Conspiracy Theories on this forum

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by rei

...
i've noticed that many times the american public is given info about space exploration, there's a war going on at the same time.
...

Re-reading this, it struck me: the american public might go out and get informed themselves instead of waiting to be spoonfed by 'the powers that be'.

In this I do agree with the CT's (oh, the horror! ): it can't hurt to take care of being educated on issues important to you. Lessens the chances of evil powers wanting to brainwash you.

[rei]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Re-reading this, it struck me: the american public might go out and get informed themselves instead of waiting to be spoonfed by 'the powers that be'.

In this I do agree with the CT's (oh, the horror! ): it can't hurt to take care of being educated on issues important to you. Lessens the chances of evil powers wanting to brainwash you.

you agree with the CTs?
ha!

i'm all about getting informed yourself, and in the current culture with all the options that's very easy so i really don't understand folks (like some of my own relatives) who just want a single network for their news, and when something major happens they watch those 24-hr news networks. i think one of my relatives is addicted to mainstream news, and so then she stocks her emergency supplies in a lot of random places... wow.

so i agree about getting your own info, it seems many people would rather follow than lead, 'tell me what to think, tell me what is important in my life' - not for me!

but when the vietnam lunar landing stuff was going on, there weren't as many sources of info that the general masses could explore. so while you are right about today, i think what you said is illogical in reference to the 60s.

the counter culture of the 60s was an excellent news source, but there were 'straights' or squares or whatever who were not into the counter-culture, who sometimes even discriminated against them - can't apply for a job here if you have long hair, etc. so as far as those 'squares' or non-counter-culture people are concerned, it seems they were basically limited to network tv and newspapers or magazines. none of those options are generally very good at sharing alternative perspectives, or they weren't generally very good at it in that era. but i wasn't born until the 80s so i am by no means an expert.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by rei

spirit, i admit there were probably some inconsistencies and flaws in my argument about the lunar landing. i honestly don't know whether i believe it was a hoax or real. and i wasn't saying war and space exploration go hand in hand, only that there seems to be a pattern of space-related mass announcements happening during unpopular wars.

It wasn't something I noticed but that doesn't mean it isn't true .

here's a wikipedia quote (not the most authoritative source, but this statement has a citation): "The United States entered the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment. Military advisors arrived beginning in 1950. U.S. involvement escalated in the early 1960s, with U.S. troop levels tripling in 1961 and tripling again in 1962.[13]" [my italics]

Correct - what is stuck in my memory is the period '65-'70 when most US soldiers were there. Officially it never was a war if I remember correctly.

In the 40s/50s Vietnam was left by the French (former French colony). The Americans didn't like Vietnam possibly becoming Communist territory so stepped in. Cold War in optima forma.

and at the beginning of that entry, it says the conflict started in 1959(Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). troop levels tripled the same year Kennedy announced the intention to land on the moon. even if the landing was authentic, i still find it weird that so often major space projects are announced, or new space advancements are made, during unpopular wars. puzzling really.

I think the tension between USSR and USA was on many fronts: Cold War, trade, diplomacy and space exploration. In the 50s and early 60s the USSR was way ahead of the USA re space exploration and (unmanned) rockets, hence Kennedy's announcement with the ulterior motive to make the USA #1 in this area.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by rei

...but when the vietnam lunar landing stuff was going on, there weren't as many sources of info that the general masses could explore. so while you are right about today, i think what you said is illogical in reference to the 60s.
...

Well there was no internet but there were many possibilities to find out anyway. One had to follow the news, research publications from scientists, documentaries, read books, journals such as Scientific American etc. So it's not that illogical I think.

I grew up before the internet was widespread (I find it hard to believe now ) and there were loads of publicly available information. It took much more time to collect it yes, but it was there.

[rei]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Well there was no internet but there were many possibilities to find out anyway. One had to follow the news, research publications from scientists, documentaries, read books, journals such as Scientific American etc. So it's not that illogical I think.

how do you know most of the forms of media you listed were committed to sharing truth even if it went against established perspectives? my favorite pleasure reading is SciAm Mind, and they don't really tread very far past the boundary between established, almost dogmatic approaches to science, and the things that might be more on the fringe but are still worthy of dissemination. my sense is that in that time period, unless you really dug through a lot of material in a college library, your options basically consisted of materials that reinforced a primarily mainstream view.

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I grew up before the internet was widespread (I find it hard to believe now ) and there were loads of publicly available information. It took much more time to collect it yes, but it was there.

more time to collect it means increased chance someone will decide it's not worth the trouble. so yes, it was there, but i think we need to consider realistically how much the average person is willing to work at getting to the truth. frankly, finding truth that feels right to you takes a lot of work. and i'm not sure most americans, non-counter-culture americans, from that time would be interested in doing that. wouldn't they be more likely to assume the talking tv heads were telling them what they needed to know? that's what i meant in the earlier post when i said americans seemed less suspicious of organized entities (gov't., media) then.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by rei

how do you know most of the forms of media you listed were committed to sharing truth even if it went against established perspectives?

How do you know they don't?

For me, I compare different sources and form my opinion on them. Much more I cannot do (or don't want to do).

my favorite pleasure reading is SciAm Mind, and they don't really tread very far past the boundary between established, almost dogmatic approaches to science, and the things that might be more on the fringe but are still worthy of dissemination.

Maybe so. SciAm etc cater to a specific readers group. As all media do. They are not obliged to address 'fringe science'.

my sense is that in that time period, unless you really dug through a lot of material in a college library, your options basically consisted of materials that reinforced a primarily mainstream view.

Not only then, now too. There's simply too much information too digest on many many topics. We all have to learn to shift gold from the sand, quickly decide what is valuable and what is not.

more time to collect it means increased chance someone will decide it's not worth the trouble. so yes, it was there, but i think we need to consider realistically how much the average person is willing to work at getting to the truth. frankly, finding truth that feels right to you takes a lot of work. and i'm not sure most americans, non-counter-culture americans, from that time would be interested in doing that. wouldn't they be more likely to assume the talking tv heads were telling them what they needed to know? that's what i meant in the earlier post when i said americans seemed less suspicious of organized entities (gov't., media) then.

Again, not only then, but also now. See e.g. 9/11, the War on Terrorism etc.

But even if you're right, there's no way (I think) the 'fake' moon landings could have been kept secret from e.g. the Russians and the Chinese who had an interest to publish such a fake about their biggest rival. The humiliation for the USA would simply have been too much of a risk. And for what benefit?

I repeat my point about CT and logical reasoning. CTs I have seen are too complicated, too unlogical if you think it through, too much fear mongering, too much blaming, complaining and disempowerment.

And in the case a CT is correct (I don't say conspiracies don't exist at all) not much is done about it (and not very effectively either) by the people who believe them.

[ar81]

The expenses scandal may seem disempowering in UK if you love the system statu quo. But the denounces imply that there is more freedom of speech in UK than in some other countries. In other countries, such scandal would remain as a conspiracy theory, undiscovered.

When the financial crisis popped, I was called "socialist" by some Americans because I opposed unemployment in US, and I saw US citizen as more important than banks (enemy of capitalism?). They thought I had a conspiracy theory against "honest bankers", so they applied social rejection and they got to ban me from their forum. Time told a truth.

[Brutha]

spirit, i admit there were probably some inconsistencies and flaws in my argument about the lunar landing. i honestly don't know whether i believe it was a hoax or real. and i wasn't saying war and space exploration go hand in hand, only that there seems to be a pattern of space-related mass announcements happening during unpopular wars.

The US is always at war.

In some sense the fact that Bush focused on patriotism lead both to the Iraq war and to the Mars idea. Both are bad ideas and a waste of money, but the Iraq war was a lot worse, after all it's no problem to simply cancel the Mars mission.
I would consider the XPrize a much more important space advancement that happened in the last decade.
The ISS is also more important than Bush's Mars idea.

The expenses scandal may seem disempowering in UK if you love the system statu quo. But the denounces imply that there is more freedom of speech in UK than in some other countries. In other countries, such scandal would remain as a conspiracy theory, undiscovered.

The amount of money that involved in the expense scandal is insignificant.
The behavior also doesn't create much other damage like increasing the chance that a war gets started somewhere.
It's a similar discussion to Clinton's sex scandal.
Both are mainstream media manufactured scandals about personal failings of politicians but aren't really about much political substance.

[amj]

Some conspiracy theories are true. Some are not true. There is a quote that goes something like this, "Be prepared to accept the truth no matter what source it comes from."