Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 16, 2022 07:55PM

https://conspiracychart.com/


How grounded in reality are you?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Dave the Atheist ( )
Date: October 16, 2022 08:23PM

RFID tracking devices in bras ?
Never heard that one. *LOL*

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 16, 2022 10:06PM

I see the Mormon Hollow Earth conspiracy is on the list...also essential oils

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Living

https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/the-hollow-earth-theory-the-plasma-model-and-mormon-theology/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/16/2022 10:08PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Arkay ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 06:05PM

I will cling to my belief that the only essential oils are the ones in my car. Oh, and that any form of multilevel marketing should spend eternity in the fires of Hell.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: cl2notloggedin ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 07:50PM

I'm quite grounded in reality. I was raised that way believe it or not. My dad was rather shocked when I married someone gay as he said I am too intelligent to do so. When he found out why I did it, he knew what the problem was. THE LEADERS.

We were raised to be grounded in reality even as mormon kids. MY dad especially didn't act mormon. While many of the scientists and chemists I worked with got involved with (is it) Affleck? Some of them lost $50,000 each. Had to work longer. I kept my mouth shut and didn't say "told you so." My "husband" tried to get us involved in some of this stuff that the mormons were peddling at the time we married. We never joined anything.

I do believe in an afterlife as I tend to believe my parents are still there. Take note I don't say I KNOW. I have a difficult time thinking of praying to God, etc., that I think Elderberry has talked about and I've said I'm lost right now, but I still haven't been able to get caught up in God.

What is that that is bugging my breast as I sit here typing. Could it be my bra. Well, I never buy them at whatever that place is.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 04:26PM

I'm not sure how accusing an innocent man of serial murder qualifies as "mostly harmless"...

I'm also not sure how this doesn't amount to saying, "if you don't believe the same things I believe, you're automatically wrong."

I mean, at this point the connotations of the phrase "conspiracy theory" have overtaken the denotation, but if conspiracies do exist, and most sane people believe they do, then even the most well-known and substantiated conspiracies were first conspiracy theories, right?

Philosophical food for thought I guess...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:05PM

skp Wrote:

>
> I mean, at this point the connotations of the
> phrase "conspiracy theory" have overtaken the
> denotation, but if conspiracies do exist, and most
> sane people believe they do, then even the most
> well-known and substantiated conspiracies were
> first conspiracy theories, right?

No, most people don't believe in conspiracies.


There's an old saying that goes "The only way that three people can keep a secret is if two of them are dead."


People talk. People want information. The more valuable a secret is, the harder they'll try to get it. Big things that are supposed to be super secret forever -- like the Manhattan Project -- don't stay secret for long. I may not know, you may not know, but somebody out there does know. It's hard enough to get government agencies to cooperate when they are supposed to, much less form some kind of secret "cabal" or "club" where they decide the fate of everybody and everything. It's just not possible. The problem is that sometimes people just want to believe because they want to believe -- no matter how you try to prove to them that what they believe is false -- just like Mormonism.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:20PM

skp thinks there is a danger that people will take seriously the proposition that Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer. He's the sort of poster who has a stroke watching Saturday Night Live.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:25PM

Most people don't believe in Watergate? Or the Manhattan Project, or other top secret government projects? A conspiracy is any group of people who band together to plan something in secret. It doesn't even have to be illicit. Government spies are conspirers. Oligarchy is a form of conspiracy. Big business is a mass of conspiracies. The billionaire summit is a conspiracy (unless they're just getting together to drink $100k bottles of wine and piss in the wind). Not every adage represents reality well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:39PM

We know about those things because someone talked.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:40PM

Which of the conspiracies on this graphic are you implying no one has ever heard of?

Just because someone spills the beans doesn't mean there's enough compelling evidence to create consensus.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2022 10:50PM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:44PM

Whoosh.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 11:27PM

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which of the conspiracies on this graphic are you
> implying no one has ever heard of?
>
> Just because someone spills the beans doesn't mean
> there's enough compelling evidence to create
> consensus.


I didn't say anything about people not knowing about certain conspiracies -- I said "self-assessment" -- as in how far from reality someone may or may not be.

What I'm talking about is the connection between a religious cult like Mormonism and other irrational beliefs like conspiracy theories.

