Self selection in conspiracy theorists

[_Res Ipsa]

Thanks for that, Res Ipsa. I appreciate your having taken the time.

But back to something you said previously,

I think the point of the paper is that people don't just wander in to online conspiracy forums and get sucked into conspiracy theories. "Conversion" to a conspiracy theory happens by some other mechanism, then they seek out online conspiracy forums.

In my opinion, that same rule applies to every other subreddit in the whole of reddit.com, not just the single one regarding conspiracies. . . wouldn't you agree?

I actually have no idea. Are the people who post at r/exmormon all folks who were exemormon before they started reading and posting there, or do some believing Mormons start posting there and at some point decide to become ex-mormons. I think the study is testing the CT equivalent of the LDS claim that even faithful members risk having their testimonies destroyed by reading anti-mormon literature. Does r/exmormon suck believing Mormons into becoming exmormons? Does r/conspiracy suck people into conspiratorial thinking? According to the study, the answer to the latter question is generally "no."

I did a little reading today on the two examples you mentioned. The Tuskeegee Experiment was exposed by a whistleblower. The evidence of a conspiracy was developed the old fashioned way: documentary research, interviews, and FOIA requests. I couldn't find anything to indicate that conspiracy theorists were involved.

Project Paperclip was exposed by journalists. It sort of illustrates the difference between anomaly hunting and plain old factual investigation. An anomaly hunter would notice that there sure were lots of German scientists around and jump directly to the conclusion that the cause was a conspiracy. Who knows whether they would have picked the actual conspiracy that existed. The actual investigation consisted of research and interviews to find out exactly who these scientists were and how they got to the U.S. So, lots of good old fashioned legwork and, again, lots of FOIA requests.

In both cases, there is actual evidence of an agreement to carry out a plan and the steps that were taken to carry out the plan. In neither case was the conspiracy presumed from the start based on alleged factual anomalies.

A good contrast is the faked moon landing CT. There, you don't have government documents of a conspiracy within NASA. You don't have a camera man or sound technician as a witness. It's all alleged anomalies: explain why the flag waves when there is no wind; explain why there are no stars in the sky; explain why the shadows are wrong. There are too many unanswered questions: it must have been fake.

If someone's argument for the existence of a conspiracy consists of: Explain this! Oh yeah, well explain this! And explain this and this and this and this and this, you're dealing with CT. Other clues: "this can't be an accident or coincidence." "see all the people that benefitted from this?" "connections" between individuals or events that don't lead to actual evidence of an agreement or plan; anyone who uses the word "sheeple"; connecting dots without actual evidence that the dots have some connection.

[_Dr Exiled]

Cui bono (who benefits) is a good question to ask when investigating crime. Motive seems to point to the universe of possible perps and investigators use this fact to aid in their investigations. Conspiracies happen all the time and your local court is filled with them. Even the elites dabble in conspiracies like Enron when they are taking time off from ruling us and giving back, allegedly. Prince Andrew seems to have been involved with Epstein and his recent BBC interview seems to have led to his supposed banishment from public life. Further, and more importantly, calling/dismissing someone a conspiracy theorist seems to be a great way to silence criticism. If I were defending a client in the media, I would accuse the accusers of being illogical conspiracy theorists and try to paint them as crazies in my attempt to gaslight them.

[_Icarus]

Do you have any sources you'd like someone like myself to read in order to understand your position better?

In my opinion, the photos and footage must be viewed and not merely read about in order to get an accurate appreciation of all the data. If I had to pick a single documentary that most comprehensively encapsulates my views on this topic, it'd be this one:

Loose Change 2nd Edition (HD) FULL MOVIE

Do you really believe a video published by an 18 year old college drop out is where the "truth" is going to be found? What if I told you that nearly 20 years later, this same guy refuses to say whether he still believes 9/11 was an inside job, and that he admits to backing off many of his claims such as the "fake" Osama bin Laden video which he says can easily be explained by the contrast ratio in bad footage making him look fatter.

I remember back around 2008 I had some guys give me a hard time for not accepting this Loose Change "documentary". I remember pointing out some hilarious gaffs that were made in that film that should have been obvious to anyone willing to do a basic google search, and one that comes to mind involves his claim that a B-52 bomber once crashed into the Empire State building many many years ago and the building didn't collapse. The time of the crash actually happened before the B-52 was produced and the actual plane that crashed into it was significantly smaller than the planes that rammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Oooops?

Popular Mechanics did a full debunking of the claims made in this film, but I'm not sure how we can put their credibility up against the likes of this one kid.

[_Smokey]

Imagine believing Donald Rumsfield

[_Dr. Shades]

Do you really believe a video published by an 18 year old college drop out is where the "truth" is going to be found?

Let me answer your question with a question: If an unemployed, homeless, drug-addicted high school dropout recorded a three-second video in which he faces the camera and says, "Two plus two equals four," will you really believe that such a video is where the truth is going to be found, especially after viewing it?

You see, I tend to evaluate data based on the merits thereof, not on the birthdate, favorite color, social security number, etc. of the one presenting it.

What if I told you that nearly 20 years later, this same guy refuses to say whether he still believes 9/11 was an inside job, and that he admits to backing off many of his claims such as the "fake" Osama bin Laden video which he says can easily be explained by the contrast ratio in bad footage making him look fatter.

Then I'd be interested in having him give a running commentary of his film, showing which footage is contrived or made up and which is authentic.

I remember pointing out some hilarious gaffs that were made in that film that should have been obvious to anyone willing to do a basic google search, and one that comes to mind involves his claim that a B-52 bomber once crashed into the Empire State building many many years ago and the building didn't collapse. The time of the crash actually happened before the B-52 was produced and the actual plane that crashed into it was significantly smaller than the planes that rammed into the World Trade Center on 9/11. Oooops?

