View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Inconsistensies

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 05 Oct 2012, 23:29

You guys know that I'm not really into conspiracy theories - I read the threads but they don't tend to interest me enough to want to spend too much time on them. That said, there's a common critique that I hear over and over that always makes me ask myself the same question. The critique is that so-called inconsistencies in the "official story" lead to the conclusion that there is either a cover-up or that the government itself was in on it.

Now, let's take this away from any particular conspiracy theory and just talk in general. If we bring it down to basics, what we're usually dealing with is basic forensic analysis. We're trying to piece together events after the fact based on the evidence uncovered. Putting aside any specific case, isn't this an inexact science at the best of times? Isn't there a pretty good likelihood of at least some inconsistencies even when the parties are all in good faith? And wouldn't we expect, the more complex the scenario, the more inconsistencies and unanswered questions to arise naturally?

Again, for this part of the discussion, let's not get distracted by specific cases, I'm just trying to establish the basic principle here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Inconsistensies

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2012, 04:15

Arouet wrote:You guys know that I'm not really into conspiracy theories - I read the threads but they don't tend to interest me enough to want to spend too much time on them. That said, there's a common critique that I hear over and over that always makes me ask myself the same question. The critique is that so-called inconsistencies in the "official story" lead to the conclusion that there is either a cover-up or that the government itself was in on it.

Now, let's take this away from any particular conspiracy theory and just talk in general. If we bring it down to basics, what we're usually dealing with is basic forensic analysis. We're trying to piece together events after the fact based on the evidence uncovered. Putting aside any specific case, isn't this an inexact science at the best of times? Isn't there a pretty good likelihood of at least some inconsistencies even when the parties are all in good faith? And wouldn't we expect, the more complex the scenario, the more inconsistencies and unanswered questions to arise naturally?

Again, for this part of the discussion, let's not get distracted by specific cases, I'm just trying to establish the basic principle here.

It's logical to me that the more complex a case is, the more inconsistencies that can arise. I'm not a statistics instructor (thank god), but my experience tells me that would be the case.
What I find unique about conspiracy theories is that there are some out there that are documented, government cover-ups having done harm to tons of people, yet no one seems to care. So why do some theories garner more attention than others?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 10:14

In the specific case of 9/11, these were Hollywood-style inconsistencies -- i.e. require the kind of suspension of disbelief that a typically bad scientifically streamlined Hollywood movie for the masses requires. Kind of like how Star Wars spaceships still make engine noises in the vacuum of space.

The fact that 99.9% of the 'evidence' was cleared up and disposed of post haste does not help in forensic enquiry.

There is a social dimension to research that cannot be overlooked -- ref postmodern theories of epistemology -- start with Foucault and Derrida...

If the authorities want to catch someone, they throw genuine forensics at it. (Except for Misha's post about shoddy FBI laboratory work.) If they want to cover something up, they attempt to obliterate and obfuscate the evidence. This can be anything from throw-down guns used to frame people police shoot in alleys to the 9/11 inside job. It's like a 3 year old lying about something 'wrong' they just did, only in adult form -- you cannot always 'prove' the 3 year old just did something, but you are pretty sure. Often it is easier to prove intent or extract a confession from the perpetrator than it is to 'prove' a case by pure forensics alone -- DNA and fingerprint matching perhaps being an exception.

And let's have a list of govt cover-ups harming a lot of people that 'no-one cares about'???? Would we include fluoridation of the water in that list? CSG mining permits? Three Mile Island? I think the 9/11 case as a casui belli for several wars of invasion and occupation with thousands of lives lost as a result, the passing of several new repressive domestic acts to turn the US into a kind of gulag and the attempted perpetration of a giant hoax on the American people with complete loss of faith in govt as a benign authority is a pretty major one.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 06 Oct 2012, 10:46

Sydney, I specifically requested that we NOT look at specific cases for the time being. I'd like to just examine the principle here.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 11:19

Arouet wrote:Sydney, I specifically requested that we NOT look at specific cases for the time being. I'd like to just examine the principle here.

That would be more time-wasting on your part then. Perhaps to divert attention from real issues of abuse of power.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 06 Oct 2012, 11:25

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:Sydney, I specifically requested that we NOT look at specific cases for the time being. I'd like to just examine the principle here.

That would be more time-wasting on your part then. Perhaps to divert attention from real issues of abuse of power.


No one is forcing you to participate in this thread.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 12:21

is it possible to correct the typo in the subject line? It's very distracting.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 06 Oct 2012, 12:33

You can PM Ninja if you want.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2012, 21:04

SydneyPSIder wrote:And let's have a list of govt cover-ups harming a lot of people that 'no-one cares about'???? Would we include fluoridation of the water in that list? CSG mining permits? Three Mile Island?

Yes, I would include all of those. Let's also include Fast and Furious where we gave guns to drug cartels, CIA chemical tests in an impovershed St. Louis neighborhood that are still causing cancer, and Contra and drug smuggling in Mena Arkansas--to name just a few.
Apologies to arouet if this is off-topic.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 21:32

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:And let's have a list of govt cover-ups harming a lot of people that 'no-one cares about'???? Would we include fluoridation of the water in that list? CSG mining permits? Three Mile Island?

Yes, I would include all of those. Let's also include Fast and Furious where we gave guns to drug cartels, CIA chemical tests in an impovershed St. Louis neighborhood that are still causing cancer, and Contra and drug smuggling in Mena Arkansas--to name just a few.
Apologies to arouet if this is off-topic.

So they wouldn't care about collapsing a couple of buildings either. I'm reading over on letsrollforums.com a lot of the identities may have been faked, a lot of material to work through though.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2012, 21:58

SydneyPSIder wrote:So they wouldn't care about collapsing a couple of buildings either.