You can believe all the crazy JFK and alien conspiracies, but that doesn't make them true -- just as Joseph Smith's hoax about finding gold "plates" isn't true -- and the more you deny common sense and reality to try and make something "true" when in actuality it is false just makes things worse.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 18, 2022 01:31AM

But in that very statement you're assuming that because you believe a conspiracy theory is false, that makes it actually false.

I agree that people believing something doesn't make it true. But the inverse holds as well... People disbelieving something doesn't make it untrue.

I guess what I'm trying to say is most people do believe in conspiracies, and the fact that secrets get out doesn't mean conspiracies can't or don't exist.

The whole Mormon origins story was a conspiracy, was it not? Watergate, that was a conspiracy, right?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/18/2022 01:34AM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 19, 2022 07:00AM

You don't seem to get what I mean.


Let's take a common conspiracy theory as an example.


Supposedly, everyone "knows" a "UFO" (not just an "unidentified flying object"-- which is the actual meaning of the term -- but a alien spacecraft piloted by living beings) "crashed" near Roswell, NM in 1947. Lies, cover-ups, MIBs, the X-Files, alien bodies, secret alien technology, etc. It's all "real," right?


I just so happen to work in the aerospace and defense industry, and currently hold a security clearance. Does the government have secrets? Yes, and (most) of the time for good reason. There are no secrets in science, and no one ever discovers or invents something without precedent, so what you really get by classifying information is buying time. You are making it more difficult for someone else to find out what you know.


But, people are not perfect, people talk, and the other guys who want to know what you don't want them to know will go great lengths to find out what you know. In the Roswell case, there isn't any value in still keeping something secret from the dawn of the Cold War, and we know now what really happened -- it was an airborne acoustic microphone array experiment designed to detect a nuclear explosion from the Soviet Union -- which the Russians didn't want us know about, and we went to great lengths to find out. We were technically still "allies" after all. The array was carried aloft by a high altitude polythene balloon and made of aluminium and wood. The "strange symbols" on some of the recovered parts were actually from the toy company that made them, and not from another planet. We'll never know for sure, but my guess is that someone in charge back then made the fateful decision to deflect public interest in a secret project by coming up with an alternative story -- in other words, "tell 'em anything, tell them it was a flying saucer" -- and the rest is history. The fact that later on, the CIA actually used this tactic to deflect scrutiny on the U-2 and A-12 projects didn't exactly help end the controversy.


What you are talking about is more like a parent telling a child about Santa Claus and then the child grows up and finds out that Santa isn't real, so what else are the parents lying about? I grew up in the late 80s and 90s, not the 1950s. I know of the JFK assassination and Watergate from history books, film, and videos. I didn't live though them. I know from history that most assassins are lone wolves or from a small group -- but evidence doesn't matter to people who want to believe in a conspiracy for emotional or psychological reasons. Conspiracy theories are psychological coping mechanisms for people who cannot process sudden change -- i.e. it had to be something or someone's "fault."


Yes, some things are conspiracies -- like the murder of Emmett Till or the John Walker spy ring -- but not everything is. Rational people do not just "assume" there is a mysterious "cabal" controlling everybody and everything. Instead, they follow the evidence and look for a rational explanation. I can only present evidence which you may or may not accept. In the same way, I can present evidence that Joseph Smith was a scheming, lying, con artist and grifter, but it's up to you to accept it or not -- depending on how far you're enmeshed in the cult.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2022 08:58PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 19, 2022 11:14AM

I am having trouble following you. Partly because, from the outside looking in at least, you're contradicting yourself. You said, "most people are rational and don't believe in conspiracies," but later in the same post, you gave examples of conspiracies you yourself believe happened.

Perhaps what you mean when you say people don't believe in conspiracies is people don't believe conspiracies by default just from having heard the headline? Or maybe what you mean is most people don't believe in *ALL* conspiracies that have been alleged?

I would agree with both of those positions. I'd say most people are skeptical and selective when it comes to conspiracies. Since evidence is not proof, and runs the gamut in strength (some things some people think of as evidence aren't evidence at all, while some are extremely hard to excuse away rationally, with all of the gradients between), different people will look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions. And sometimes a reasonable person could say both sides have fair cases.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/19/2022 11:14AM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 19, 2022 08:17PM

A criminal conspiracy such as a gang organizing a bank job and a conspiracy theory like believing that a secret group of celebrities and politicians have a child sex slave colony on Mars are not the same things. I assumed you would know the difference.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 19, 2022 08:27PM

Among the many things skp doesn't do is definitions. That should be evident from his distortion, issued above and rebutted below, of the definition of "conspiracy."

In this case he simply doesn't know the definition of "conspiracy theory."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 19, 2022 08:38PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 12:57PM

It seems like you're confusing categorization with equivalency. I never said all conspiracies are "the same". The conspiracies you mentioned are not equivalent, no. They are at opposite ends of the believability spectrum. But they fit in the same category, "conspiracies," just like Democrats and Republicans are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, but fit into the same category, "political parties." A person can believe in specific conspiracies, and in conspiracies generally (that conspiracies do exist), without believing all of them. Based on this conversation, you and I both fall into that category. As do most.

It also sounds like you're operating from two different definitions of your own making, one for conspiracies you believe, and one for conspiracies you don't, and you've been switching back and forth between them. But there are not separate definitions of conspiracy for ones you believe and ones you don't, or even for ones most probably agree are extremely likely and ones most probably agree are extremely unlikely. The word "conspiracies" includes the whole range.

M-W: conspiracy-
1, the act of conspiring together.
2a, an agreement among conspirators.
2b, a group of conspirators.

M-W: conspire-
1, to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful OR wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement. (emph added)
2, to act in harmony toward a common end.

I'll note here that the word "or" clearly indicates conspiracies, as I said before, do not have to be illicit. The second definition of conspire re-confirms that fact.

This whole disagreement seems to be over my having said that most sane people believe conspiracies exist. I did not say most people believe in conspiracies you don't believe in. I did not say most people believe in conspiracies that are highly incredible (I had never even heard of that one about a child sex colony on Mars, but that makes a good example here). I said most sane people believe in conspiracies. If most sane people believe Watergate happened, and that gangs and mobs exist, then what I said is true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 01:00PM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 01:17PM

I do not "believe" in conspiracies.

I make a determination that a conspiracy exists *after* the evidence has been presented, not before.

Suppose a woman is found dead in the street. How did she die? You don't know until after the autopsy. If she was killed, who did it? A search of her home reveals threatening letters. Who sent them? One person? A group? If she was targeted by a group of people who succeeded in killing her, then you can say people conspired to kill her.

Now suppose you see a moving light in the sky, and you have no idea what it is. You cannot say what it is. Claiming that it is a piloted spacecraft from another solar system without proof is nonsense -- you just don't know. Claiming there is a vast "conspiracy" to prevent the public from knowing the "truth" is also nonsense. Developing elaborate backstories and "theories" about whom the supposed "aliens" are is even more nonsensical.

Speculation in the absence of evidence is not evidence.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 01:34PM by anybody.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 01:34PM

Watergate started out as a conspiracy theory.

But sure, we can agree to disagree if you like.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 01:42PM

that was a *criminal* conspiracy because there were multiple people involved.


Only later on, as time passed, did people start concocting all sorts of imaginary events because of the absence of evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Cover-up_and_its_unraveling

On January 27, 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, Finance Counsel for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) and former aide to John Ehrlichman, presented a campaign intelligence plan to CRP's acting chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. According to Dean, this marked "the opening scene of the worst political scandal of the twentieth century and the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency".[21]

Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic. Two months later, Mitchell approved a reduced version of the plan, including burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C.—ostensibly to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation,[citation needed] but has since insisted that he was duped by both Dean and at least two of his subordinates, which included former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, the latter of whom was serving as then-CRP Security Coordinator after John Mitchell had by then resigned as attorney general to become the CRP chairman.[22][23]

In May, McCord assigned former FBI agent Alfred C. Baldwin III to carry out the wiretapping and monitor the telephone conversations afterward.[24] McCord testified that he selected Baldwin's name from a registry published by the FBI's Society of Former Special Agents to work for the Committee to Re-elect President Nixon.[citation needed] Baldwin first served as bodyguard to Martha Mitchell—John Mitchell's wife, who was living in Washington.[citation needed] Baldwin accompanied Martha Mitchell to Chicago.[citation needed] Eventually the committee replaced Baldwin with another security man.[citation needed]

On May 11, McCord arranged for Baldwin, whom investigative reporter Jim Hougan described as "somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord," to stay at the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate complex.[25] Room 419 was booked in the name of McCord's company.[25] At the behest of Liddy and Hunt, McCord and his team of burglars prepared for their first Watergate break-in, which began on May 28.[26]

Two phones inside the DNC headquarters' offices were said to have been wiretapped.[27] One was Robert Spencer Oliver's phone. At the time, Oliver was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen. The other phone belonged to DNC chairman Larry O'Brien. The FBI found no evidence that O'Brien's phone was bugged;[28] however, it was determined that an effective listening device was installed in Oliver's phone. While successful with installing the listening devices, the committee agents soon determined that they needed repairs. They plotted a second "burglary" in order to take care of the situation.[27]

Sometime after midnight on Saturday, June 17, 1972, Watergate Complex security guard Frank Wills noticed tape covering the latches on some of the complex's doors leading from the underground parking garage to several offices, which allowed the doors to close but stay unlocked. He removed the tape, believing it was nothing.[29] When he returned a short time later and discovered that someone had retaped the locks, he called the police.[29] Responding to the call was an unmarked police car with three plainclothes officers (Sgt. Paul W. Leeper, Officer John B. Barrett, and Officer Carl M. Shoffler) working the overnight "bum squad"—dressed as hippies and on the lookout for drug deals and other street crimes.[30] Alfred Baldwin, on "spotter" duty at the Howard Johnson's hotel across the street, was distracted watching the film Attack of the Puppet People on TV and failed to observe the arrival of the police car in front of the Watergate building.[30] Neither did he see the plainclothes officers investigating the DNC's sixth floor suite of 29 offices. By the time Baldwin finally noticed unusual activity on the sixth floor and radioed the burglars, it was already too late.[30] The police apprehended five men, later identified as Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, James McCord, Eugenio Martínez, and Frank Sturgis.[22] They were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications. The Washington Post reported the day after that "police found lock-picks and door jimmies, almost $2,300 in cash, most of it in $100 bills with the serial numbers in sequence ... a short wave receiver that could pick up police calls, 40 rolls of unexposed film, two 35 millimeter cameras and three pen-sized tear gas guns".[31] The Post would later report that the actual amount of cash was "[a]bout 53 of these $100 bills were found on the five men after they were arrested at the Watergate."[32]

The following morning, Sunday, June 18, G. Gordon Liddy called Jeb Magruder in Los Angeles and informed him that "the four men arrested with McCord were Cuban freedom fighters, whom Howard Hunt recruited". Initially, Nixon's organization and the White House quickly went to work to cover up the crime and any evidence that might have damaged the president and his reelection.[33]

On September 15, 1972, a grand jury indicted the five office burglars, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[34] for conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws. The burglars were tried by a jury, with Judge John Sirica officiating, and pled guilty or were convicted on January 30, 1973.[35]

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 02:16PM

Why does it matter that it was a criminal conspiracy? Is it somehow impossible for a criminal conspiracy to be a conspiracy theory first?

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get across. Conspiracy theories don't have to be rumors. A conspiracy theory is nothing more than a theory that a conspiracy exists. A suspected conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. A cop uncovering evidence might begin to suspect a conspiracy is afoot. He is forming a conspiracy theory. That was part of the point of my original comment... Separating the phrase "conspiracy theory" from the connotations it typically carries nowadays, and getting back to the actual meaning of the words.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 02:19PM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 01:41PM

I didn't say you believe every conspiracy that is alleged.

I made no allusion to when you decide to believe a conspiracy.

If you believe the narrative of Watergate, you believe a conspiracy happened.

If you believe Watergate happened, you believe conspiracies do happen, in a general sense.

You can't simultaneously claim you don't believe conspiracies happen, AND claim Watergate happened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2022 01:44PM by skp.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: anybody ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 01:43PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: skp ( )
Date: October 21, 2022 02:17PM

Ad hominem leaves my point intact, and is itself "not rational."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: October 17, 2022 10:40PM

skp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A conspiracy is any group of people who
> band together to plan something in secret. It
> doesn't even have to be illicit.

"Conspiracy: a secret plan to commit a crime or do harm, often for political ends."

"Conspire: combine secretly to plan and prepare an unlawful or harmful act."

--The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   ********  ********   **        **     ** 
 **     **     **     **     **  **        **     ** 
 **     **     **     **     **  **        **     ** 
 **     **     **     ********   **        ********* 
 **     **     **     **         **        **     ** 
 **     **     **     **         **        **     ** 
 ********      **     **         ********  **     **