Fine, but that doesn't magically alter the raw 9/11 footage included in the documentary.

Popular Mechanics did a full debunking of the claims made in this film, but I'm not sure how we can put their credibility up against the likes of this one kid.

Sort of like how John Gee's claims about the Book of Abraham must be swallowed hook, line, and sinker, solely because he has a Ph.D. in Egyptology, over the claims of Brent Metcalfe, because he doesn't?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Again, thanks.

No worries. I have Loose Change, 2nd Edition up and will watch it shortly. I talked with my wife about this just a second ago, because this is so surprising to me. What's your take on Flight 93?

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

Let me answer your question with a question: If an unemployed, homeless, drug-addicted high school dropout recorded a three-second video in which he faces the camera and says, "Two plus two equals four," will you really believe that such a video is where the truth is going to be found, especially after viewing it?

I'd believe the video because I already independently know that 2+2=4. I wouldn't be learning anything from it. If, instead, the drug-addicted high school drop out faced the camera and explained a complex math subject that violated what I thought I understood about math and had failed to convince mathematicians despite his argument being well known, then yeah, I'd be really skeptical of the video in part because of his credentials.

Sort of like how John Gee's claims about the Book of Abraham must be swallowed hook, line, and sinker, solely because he has a Ph.D. in Egyptology, over the claims of Brent Metcalfe, because he doesn't?

More like, whenever a legitimate expert touches Mormon apologist claims they put them through the ringer, but that doesn't stop fans of Mormon apologetics from thinking this small, rag-tag group has upturned entire subfields of history.

[_Icarus]

Let me answer your question with a question: If an unemployed, homeless, drug-addicted high school dropout recorded a three-second video in which he faces the camera and says, "Two plus two equals four," will you really believe that such a video is where the truth is going to be found, especially after viewing it?

That's really not a valid comparison because this is a commonly accepted truth and even high school drop outs understand 1st grade level math.

With respect to Loose Change, you're accepting wild conspiracy claims supported by nothing other than an 18 year old kid's say so and his deceptive attempts to connect dots he no longer believes exist. Here is a list of the top lies in the film that have been thoroughly debunked.

You see, I tend to evaluate data based on the merits thereof, not on the birthdate, favorite color, social security number, etc. of the one presenting it.

But credibility matters, especially when you're bucking all the evidence and logic to the contrary. There is no "data" in Loose Change other than the bald assertions of a child and his endless attempts to recreate history and cast doubt by making numerous debunked claims. The B-52 example was enough to dismiss anything else he had to say because it proves he's not a serious person at all and is just creating evidence to support his conclusion.

Then I'd be interested in having him give a running commentary of his film, showing which footage is contrived or made up and which is authentic.

But he's said he won't do that. He does tell us that this film was not based strictly on data, but rather emotion. He won't go into the details of what he got wrong, likely because he's embarrassed by it.

The “9/11 was an inside job” guy has some regrets

Question: Has your position on any of the claims made shifted?

Answer: I don't know. Like, the Bin Laden footage and how it didn't look like him? [One of the film’s claim is that video footage of Bin Laden taking responsibility for 9/11 was faked; the supposition being it was a body double, evidenced by how overweight he looked.] What I think happened was the aspect ratio got screwed up, and when the footage was put on the internet, he looked fatter. Little things like that. I still believe there were suspicious stock trades, that people made a shit-load of money off 9/11, that we don't know who they are. But for a lot of the movie, I was relying on resources I had available. I don’t want to go through and set up “gotcha” moments. People keep asking us for an HD version, and we’re just putting it up so people can watch it.

Question: Do you still think 9/11 was an “inside job?”

Answer: I can’t answer that. Because “inside job” has a stigma, so I can’t without being set-up for something. Directors make movies, then they make more movies. They’re capsules of where the world is, and where the director is at the time. Are there a pile of questions about 9/11 that have yet to be addressed? Yeah, I think that’s absolutely fair to say. If I’d have known that by putting out that film I was going to have to spend the rest of my life still having to say whether I agree with it, I don’t know if I would’ve. I was angry about something at the time, and that was my way of expressing it.

Fine, but that doesn't magically alter the raw 9/11 footage included in the documentary.

If the raw footage proved the points he wanted to make then they'd be widely accepted by experts as well. And he wouldn't need to have lied about B-52 crashing into the Empire State building to establish the point he was trying to prove.

Sort of like how John Gee's claims about the Book of Abraham must be swallowed hook, line, and sinker, solely because he has a Ph.D. in Egyptology, over the claims of Brent Metcalfe, because he doesn't?

John Gee has an established history of lying the same as the producer of Loose Change, and John Gee is very much like this producer because he is also a laughing stock among experts in that field of study. Comparing Metcalfe to an 18 year old conspiracy theorist who has been busted for lying more than a dozen times in such a short video, is ridiculous.

[Guest]

Voof. I’m 3/4’s through this, hrm, film, and I already have a headache. I mean, I’m going to finish watching out of respect for Dr. Shades, but man, I’m getting this sinking feeling akin to all the political talk with our Conservative counterparts with regard to understanding an issue, basic functions of the government, and the hows and whys things need to happen in a certain fashion. In other words, we’re going to throw Occam’s Razor out the window in favor of a complex and multi-layered conspiracy where thousands of people have incredibly kept their collective mouths shut.

Amazing. I wonder what the psychology behind a Truther is...

edit: Finished. I’ll probably have some questions for you Dr. Shades, but I have some other things I need to do today before I get to this.

- Doc

[_DarkHelmet]

Shades, smokey jumped into the 9/11 debate on your side. That should be all you need to know about your position. ;)