said:
DanL said:
V6 Pushfit said:
pincher said:
O/T but could someone point me in the right direction of something/anything that completely debunks the chemtrails theory please? I know there is loads out there on this but I want something that is easy to digest/understand for even the most cynical theorist.
Look up con trailhttps://www.britannica.com/science/vapor-trail
*I'm aware that this is true to a certain extent
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff