General question on conspiracy

MaterialismSlave · 17th January 2009, 09:31 AM

The question is short and simple. Lets assume we have a conspiracy theory wich is widely spread among the people about a upcoming event, and lets assume that this conspiracy is true.

Would you think the conspirators would go thru with it even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people. Or do you think conspirators would alter their plans?

Cl1mh4224rd · 17th January 2009, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave

The question is short and simple. Lets assume we have a conspiracy theory wich is widely spread among the people about a upcoming event, and lets assume that this conspiracy is true.

Would you think the conspirators would go thru with it even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people. Or do you think conspirators would alter their plans?

Alter. Otherwise, what would be the point of covering it up?

MaterialismSlave · 17th January 2009, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Alter. Otherwise, what would be the point of covering it up?

Yeah thats what I was thinking as well, and its quite annoying since it gives conspiracy theorists an excuse. Got this idea from seeing alot of people debunking conspiracy theories with "it hasn't played out like they said it would".

Logic tells me that there is always the chance that a supposed conspiracy is altered because of some people being to close to the truth for comfort.

Horatius · 17th January 2009, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave

...is widely spread among the people

...even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people.

Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave

Logic tells me that there is always the chance that a supposed conspiracy is altered because of some people being to close to the truth for comfort.

You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people.

If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans.

So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet?

MaterialismSlave · 17th January 2009, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people.

If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans.

So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet?

Well its more of a language barrier thing, what I meant was more in the way of a group of people.

I don't support the 9/11 example you made, killing of 3000 people that are known to believe in conspiracy is more or less a confirmation that they where right and would produce alot more conspiracy believers than the original 3000.

Many or some is hard to define anyway. Guess the question should be "How big % of the people aware of the event do you think have to suspect conspiracy for conspirators to back out?"
But thats kind of impossible to answer because of to many variables to each case.

Horatius · 18th January 2009, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave

Well its more of a language barrier thing, what I meant was more in the way of a group of people.

I don't support the 9/11 example you made, killing of 3000 people that are known to believe in conspiracy is more or less a confirmation that they where right and would produce alot more conspiracy believers than the original 3000.

Many or some is hard to define anyway. Guess the question should be "How big % of the people aware of the event do you think have to suspect conspiracy for conspirators to back out?"
But thats kind of impossible to answer because of to many variables to each case.

Well, I suggested the 3000 as an upper limit. I suspect you could put a big dent in the 9/11 CT propagation with a lot fewer deaths. Spread it out over enough time, and the only ones who would even notice would be those already inclined to believing CTs, and they're on the list too.

One thing we've seen here at JREF is that the vast majority of CT believers are also incredibly lazy. Take out the small percentage of them that actually ever get off their butts to do something to promote the CT ideas, and the CTs will die off quite quickly.

jhunter1163 · 18th January 2009, 07:14 AM

Alex Jones makes these kinds of claims all the time. He claims that the eeeebil NWO is going to do X before some date; then, when it doesn't happen, he says it was because he "got the word out" and made them change their plans. The alternative, that there was never any plan to do X, doesn't occur to him (at least not publicly).

MaterialismSlave · 18th January 2009, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Alex Jones makes these kinds of claims all the time. He claims that the eeeebil NWO is going to do X before some date; then, when it doesn't happen, he says it was because he "got the word out" and made them change their plans. The alternative, that there was never any plan to do X, doesn't occur to him (at least not publicly).

Doesn't surprise me at all, that guy thinks the world spin around him.

TjW · 25th January 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people.

If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans.

So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet?

Indeed, why would they balk at killing far more? If the mysterious "they" were willing to kill three thousand people for simple material gains, how many more would they be willing to kill to save their own skins?

17th January 2009, 09:31 AM	#1
MaterialismSlave Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 178	General question on conspiracy The question is short and simple. Lets assume we have a conspiracy theory wich is widely spread among the people about a upcoming event, and lets assume that this conspiracy is true. Would you think the conspirators would go thru with it even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people. Or do you think conspirators would alter their plans?

17th January 2009, 09:56 AM	#3
MaterialismSlave Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 178	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Alter. Otherwise, what would be the point of covering it up? Yeah thats what I was thinking as well, and its quite annoying since it gives conspiracy theorists an excuse. Got this idea from seeing alot of people debunking conspiracy theories with "it hasn't played out like they said it would". Logic tells me that there is always the chance that a supposed conspiracy is altered because of some people being to close to the truth for comfort.
	Last edited by MaterialismSlave; 17th January 2009 at 09:58 AM.

17th January 2009, 11:35 AM	#4
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave ...is widely spread among the people ...even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people. Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave Logic tells me that there is always the chance that a supposed conspiracy is altered because of some people being to close to the truth for comfort. You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people. If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans. So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet?
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

17th January 2009, 02:43 PM	#5
MaterialismSlave Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 178	Originally Posted by Horatius You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people. If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans. So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet? Well its more of a language barrier thing, what I meant was more in the way of a group of people. I don't support the 9/11 example you made, killing of 3000 people that are known to believe in conspiracy is more or less a confirmation that they where right and would produce alot more conspiracy believers than the original 3000. Many or some is hard to define anyway. Guess the question should be "How big % of the people aware of the event do you think have to suspect conspiracy for conspirators to back out?" But thats kind of impossible to answer because of to many variables to each case.
	Last edited by MaterialismSlave; 17th January 2009 at 02:49 PM.

18th January 2009, 06:39 AM	#6
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,892	Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave Well its more of a language barrier thing, what I meant was more in the way of a group of people. I don't support the 9/11 example you made, killing of 3000 people that are known to believe in conspiracy is more or less a confirmation that they where right and would produce alot more conspiracy believers than the original 3000. Many or some is hard to define anyway. Guess the question should be "How big % of the people aware of the event do you think have to suspect conspiracy for conspirators to back out?" But thats kind of impossible to answer because of to many variables to each case. Well, I suggested the 3000 as an upper limit. I suspect you could put a big dent in the 9/11 CT propagation with a lot fewer deaths. Spread it out over enough time, and the only ones who would even notice would be those already inclined to believing CTs, and they're on the list too. One thing we've seen here at JREF is that the vast majority of CT believers are also incredibly lazy. Take out the small percentage of them that actually ever get off their butts to do something to promote the CT ideas, and the CTs will die off quite quickly.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

17th January 2009, 09:40 AM	#2
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Originally Posted by MaterialismSlave The question is short and simple. Lets assume we have a conspiracy theory wich is widely spread among the people about a upcoming event, and lets assume that this conspiracy is true. Would you think the conspirators would go thru with it even if it was widely accepted as a feasible theory among many people. Or do you think conspirators would alter their plans? Alter. Otherwise, what would be the point of covering it up?

18th January 2009, 07:14 AM	#7
jhunter1163 Beer-Swilling Semiliterate Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Room 118, Bohemian Grove Marriott Posts: 15,576	Alex Jones makes these kinds of claims all the time. He claims that the eeeebil NWO is going to do X before some date; then, when it doesn't happen, he says it was because he "got the word out" and made them change their plans. The alternative, that there was never any plan to do X, doesn't occur to him (at least not publicly).

18th January 2009, 10:51 AM	#8
MaterialismSlave Thinker Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Sweden Posts: 178	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 Alex Jones makes these kinds of claims all the time. He claims that the eeeebil NWO is going to do X before some date; then, when it doesn't happen, he says it was because he "got the word out" and made them change their plans. The alternative, that there was never any plan to do X, doesn't occur to him (at least not publicly). Doesn't surprise me at all, that guy thinks the world spin around him.

25th January 2009, 08:57 AM	#9
TjW Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 9,993	Originally Posted by Horatius You've changed the premise here. "Some people" being close to the truth is not the same as the truth being "widely spread among the people". In the case of most of the "real" CTs we've seen, there are only a few people who take them seriously. It would be trivial to silence this small number of people. If the CT was believed "widely" among "many people", then they might decide to alter their plans. So, any time someone uses this excuse, the proper response is to ask how many people actually believe their particular CT. In the case of 9/11, we know they were willing to kill about 3000 people on the day; why would the balk at killing another 3000 or so, just to keep it quiet? Indeed, why would they balk at killing far more? If the mysterious "they" were willing to kill three thousand people for simple material gains, how many more would they be willing to kill to save their own skins?
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly