It's as ridiculous as any other. In order to believe it, you have to assume the most incredible scenario possible, in the process eschewing logic and reason.
What is wrong with being a Conspiracy Theorist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
It's as ridiculous as any other. In order to believe it, you have to assume the most incredible scenario possible, in the process eschewing logic and reason.
No, sorry. The only conspiracy I believe is well-documented--special interest groups swaying votes within the houses.
but if what you found while researching siesmic data was the incongruant absence of data for the days just before and immediately after the rig disaster? [re:gulf mexico siesmic data]
note: I am not saying that it is, as I don't know but what if you did find there was an inexplicable absence of data...when every other day is recorded with out fail regular as clock work...
what would be your reaction....?
It's a moot point, because, as you say, you have no idea what the seismic data is, and yet you choose to believe it was an earthquake anyway.
nah... say, I didn't think that until I realised the data was missing and found it to be related directly to the time of the disaster...
and say I went on to make enquiries of USA Geo about the missing data and every time I made an enquiry it was suggested I seek psychiatric help.
what do you think would happen next...?
also
you are obviously too young to remember the "watergate scandal".. perhaps...
I wonder how many people ended up in psych wards prior to this little conspiracy being finally revealed?
any ways.. food for thought...
I sincerely doubt you have that right. Just going by your track record.
It was before my time, but that's beside the point. I never said conspiracies didn't happen, only that I didn't have any reason to believe in any happening right now. Maybe there are, but I'm not pretending to have knowledge of them.
Balerion the whole proposition I have put forward is entirely abstraction there is no basis to any of it....and to be honest I sincerely hope there never is...so I am not going to look and find out...
The point though was to explore the "birth " of a conspiracy theorist....
the siesmic data maybe missing for very legitimate reasons but because the researcher is told to seek psychiatric help suddenly he believes in his conspiracy theory running through his head.. a cover up... by golly a cover up is happening..
a C'ter is now born.
I did not mean to mislead you and I apologise if I did....
So none of this actually happened?
Well, for one, I would say that inquiries into things such as this are not met with "Go seek help," so you're working from a flawed premise. Let's use your recent assertion that I was the owner of this site as an example. Here is how that conspiracy was born:
The forum experienced severe database errors.
The forum was rolled back 24 hours, losing all posts from that time period
You apparently couldn't tell time, and insisted that your post that still remained from 33 hours prior to the rollback were evidence that the rollback was "selective"
You ignored the fact that all posts from within that 24 hour period were missing
You claimed the post in which I told Bells we had a rollback due to database issues as evidence that I had foreknowledge despite the fact that I was simply repeating what had already been posted by two other regular members on the very same page of the thread
Notice how you made wild assumptions based on incomplete information, and then misunderstandings when presented with the facts? You even went on to cite my apparent "above-the-law" nature as evidence, despite the fact that you could search out mod notes which show when I have been given infractions. You concocted this whole ridiculous scenario about good will in spite of this. The information that contradicted your absurd theory was readily available, yet you ignored it either because you couldn't understand it or didn't want to. That's how conspiracy theories are born. It has nothing to do with genuine skepticism or inquiry, it has to do with delusion and ignorance.
do you really want me to do a tear down on this issue again ?
really?
I am quite happy to conceed if that makes you happy...I have no interest in the outcome either way
Not in this thread, no, I'm just demonstrating how your assertion is incorrect by giving an example of how your own conspiracy theory was born. You can contact me via PM if you'd like me to deconstruct your ridiculous notion again, though.
ok then try this one :
The hubble telescope was launched into orbit via the space shuttle in 1990.
total cost of telescope est: $2 billion USD
As you know the telescope had an error which cost a significant amount of money to rectify.
The question that remains unanswered as far as I have discovered :
Why wasn't the telescope thoroughly tested prior to being delivered into orbit?
Why are there no [preflight] test results published? [That I can find]
Remember investment over $2 billion USD.
and sending a craft into orbit.
and no apparent testing of the optical mirror system.....eh? go figure?
you smell a rat? I do....
