The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
10 votes

I'm a Skeptic

You'll have to forgive me if this is the wrong choice in forum to post in. I'm still fairly new to the DP. This is a discussion that is fairly important in my eyes though. Conspiracy is a subject that's often brought up on this website, and I would like to discuss it from my perspective in more in depth.

To start off, as the title of this thread suggests, I'm a skeptic. I don't have huge beef with conspiracy theorists, but I typically object to what they're saying until compelled otherwise. I'm kind of curious if there are any other RP supporting skeptics out there and what they think?

When a conspiracy theorist looks at bad things coming from the government, they claim it's all happening on purpose. That someone is behind it all pulling the strings. They have a tendency to ignore the fact that the failure comes from government being incapable in the first place. As a skeptic I'm not afraid of the government coming to "hurt me", I'm afraid of it coming to "help me." The government can't even run a school lunch program, how do you expect it to pull something off that requires precise timing and coordination? It's the biggest blundering most incompetent institution in the history of mankind. Government programs simply just don't work well most of the time.

As a scientist I cling to Occam's Razor. Conspiracy theorists often blast the media, and the mainstream story because they don't take their explanation of events seriously. The media has huge issues, and I'm not denying those. Thing is often times I find the conspiracy theorists explanation of events more complicated than the main explanation and therefore less useful. Typically an astronomical amount of people would have to be in on things
for the event in question to be executed without any whistle blowing. I'm not saying this isn't possible, just not likely.

The next issue is the lack of empirical evidence. This happens to be one of the most challenging things a conspiracy theorist has to present. Often times a conspiracy theorist has to rest his or her case on speculation. Even when that evidence is available the explanation surrounding it can differ from person to person, and then we end up back with the Occam's Razor issue. What is the most probable or likely?

Finally I ask the question, why don't the conspiracy theorists take any action against the so called conspirators? They'll point finger and complain all day long, but rarely do they actually do ANYTHING. Are the conspirators honestly that far out of "reach"? On the same note does adopting the theory actually do anything to counter the "disinformation"? I think the answer is no to both.

I have a feeling I'm probably going to get blasted right off the DP by the vast majority of you who are conspiracy "believers" here, however I am interested to see what people have to say anyway. It won't be the first time I've been blasted on the DP.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Don't forget the global warming conspiracy.


Global warming is not a conspiracy per say

It is a collaboration of small minds with big egos spouting nonsense in their own echo chamber. Once this becomes pervasive in the scientific world it is picked up by media, and then politicans. Lots of things that are called conspiracy are nothing of the sort, mostly it is small minds groupthinking. There is a reason that most of the bad things that come out of government are "bipartisan" it is because these are generally subjects of groupthink where there has been no real disagreement, and thus no real vettign of the idea whatever it happens to be.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

I agree with all but one

It is not 'safe' to say the Big Bang Theory is false. It is not FALSE on the macro-explanation of dimensional space, planar fields of electromagnetism, or the applied understanding of light expansion.

However, I can, as a theorist, concur that the 'red-shift' paradigm does refute the notable observation that light color indicates distance.

The cosmos is full of fields of quantum reactions occurring ever second, millisecond, and nanosecond to beyond. This cannot yet be measured by any equipment until the measurement of Dark Energy is complete.

Otherwise, yea, good post!

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

The big bang theory is a perfect example

of how the groupthink works. Just because it is commonly accepted by most in the scientific does not mean they got together and decided to lock out alternative theories. They just don't want to accept the alternative because it shows their own lack of rigor on the subject, this is especially embarrasing in the scientific community and thus is avoided at all costs generally.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

here's a thought....

When Hubble first started taking its deep field images, the astronomers were expecting to see immature galaxies and fussy globular clusters. Instead they saw well formed and often spiral galaxies. Why would we see well formed galaxies, that should have taken billions of years to form, at the farthest reaches of our visible universe (billions of years in the past)? Hmmm, a bit caught off guard. Inflationary theory? Perhaps, or somethings not quite right with our understanding of space, time and matter. There's always something to learn.

Good question.