Who is "they?"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby ProfWag » 06 Oct 2012, 22:02

SydneyPSIder wrote: I'm reading over on letsrollforums.com a lot of the identities may have been faked, a lot of material to work through though.

'Cause that forum is unbiased and supported by those who want to find the truth rather than support conspiracy theories regardless of how the evidence points. Right? Oh, wait a minute...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 22:20

Arouet wrote:Sydney, I specifically requested that we NOT look at specific cases for the time being. I'd like to just examine the principle here.

Actually, your entire OP argument seems to be setting up a straw man for you to demolish. As per the PS artist checklist.

As another example, look at the moon landing hoax -- there are funny little video snippets that cast doubt on the official story that US astronauts went to the moon. Oxygenated blue skies showing in the modules that are supposed to be travelling in deep space. Physically impossible rocket decelerations at the docking approach reminiscent of a model or an object on a stand in front of a chromakey screen or large moon model in the background. Astronauts being picked up from on high when they fall over. Flags waving in the breeze. No blast crater on landing. No dust disturbance. Moon rocks that are petrified wood or dried in an oven or found in the desert of WA. Access hatches too small to pass through. Lunar rover too big to fold into the lander. Wire flashes in the video footage. Once these snippets are looked at, you can't say 'oh well, there's mistakes on both sides', that's complete and utter BS -- as soon as you have one or two pieces of contrary evidence, the official story is done, it's blown out of the water. You can't have half a fake, or 1/10 of a fake -- the astronauts went 9/10 of the way to the moon or did 9/10 of the things they claimed, or the elites were only a bit involved in 9/11. It's all BS. Either someone knowingly tried to hide evidence and fake things or they didn't. Like common criminals trying to cover up their traces, conspirators try to destroy or disguise as much of the evidence as possible.

You cannot argue 'theoretically' without making some reference to real cases. To do otherwise seems to be constructing a straw man, as noted. Further, it doesn't allow for identifying the real motivations behind the hoaxes -- the Russian space race, Kennedy being offed for what reason, WTC collapsed for what reason. There is usually ultimately an economic reason behind it -- someone stands to lose something.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 06 Oct 2012, 22:22

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: I'm reading over on letsrollforums.com a lot of the identities may have been faked, a lot of material to work through though.

'Cause that forum is unbiased and supported by those who want to find the truth rather than support conspiracy theories regardless of how the evidence points. Right? Oh, wait a minute...

Who knows, I have to look at it and assess the evidence and likelihood and plausibility of the arguments first. PS artists can skip all those steps, no need for a real scientific enquiry or hypothesis formulation for testing. No science needed when you're a PS artist, just blind trust in authority.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Inconsistensies

Postby Arouet » 07 Oct 2012, 02:21

SydneyPSIder wrote:Actually, your entire OP argument seems to be setting up a straw man for you to demolish. As per the PS artist checklist.


How so?

You guys have gone off into the direction that indeed this issue would go, but I think its useful to establish the concern and be conscious of it.

This issue applies to any forensic analysis, no matter what side of the debate you are on. Do you disagree?

If inconsistencies are bound to show up in any complex forensic analysis, then we must be careful about how we approach them. Are they evidence of consipiracy? Or inadvertence, the result of an uncertain process? How should we deal with inconsistencies? How should we approach them? At what point do inconsistencies become too difficult to explain by inadvertence and should be evidence of deception? Certainly there is a threshold but I would think that threshold changes from case to case.

I think it is important to frame ones approach to a topic and I think how we view inconsitencies bears some thought. Otherwise you get handwaving from both sides. How accurate can any forsensic analysis really get? How much is educated guessing and probabilities? Should any one version ever be thought to be the complete truth? If its not the complete truth must deception have been involved?

If you don't think about these questions before you begin your analysis you are bound to let your biases dictate how you view inconsistencies.



As another example, look at the moon landing hoax -- there are funny little video snippets that cast doubt on the official story that US astronauts went to the moon. Oxygenated blue skies showing in the modules that are supposed to be travelling in deep space. Physically impossible rocket decelerations at the docking approach reminiscent of a model or an object on a stand in front of a chromakey screen or large moon model in the background. Astronauts being picked up from on high when they fall over. Flags waving in the breeze. No blast crater on landing. No dust disturbance. Moon rocks that are petrified wood or dried in an oven or found in the desert of WA. Access hatches too small to pass through. Lunar rover too big to fold into the lander. Wire flashes in the video footage. Once these snippets are looked at, you can't say 'oh well, there's mistakes on both sides', that's complete and utter BS -- as soon as you have one or two pieces of contrary evidence, the official story is done, it's blown out of the water. You can't have half a fake, or 1/10 of a fake -- the astronauts went 9/10 of the way to the moon or did 9/10 of the things they claimed, or the elites were only a bit involved in 9/11. It's all BS. Either someone knowingly tried to hide evidence and fake things or they didn't. Like common criminals trying to cover up their traces, conspirators try to destroy or disguise as much of the evidence as possible.[/quote]

Moon landing is a valid topic but please give it its own thread.

You cannot argue 'theoretically' without making some reference to real cases. To do otherwise seems to be constructing a straw man, as noted.


As I said above, when doing research it is important to try and stay as objective as possible. Pure objectivity is impossible, so we must strive to do our best. Thinking about these topics in the abstract help us develop strategies and keep things in mind while approaching the research or reading accounts.

Skepticism is a method, not a position. This topic is important towards how we approach conspiracy theories, IMO. It may not take 100s of posts to flesh out, but I do think it bears a least a short discussion.

Further, it doesn't allow for identifying the real motivations behind the hoaxes -- the Russian space race, Kennedy being offed for what reason, WTC collapsed for what reason. There is usually ultimately an economic reason behind it -- someone stands to lose something.


Those should each have their own thread.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest