Has any Conspiracy Theory ever turned out to be True? [W:499]

[Mark F]

So the government rejects a secret conspiracy.....therefore everything is a secret conspiracy. Makes total sense. :roll:

CT's get quite irate that I point out the only significance of Northwoods is that it proves da gubmint rejects false flags. Oddly, it seems not to have occurred to most of them.

A majority of CT's who bring up Northwoods have also never read the document and have no idea what is actually in it. We had a bit of a discussion about that last year, with the usual duck/dodge/evade from one particular poster every time I demonstrated his claims about what was in Northwoods were false.

 

[Pin dÁr]

You still don't get it, do you.

Errrrrrrr


Nah.

 

[Tigerace117]

CT's get quite irate that I point out the only significance of Northwoods is that it proves da gubmint rejects false flags. Oddly, it seems not to have occurred to most of them.

A majority of CT's who bring up Northwoods have also never read the document and have no idea what is actually in it. We had a bit of a discussion about that last year, with the usual duck/dodge/evade from one particular poster every time I demonstrated his claims about what was in Northwoods were false.

Reading requires effort. Easier to just google "conspiracy theories" and pick one at random.

 

[Tigerace117]

Errrrrrrr


Nah.

Would you like me to explain?

 

[Pin dÁr]

Would you like me to explain?

Errrrr

Nah


Better leave me alone, you are too strange

lol

 

[Tigerace117]

Errrrr

Nah


Better leave me alone, you are too strange

lol

Even more ironic.

 

[Mark F]

Even more ironic.

Evasive trickery need not be rewarded with response. It only encourages more evasive trickery.

 

[jimithyashford]

Those are not things that started out as CT's that later turned out to be true.

But did they? Were these things that were theorized prior to their general revelation. As far as I know none of these have any literature or conversation about them to any degree of meaningful specificity prior to their revelation.

Except like, the Mafia, which I would not really could since it fails the third criteria, I have plenty of literature that references powerful organized stretching back easily into pre-civil war times. Maybe not specifically an Italian based one, but the concept of their being secretive organized crime syndicates....that would count as something generally believed.

 

[jimithyashford]

There are a couple of people on here that really got the thrust of the question, which I do appreciate, and several that replied without, apparently, actually reading all three criteria, because they gave me examples that fail the first criteria.

The point of this line of reasoning is this: There is nothing wrong with theorizing about the truth a situation, or trying to get to the truth of a situation. That is great. There are a number of ways you might go about trying to do that. The Scientific Method is a great one, The Investigative Journalism Method, when preformed responsibly by good journalists, can certainly have great results, but then you have the Conspiracy Theory Method. Which, unlike the first two methods, which are based on what you DO know and what information you CAN find, is based on and fueled by what you don't or can't know.

Conspiracy Theory reasoning is the only kind of reasoning out there where a lack of evidence for your theory, or even direct evidence against your theory, is actually evidence for your theory, because OF COURSE if your theory is right "they" will want to cover up the evidence or give you false information. In short, it's unfalsefiable, because anything what would falsify it just strengthens it.

And as we all know, or at least should know, being unfalsifiable is an unmistakable hallmark of a bad idea.

But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If this Conspiracy Theory approach turned out to have a high degree of accuracy, even if I don't like the method, then I would have to respect it anyway. But it's not right most of the time, or even some of the time. As far as I can tell no Conspiracy Theory that wasn't either worthlessly vague or mundane in nature has every turned out to be true, ever, a single time.

That really should give people who peddle in these theories pause, should it not?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Those are not things that started out as CT's that later turned out to be true.

Actually, they were.

I grew up in the 60's -70's and often heard rumors about the CIA testing people using drugs, that there were FBI agents working to subvert the civil rights movement, and that stories in the news were made up by the CIA.

As for Operation Northwoods? The idea of "False Flag" operations was around for a while after the Nazi "Burning of the Reichstag" was revealed. There were all sorts of conspiracy theories about how our own government may do the same and there still are (9/11 for example). Operation Northwoods is evidence that our own government plotted it once. If it could once, why not again? :coffeepap:

 

[jimithyashford]

Actually, they were.

I grew up in the 60's -70's and often heard rumors about the CIA testing people using drugs, that there were FBI agents working to subvert the civil rights movement, and that stories in the news were made up by the CIA.

As for Operation Northwoods? The idea of "False Flag" operations was around for a while after the Nazi "Burning of the Reichstag" was revealed. There were all sorts of conspiracy theories about how our own government may do the same and there still are (9/11 for example). Operation Northwoods is evidence that our own government plotted it once. If it could once, why not again? :coffeepap:

I strongly suspect that these memories you have are not quite true and are back-filled over the decades. I'm not calling you a liar, its a perfectly normal natural thing humans do, but it's also why first hand accounts of decades old memories are so unreliable.

Obviously the internet did not exist back then, so we don't have any kind of record of what average joe conspiracy theorists whispered around water coolers, but we do have news paper articles and journal articles and pamphlets and even chain letters, and, as far as I can tell, and as far as anyone I've seen discuss this topic has ever been able to produce, there were no such conspiracy theories prior to the general revelation of these things, at least none that didn't fail the second two of my criteria. For example: there was plenty of talk during the Civil Rights era of "the man" interfering with things and keeping the civil rights movement down, but such claims are both very vague and were generally suspected (at least by civil rights activists), which is what the second two prongs of the challenge were meant to weed out.

"The man is interfering with the civil rights movement and making propaganda." < Does not meet the challenge

"The man had MLK assassinated and covered up their involvement." < Would meet the challenge

 

[Tigerace117]

Evasive trickery need not be rewarded with response. It only encourages more evasive trickery.

I know, I know. It just annoys me to let him have the last word.

 

[Mark F]

I’m of the mindset that a theory about a conspiracy is not necessarily a “conspiracy theory”.

In any true investigative endeavor the investigator first has to gather all of the available facts. Once gathered those facts have to be vetted to see which are true (true facts) and which are not. Then the true facts have to be examined to determine which are relevant and which are not. Now the true and relevant facts have to be pieced together in order to arrive at an informed conclusion. The conclusion best supported by the true and relevant facts with the least reliance on unproven assumptions should then become the default hypothesis, which by the way can be amended as needed if new true and relevant facts come to light.

The reason we know about criminal conspiracies such as MK Ultra or Watergate is because of people who followed that process.

OTOH - In modern popular usage Conspiracy Theory is a pejorative, to describe a particular method of (non)thinking.

A conspiracy theory, t least for me is a logical fallacy, a conjecture backed up by weak evidence or none at all where the conclusion is reached first, then evidence - if even presented - is cherry-picked to fit the previously arrived at conclusion by working the problem backwards and ignoring or dismissing out-of-hand anything that doesn't fit. Once the CT has arrived at their conclusion they can rarely, if ever be swayed. The intent of the CT is to use it as an attack paradigm for the purpose of damaging the person or group that are said to be the motive force for the CT, with little to no regard placed on the truth or accuracy of the core material.

CT are fundamentally a faith based movement, fueled by belief and ideology and agenda-driven.

"George Bush was evil, how can I prove this?"

Why?

The underlying issue is that most conspiracy theorists cannot think through anything complicated, cannot do the process called "reasoning" described above which is required to construct a valid and robust argument assembled from multiple factors into a single coherent overall hypothesis. They can not judge which of those many factors is important or how those factors fit together. That is one obvious reason why CT rely on making assertions founded upon individual anomalies they can not explain, THEN demanding that "we" prove their assertion wrong. They might as well say "I cannot work it out - you do my work for me (so I can reject it out of hand because I still won't get it and it runs contrary to what I believe)."

Being based on nothing but logical fallacies and single anomalies removed from proper context using arse-about logic, CT's don't survive even the most superficial level of scrutiny to the facts. Any theory should be supported by evidence, otherwise it is mere conjecture. The evidence can then be used to test if there are any fatal flaws to the theory. If fatal flaws are demonstrated and the proponents still hold to the theory, refusing to acknowledge them then we have the classic definition of a CT.

 

[Mark F]

I know, I know. It just annoys me to let him have the last word.

That is what he is counting on.

 

[ozeco41]

I know, I know. It just annoys me to let him have the last word.

And that annoyance is what trolls - and Poes - count on. Why feed their ego need?
--- Doesn't help you - or shouldn't.
--- Certainly doesn't help them grow away from the need to jerk chains because it reinforces the problem rather than countering it.

AND the reality is almost always their psychological need - NOT the technical issue they raise. Usually so for Trolls and true by definition for Poes.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I strongly suspect that these memories you have are not quite true and are back-filled over the decades. I'm not calling you a liar, its a perfectly normal natural thing humans do, but it's also why first hand accounts of decades old memories are so unreliable.

Obviously the internet did not exist back then, so we don't have any kind of record of what average joe conspiracy theorists whispered around water coolers, but we do have news paper articles and journal articles and pamphlets and even chain letters, and, as far as I can tell, and as far as anyone I've seen discuss this topic has ever been able to produce, there were no such conspiracy theories prior to the general revelation of these things, at least none that didn't fail the second two of my criteria. For example: there was plenty of talk during the Civil Rights era of "the man" interfering with things and keeping the civil rights movement down, but such claims are both very vague and were generally suspected (at least by civil rights activists), which is what the second two prongs of the challenge were meant to weed out.

"The man is interfering with the civil rights movement and making propaganda." < Does not meet the challenge

"The man had MLK assassinated and covered up their involvement." < Would meet the challenge

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Recognizing that is all your post actually is.

Meanwhile? I'll continue to depend on my personal experiences/memories, regardless of whether anyone accepts them or not. :coffeepap:

 

[Mark F]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Recognizing that is all your post actually is.

Meanwhile? I'll continue to depend on my personal experiences/memories, regardless of whether anyone accepts them or not. :coffeepap:

And if you can support them with evidence then that elevates you from the level of CT to logical thinker.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And if you can support them with evidence then that elevates you from the level of CT to logical thinker.

Excuse me; the OP was about conspiracy theories that ended up being true. Are you denying that the examples I provided actually happened?

 

[Mark F]

Excuse me; the OP was about conspiracy theories that ended up being true. Are you denying that the examples I provided actually happened?

Excusing the evasion, no I am not denying those events occurred. They just don't meet the criteria laid out in the OP.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Excusing the evasion, no I am not denying those events occurred. They just don't meet the criteria laid out in the OP.

Well, as the OP poster responded to me in a prior post, there isn't going to be a lot of documented information from that era. There was no Freedom of Information Act, no network server system to archive the information, and top secret government records were often destroyed. That just leaves the old school conspiracy theory test; i.e. was it being talked about by people at the time.

I've got to decide if the effort of seeking some kind of "acceptable support" which meets the OP criteria exists out there in the WWW is worth the bother. :shrug:

Meanwhile, I accept that my statement in-and-of itself does not meet the high bar provided. :coffeepap:

 

[jimithyashford]

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Recognizing that is all your post actually is.

Meanwhile? I'll continue to depend on my personal experiences/memories, regardless of whether anyone accepts them or not. :coffeepap:

Well, I mean that's fine and all, but do you think that people do NOT mis-remember things from several decades ago? Do you not think that people will back fill memories with later information even if they aren't meaning to? I mean, these phenomena are very well documented and happen to most people. Or are you just suggesting it does happen to people, but just could not possibly be you in this case?

Now, I am willing to accept, for the sake of discussion at least, that your 40-50 year old memories are pristine and perfect and not in any way compromised, and would like to ask a clarifying question or two, again, assuming your memories are actually accurate on this:

These conversations you recall, say for example about MKUltra, you are saying that MKUltra was bandied about as a conspiracy theory, Prior to it's general revelation, in a form that was meaningfully specific? Can you please share the details of what that theory was like, or what those conversations were like....again, predating the actual general reveal of the plot?

And, lastly, even if I accept these very dated examples, say I just concede and say that those are completely valid and do meet my challenge. Can you think of any at all more recent than that, say in the last 3 decades or so at least? Something we might be able to actually verify rather than relying on half century old memories.

 

[jimithyashford]

Well, as the OP poster responded to me in a prior post, there isn't going to be a lot of documented information from that era. There was no Freedom of Information Act, no network server system to archive the information, and top secret government records were often destroyed. That just leaves the old school conspiracy theory test; i.e. was it being talked about by people at the time.

I've got to decide if the effort of seeking some kind of "acceptable support" which meets the OP criteria exists out there in the WWW is worth the bother. :shrug:

Meanwhile, I accept that my statement in-and-of itself does not meet the high bar provided. :coffeepap:

Doesn't have to be on the internet. Could be a book, pamphlet, letter to the editor of some small town news paper, AM radio show transcript, anything at all. Any thing at all that is more solid than a decades old self professed memory of conversations with nameless random others that cannot even verify the memory. Granted, prior to the internet sources are harder to come by, but not at all impossible. For example, I can find loads of pre-internet sources talking about the JFK assassination and Area 51 and Masonic plots and Hitler still being alive in Argentina, etc etc etc

 

[Northern Light]

And that is where the intense hallucinogen LSD came from.

That's not true... it was discovered by Albert Hoffman in a search for an ergotamine derivative to treat migraines. He abandoned the LSD molecule for years but later unboxed it for further research. That was when he accidentally had skin contact with it and began hallucinating on his way home. Fun fact: LSD and ergotamine are the only sure fire substances in the world that can instantly stop migraines.

The CIA have used LSD in their experiments but they didn't invent it.

And yes MKULTRA is/was real. The U.S. government is big on mind control and ESP related stuff. They're probably light years ahead now in terms of what they're capable of.

 

[SocialD]

Well, I mean that's fine and all, but do you think that people do NOT mis-remember things from several decades ago? Do you not think that people will back fill memories with later information even if they aren't meaning to? I mean, these phenomena are very well documented and happen to most people. Or are you just suggesting it does happen to people, but just could not possibly be you in this case?

Now, I am willing to accept, for the sake of discussion at least, that your 40-50 year old memories are pristine and perfect and not in any way compromised, and would like to ask a clarifying question or two, again, assuming your memories are actually accurate on this:

These conversations you recall, say for example about MKUltra, you are saying that MKUltra was bandied about as a conspiracy theory, Prior to it's general revelation, in a form that was meaningfully specific? Can you please share the details of what that theory was like, or what those conversations were like....again, predating the actual general reveal of the plot?

And, lastly, even if I accept these very dated examples, say I just concede and say that those are completely valid and do meet my challenge. Can you think of any at all more recent than that, say in the last 3 decades or so at least? Something we might be able to actually verify rather than relying on half century old memories.

I don't think that people were rumoring that there was an experiment called MKUltra but I am pretty sure people suspected the government was doing experimental processes using drugs on people.
If you read up on the Church Committee which was a big congressional investigation into covert activities there are some interesting things. So early 70s rumors were going around about gov spying on citizens and many other things. an NYT investigative reporter had some sources and started publishing things and that I think at least partially led to the church committee. That and the Watergate scandal. I think this all really kicked up the suspicions and people started looking into things.
Finally what is known as the Family Jewels ( documented unethical and illegal activities by the CIA from the 50s through the early 70s ) is pretty well public now.
Considering some of the things the government did do in the past.. like Tuskegee.. or planned to do like Operation Northwoods.. its no wonder people are quick to think conspiracy quite often these days.

 

[jimithyashford]

I don't think that people were rumoring that there was an experiment called MKUltra but I am pretty sure people suspected the government was doing experimental processes using drugs on people.
If you read up on the Church Committee which was a big congressional investigation into covert activities there are some interesting things. So early 70s rumors were going around about gov spying on citizens and many other things. an NYT investigative reporter had some sources and started publishing things and that I think at least partially led to the church committee. That and the Watergate scandal. I think this all really kicked up the suspicions and people started looking into things.
Finally what is known as the Family Jewels ( documented unethical and illegal activities by the CIA from the 50s through the early 70s ) is pretty well public now.
Considering some of the things the government did do in the past.. like Tuskegee.. or planned to do like Operation Northwoods.. its no wonder people are quick to think conspiracy quite often these days.

I can't tell if any of that is actually a reply to my challenge or not. What in that list are you proposing was 1: Predictive, 2: Meaningfully specific, and 3: Not Mundane or Commonly suspected/accepted to be the case.