Every thing of Matter in the Universe is Energy, thus it has a 'field' of properties which resonate or vibrate with other matter. Every matter of energy has tiny frequency loops, these loops go on near infinitely until otherwise impacted by another object matter. Light, for example, has the smallest wavelength but continues infinitely. Even though it is 'infinite' in nature, based on its principle properties, you could make the visual reference to a Sine Wave... a rainbow up and a rainbow down, returning to the center line. Otherwise, it's a mathematical algorithm that reproduces itself over and over and over and over until disturbed.

The center line that is parallel is the 'true path' of trajection, because all things in dimensional space are linear, or straight, until bent by gravitational properties. So the Sine Wave is formed by a disturbance in the 'medium' or the 'matter' a wave is travelling through. Oscillation rates are determined by frequency AND medium. The absence of solid space is not the absence of medium, as both sound and light require space to exist.

From the point of singularity, we observe all galaxies to be orbiting around their central respective source of solar system, like ours is the sun. The entire universe is on a cosmic orbit around the point of singularity, and thus it swarms around on orbital rings, which the galaxy itself orbits around its gravitational centered Sun.

I explain duration in my own theory.. I have a post called "Teej Theory" which is not as developed as these words I am telling you as that revelation happened in September.. I have been thinking ALOT ever since.

If you can imagine a wall clock with all its hours indicated in numerical digits - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. We see there are 12 segments of a 360 degree circle. Radial Arc, meaning a curved line from a central point, or a broken circle, shows difference based on location from the central point.

The theory is, if you draw a wall clock on a sheet of paper only indicating hours 1, 2, 3, you explain how duration forms in space.

Draw a circle and place hours 1, 2, 3 where they would be on a clock. Then place a dot in the center of circle and draw a straight line from the center to 1 o'clock. Once the line is connected, draw a small circle there at that position. Then, draw a second line, from the same central point, running with the first line but twice as long, still aligned at 1'o'clock position. Draw a second small circle there. Now you should have a large circle, with two overlapped lines only different by length, with small circles showing the end points of each respectively.

All you have to do now, is watch time pass. As the lines rotate from 1 o'clock, to 2 o'clock, to 3 o'clock, the small circle point rotates around the center at the same 'time' but the further circle creates a larger 'arc' of duration. So, in the same "time", there is more "Change" at the edge of the Universe rather than the center.

This is consistent on a multitude of levels within our own atmosphere, one example is that as you get further away from earth, gravity has less control over your actions, making you more free to change.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

SteveMT's picture

You are describing a static universe.

This kind of universe makes much more sense to me. One that always was, is, and will be, without the need for a Big Bang. For those spiritually inclined, this is consistent with an very eternal Almighty. Thanks.

SteveMT's picture

Wow. Thanks for this information.

I haven't heard anything about these other issues. Thanks.

Sarcasm alert

If you are being sarcastic, please explain how a simple observation of light removes the entire theory, because I am very interested.

If you weren't being sarcastic, you're welcome.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

SteveMT's picture

Not true at all. Believe me.

I humbly meant that I really did not know any of your additional information. I do appreciate your pointing this out to me. Please take this the right way. I'm sorry you took my appreciative comment incorrectly.

I have read your other posts

and you have proven to be intelligent, so I assumed you knew more.

No harm done.

I agree with the Cosmic-Energy-Plasma Universe, as all things are electric. That is why I asked those three specific questions, because I read over your link and I did not see any of these issues addressed but in the conclusion it said, "The Big Bang is FALSE"... So, I thought maybe you'd be able to address the position more.

First, dimensional space. It begins with singularity, a " . " and from there you connect two : which become a | for the FIRST MEASURABLE DIMENSION. Additionally, | . becomes |_ the x/y axis, and the 3rd point on the Z plane makes a CUBE.. or BOX.. or dimensional SPACE.

The big bang created space, so if you imagine the 3-dimension cube in front of you, imagine a circle on the perimeter of it representing the points of light expansion. Light is increasing outward infinitely without resistance, while the point immediately behind it is the 'limit' of created space, where new galaxies are formed.

You could think of the expanding Universe like the rings on a tree, growing more and more condensed at the core while the gaps are further at the extent(bark). As a tree grows wider, more rings are introduced showing duration (time/age). The same with the Universe as it expands outward from the center.

Since now you can see the tree and its rings, place an x/y axis in the center, and now you can observe 'dimensional planes' of energy fields. Where there properts are -/+ , +/+, -/-, +/- in the 4 quadrants respectively.

When planets 'align', there is a magnetic 'shift'.

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Most "conspiracy theorists" are skeptics as well.

They question "conventional wisdom" and "the official story".

I disagree with your generalization about most "conspiracy theorists" do not provide any evidence. In virtually every case I know, they provide circumstantial evidence; which, as you should know, is admissible in a court of law or can be used to obtain a warrant and get real "hard evidence". Here is what President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said about government actions "happening on purpose."

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

By your measure, this makes FDR a "conspiracy theorist"

How about these quote, from another President?

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world - no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
― Woodrow Wilson

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
― Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom

Do your research; that is what good skeptics do.

Apple and Oranges

Of course almost everything that happens in politics (short term) is non-accidental. We know groups of people meet behind doors to formulate plans, and talking points on issues in order to advance their goals. This is the essence of conspiracy, and it happens daily. The grand macro effects, however, of these small battles are geneally not planned out in any meaningful way. This explains why most governmant plans end up being such disasterous plans long term.

Josh Brueggen
Jack of all Trades
Precinct Commiteeman Precinct 5 Rock Island Co Illinois

I respect your views. I hope you don't get too blasted!

But first of all, I think it does a general disservice to classify people as falling into only one of two limited categories, "conspiracy theorists" or not. That approach is itself unscientific. (But psychology is half silly science, in my skeptical view! And now I'll try my shaky hand at it....)

I think things occur far less by accident than one may believe. This is based upon observing patterns in history, wherein events transpire seemingly for defined and / or advertised purposes, but admissions occur later as to the true motivations, actions, techniques, participants, etc.--and even the results--involved. These admissions often reveal significant departures from the "stories" of the day. History is always a retelling colored by the teller! (And motives exist more often than not. This you know.)

Even a rather unsophisticated awareness of this "dynamic" in human society / history causes me to be skeptical of "official" stories, at first at least. I mean, look at the degree to which we are advertised in our society. It is staggering. It is all product placement, etc. This is intentional manipulation. The same techniques are applied to cement other concepts in society. This is all well-known. Propaganda is real and we know it played a part in motivating people to make sacrifices for things like wars, etc. in our past. Propaganda is intentional manipulation. We know that truths (ie: casualty figures from battles in WWII) were / have been kept from the public deliberately. For our own good? Perhaps. For morale (a shared mental-emotional state that propels us to "stay the course")? Yes. This is not difficult to distill. Government has engaged in this. We all know there have been cover-ups of politicians' bad behaviors / illegal actions before, too.

So, if governments have been proven to hide things / act in secrecy from the citizens they are supposed to serve / represent, well _____ . You know what the possibilities may be.

You have to consider information: what we get from whom and where it comes from. Its delivery is not at its best when literally a handful of organizations own all news outlets, etc. (Look it up.) It is a severe handicap with which we must all deal.

Your comment on a lack of empirical evidence merely shows you need to learn more about that which you attempt to criticize. Come back when you've done your homework. [Are you in your 20s?] Yes, there is much speculation rampant, but there is a lot of empirical evidence thrown about, too. (More of the latter when it really counts, I should think.)

Motives exist in connections between organizations, people, etc.. So, too, to be fair, are pure coincidences. Perhaps there is a way to quantify the proportion of connections which have indisputably resulted in conspiratorial actions / policies / results versus those connections which are clearly harmless and / or have not resulted so? [Hmmmm..... Worth some thought.]

Your question about why people do little to nothing is the best point you make. There are many people trying to take action. Problem is, those people must observe and act within the confines of law, while conspirators, by the nature of their activities, break the law / operate outside of it. (Capone was a conspirator in many ways, mind.) But beyond that? Fear? A feeling of helplessness? Dunno. Again, fair question. What can they do when society has been trained at large to shun the skepticism of a minority group?

One of my degrees is in an empirical science. I think scientists are occasionally some of the stupidest, thick-headed people I know! Arrogant, certainly. Even self-deluding at times. Ironically, science can become a crutch for intellectual laziness. (I include myself here!) Don't pat yourself too chumily on the back over your status. Many real things are as yet unexplained by science. It doesn't mean they are not real... just because we scientists are too ignorant / without the appropriate technology / metrics to measure and vernacular to explain them!

It is true that some folks become addicted to the study of conspiracies / far-fetched theories / forbidden knowledge or the quest for it / etc. Fear is itself addictive sometimes.

Make sure you know clearly what a conspiracy is. Then learn what a conspiracy theory is. Then learn what a conspiracy theorist is. If you are going to smush it all together, well, you'll be quite off track, to say the least.

Any good stuff here? I hope I've helped. If not, no biggie. I like to hear myself "talk" just as much as the next guy...

; )

And welcome, if you are sincere. If not, prepare to metaphorically get your ass kicked here.

What would the Founders do?

Occam's razor is a starting

Occam's razor is a starting point not an end point. Watching pseudo - intellectuals cite occams razor in he face of actual evidence is hilarious.

Ventura 2012

this erks me too.

I think there's a story about an inquisition that's often used to illustrate this mistake. It has to do with witches and gossip.

There's a lady on trial for some crime that has outraged the public. It doesn't matter what the crime is, but the public's had time to gossip about it and everybody has had a chance to add their own two bits to the story. Pretty much everybody implies that the girl must be evil because the crime was such an evil act. However, the more ideologically motivated of the gossipers quickly imply that the girl did the crime because she is evil and, obviously because she's a women, this makes her a witch.

Then the trial begins, but now instead of her being on trial because she possibly committed the crime, she's on trial for being evil.

The only witness says he did not see the crime, but he did see the girl standing there the moment after the crime occurred. The Judge calls for anymore witnesses. When no one stands up, he asks if anyone can attest to the girls character or motives. The Accusator gestures for volunteers and everybody in the town lines up to recount their memories of the girl. Each story begins innocently enough but, with everyone listening, the story has to accommodate the new presumption that the girl is a witch...the milk man drops off a bottle of milk, but the rest of his bottles go sour; the shopkeeper gets an itchy neck every time she come's in his store; and the local priest has moments of temptation every time he thinks about her.... They all conclude that she must have committed the crime because she is a witch and witches are evil.

When the judge says the girl is free to go, the crowd raises a commotion for the lack of justice. They chant, "she was there" and "she is a witch". The Accusator speaks up, "The simplest conclusion is that the girl was there because she committed the crime and we have proven by testimony that the girl is obviously a witch. Witches are evil, and only an evil person could have committed the crime. Occam's razor attests that the simplest explanation is often the right one. Therefore, she must be the culprit".

The judge says, "Being there does not make her guilty and she need not be a witch to have committed the crime. If she committed the crime, it was not proven here."

Hmmm. Did Occam's razor fail? Nope, just its proper usage.

What I don't like

is if you question the mainstream school of thought then you are labeled a conspiracy nut...simply a terrible misnomer, IMO, and an unfair attempt to quash questioning minds.

The law cannot make a wicked person virtuous…God’s grace alone can accomplish such a thing.
Ron Paul - The Revolution

Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. Ron Paul

I think one of the biggest

I think one of the biggest things you'll notice about conspiracy theorists is that all information, unless if it is from their source, is manipulated in some way. Thus, if the government releases a report that is considered to be credible by the vast majority of people who have opinions that matter (e.g., scientists), nobody on the conspiracy side will care. Of course, some things are easier to prove than others, but yeah...

I'd say the thing that bothers me about conspiracy theorists the most is that the news they listen to is every bit as sensationalist as the news sources they deride, but it doesn't bother them because they agree with their viewpoint.

Read "Family Of Secrets"

It's heavily footnoted so it doesn't fit into the "every bit as sensationalist as the news sources they deride" category. Amongst many other things, it shows that the Warren commission was comprised of people who had interests in manipulating the outcome.

There's a very detailed interview about the book on youtube:

Thanks for that, I'll look at

Thanks for that, I'll look at it when I get the chance. I generally find the conspiratorial evidence behind that event much more convincing than the other stuff I regularly see.

I don't like the overuse of

I don't like the overuse of Occam's Razor by "skeptics"(of which I generally include myself). Occam's Razor or the principle of parsimony IS not a law in science, but rather used to determine the simplest explanation given all the available facts. Not every event is brought about by the most likely causes, some are caused by highly unlikely causes - especially as it relates to human activities.

Conspiracy is such a loaded term. Why not revisionist history? Why not alternate theory? The term conspiracy ends the dialogue.

And believe me, if you read this series of books you'll definitely gain a new perspective on things.

-The Best Enemies Money Can Buy - Antony Sutton
-Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution - Antony Sutton
-Wall Street and FDR - Antony Sutton
-Wall Street and The Rise of the Third Reich - Antony Sutton
-Tragedy and Hope - Carrol Quigley
-Anglo-American Establishment - Carrol Quigley
-America's Secret Establishment - Antony Sutton
-The Grand Chessboard - Zbigniew Brzezinski

and so on...

"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises

I agree, most conspiracies

I agree, most conspiracies seem like a bunch of hogwash to me too, yet they do happen.

You say, "Typically an astronomical amount of people would have to be in on things for the event in question to be executed without any whistle blowing. I'm not saying this isn't possible, just not likely."

But, the practice of compartmentalization allows hundreds of people to be involved without knowing they are actually involved in a potential conspiracy.

"The Manhattan Project was carried out in extreme secrecy. By 1945, the project had nearly 40 labratories and factories which empolyed (sic)approximately 200,000 people." ~

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

Blessings )o(

Tom Mullen's picture

I agree with you

Do influential people "behind the scenes" agree together to try to influence the government? Of course they do. But that's not the cause of most of our government afflictions. The true cause is that once they've cooked up their plans and got them up to bat as government policy, the vast majority of Americans support them. Examples: The institution of the income tax was overwhelmingly supported by the American public in 1913. The public similarly gave overwhelming support to creation of the Federal Reserve. They elected the president who signed Social Security into law three more times after he did it. And the public always supports a war when it first starts, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican occupies the White House.

My problem with most conspiracy theories is that they remove all responsibility and accountability from "we the people" and rest on the premise that if they could just expose the conspirators, these problems would immediately vanish.

Wrong. Talk to 20 people at random around you and you'll find that it's the people that are the real problem, not the so-called conspirators. That's why James Madison called democracy "the most vile form of government."

Tom, you wrote...

Tom, you wrote: "My problem with most conspiracy theories is that they remove all responsibility and accountability from "we the people" and rest on the premise that if they could just expose the conspirators, these problems would immediately vanish."

You seem to contradict yourself. The best way to educate the people as to what is really going on is to expose the conspirators and at that point, "we the people" would rise up and clean house. That is why there is such an effort on the part of the conspirators to discredit those who are trying to expose the conspirators.

i tend to agree

many times main stream conspiracy about liberty have no hard evidence which most viewers of these organization takes it for granted.This becomes a boxing match with no one looking into actual facts.

when you are taught from a very young age that something works that way it becomes very difficult to convince one otherwise even with concrete evidence.

at one point in time everyone experiences epiphany.



"The Involuntary Conspiracy"

Most "conspiracies" appear to be the result of a commonality of genetically flawed human thinking:

Alex Wallenwein

mass media

is for the masses. it is how "they" keep the masses controlled. try reading a book such as "war is a racket" by usmc gen.schmedley butler "pawns in the game" by admiral william guyy carr "the international jew" by henry ford

docter no no

Indeed, the best thing one

Indeed, the best thing one can do is turn off the TV and the talk radio.

Listening to talk radio and hearing Hannity, Limbaugh, or any of the others, even the liberals, just reminds me how totally clueless they all are. It gets annoying listening to their convoluted nonsense and their distorted narrow view of the illusory world they and the common man live in.

As for television... it speaks for itself. I can understand why psychiatrists tend to go insane.

I am out of touch with most Americans precisely because I am not out of touch with reality.

Two thumbs up