The hubble telescope was launched into orbit via the space shuttle in 1990.
total cost of telescope est: $2 billion USD
As you know the telescope had an error which cost a significant amount of money to rectify.
The question that remains unanswered as far as I have discovered :
Why wasn't the telescope thoroughly tested prior to being delivered into orbit?
Why are there no [preflight] test results published? [That I can find]
Remember investment over $2 billion USD.
and sending a craft into orbit.
and no apparent testing of the optical mirror system.....eh? go figure?
you smell a rat? I do....
Another case of you not actually doing the research. This is just from the Wiki page:
This information took all of two seconds to find, so how is it that you weren't aware of the test?
Once again, a conspiracy theory born from ignorance.
Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article...-error-that-led-to-hubble-mirror-fiasco-.html
This stuff isn't hard to find. You just need to look.
More:
That one is from wikipedia - again, easy to find.
Oh look! I even found the full report on the optics problem for Hubble. And all with only about 5 minutes of searching.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Pz_AD2&sig=AHIEtbS1S-Tj5ptMEMmf_1lYoxzGlxsT1Q
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Pz_AD2&sig=AHIEtbS1S-Tj5ptMEMmf_1lYoxzGlxsT1Q
are you all daft or what?
see:
what is it with you guys how come you missed that the question is in regards to PRE FLIGHT testing??
if they did proper preflight testing there would have been NO error....sent into orbit
you guys are soooo funny really...
see:
what is it with you guys how come you missed that the question is in regards to PRE FLIGHT testing??
if they did proper preflight testing there would have been NO error....sent into orbit
you guys are soooo funny really...
Um, excuse me? What claim have I made that you are refuting which requires more research. Considering we have had to take you by your pinkies and walk you through the meaning of the expression "conspiracy theorist" you have no room to be telling people that they need to do more research on the topic. You didn't even know, and may still not understand, the meaning of the expression yet you are spouting claims left and right about what it entails. So do not imply that I do not know what I am talking about here. We were talking about a social label "conspiracy theorist" and explaining who it is commonly used to refer to. One only needs to be part of society to know this, research is not required. Though it seems that only conspiracy theorists have trouble accepting the definition of the expression because they don't like the label. A slut is a person who is promiscuous regardless of how a slut may feel about it. A slut may not like being called a slut and may argue the definition on particulars in order that she may use the word to describe others but not herself, but the way the majority of people use the word does not change. A slut is still a promiscuous person and if she is promiscuous than she is a slut, no matter how much denial she sinks herself into.
The hard cold and brutal fact is the telecope was loaded onto the space shuttle with out being tested..
In Quality Control circles they would be utterly amazed that a $2 billion dollar product wasn't properly tested prior to flight.
so it beggars the question why not?
In Quality Control circles they would be utterly amazed that a $2 billion dollar product wasn't properly tested prior to flight.
so it beggars the question why not?
@ SeaGypsy
you said:
I said:
you said:
I said:
have you got a problem with the above or not?
The wife is not conspiring with the court. In order for two people to conspire both have to be fully aware and willing participants in the conspiracy. The woman is acting on her own to deceive the court. The court is only doing their job in response to the case that is presented to them. In order to convince the court that her husband is mentally ill she would have to provide solid evidence of this. A court cannot just take the word of the wife that he is crazy. Even if she is a psychiatrist herself, she is not an unbiased objective 3rd party. She would have to somehow subject her husband to an evaluation that he would then have to show signs of mental illness in to be able to convince a court. Otherwise, disgruntled mates would be having their spouses locked up all the time for claims of insanity. My divorce lawyer told me the most common claim anyone has against a spouse in divorce court or custody court is mental illness or instability. And that it rarely has merit and is usually ignored by the courts unless there is solid evidence to support the claim.
So while the wife may convince the court that her husband is crazy, the court would not therefore involved in any conspiracy. However the requirements necessary to be met to convince a court of such a claim could very well require that she and perhaps a psychiatrist would have to conspire with each other to deceive the court.
Sigh.
wikipedia said:
So of course there were tests and verification. They just did it sloppily due to time and resource constraints.