Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy Thread

[simFox]

16 hours ago, Bilo said:

The logic that Biden has dementia seems to centre around his age, stammer and occasional lapses in memory. The first is connected to the last. Frankly, the job isn't for any man in his late seventies or early eighties, but I've seen enough of him to know he's still sharp.

 

Trump’s behaviour worries me far more. Impulsive, aggressive, inarticulate at the best of times, the odd lean and completely unable to remember what he's said and where. If he were my dad, I'd be taking his car keys from him and telling him to see his GP.

It was clearly evident at the presidential debate. No experts were required to make that assessment. It was like watching my ex girlfriends grandad trying to eat peas with his fork upside down. 

 

Pelosi and Obama both stepped in to force him to step down. The rest of the time was spent picking him up off the floor or waking him up for his nap. Watching him being pointed in the right direction for the G20 photo was truly pathetic.

[Out Foxed]

having been where oswald supposedly took the shot it makes little sense (to me) that he would decide to shoot when he is alleged to. he has a much easier shot earlier. 

[Foxdiamond]

21 minutes ago, Out Foxed said:

having been where oswald supposedly took the shot it makes little sense (to me) that he would decide to shoot when he is alleged to. he has a much easier shot earlier. 

If you discount that the shots did not come from the 6th floor  window then where?. Bear in mind that fellow workers of Oswald from the floor below heard the empty shell cases hit the wooden floor

[Guest Bilo]

18 hours ago, blabyboy said:

And you do not think there could be any bias in that article at all? .. because a contributor lectures at an Ivy League university?

 

You understand that an Ivy League university professor has a very different set of interests and reputation to uphold than some random right-wing shitposter on social media, right? 

[Guest Bilo]

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And unfortunately that's the road we've gone down now.

 

It begins with criticism of the assessment of a political figure (whether valid or not), simply because that figure is political, and it ends with the entire idea of expertise and the scientific method on every matter being called into question, as Sagan predicted.

 

I get the idea of being sceptical of personal bias from an expert towards a divisive political figure, I do. But the death of trust in scientific expertise that starts there ends nowhere good.

It starts with 'I think people have had enough of experts' and ends up here, where respected experts in their field are instantly dismissed as if it were Tommy Robinson ranting and raving outside a crown court because they're talking about a political figure someone likes.

[leicsmac]

55 minutes ago, Bilo said:

It starts with 'I think people have had enough of experts' and ends up here, where respected experts in their field are instantly dismissed as if it were Tommy Robinson ranting and raving outside a crown court because they're talking about a political figure someone likes.

And it's reasonably obvious how such "death of expertise" ends.

[blabyboy]

13 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And unfortunately that's the road we've gone down now.

 

It begins with criticism of the assessment of a political figure (whether valid or not), simply because that figure is political, and it ends with the entire idea of expertise and the scientific method on every matter being called into question, as Sagan predicted.

 

I get the idea of being sceptical of personal bias from an expert towards a divisive political figure, I do. But the death of trust in scientific expertise that starts there ends nowhere good.

I'm unsure how to read this, especially coming from you.

 

The very essence of the scientific method is to hypothesise, test, then offer up for consideration and testing by others... Why would anyone applying the scientific method NOT question the observations, irregardless of political persuasion? 

 

Sagan was not averse to using political means to get to his aims and goals either, and was noted for being highly speculative in some of his interviews. Some might say he became more akin to "do as I say, not as I do".

 

I am not saying that we deride experts at all, but experts must expect to be questioned when they make statements in public. I think when it involves matters of a medical nature it is even more critical to be precise and accurate, which I accept is very hard to do, especially in matters related to the mind.

 

Experts are valuable, they can provide shortcuts to knowledge and guidance on their subjects of study/interest, but that does not give them a free pass to expect everything they say should be accepted as accurate and correct. 

 

Trust, but verify. Everyone should be allowed to make mistakes without fear or favour, but the politicisation and coercion by funding of all areas of science has whittled this away. One mistake and you can never be funded again, it leaves factions even within the same sphere fighting each other for funding of projects, so that science is done for the highest bidder. So when I see an expert, I do consider what they have to say, but I also consider who's funded them and what are their overall aims.

 

I'm not sure a pure scientific method does exist, or perhaps has ever existed the more I think about it.

[blabyboy]

5 hours ago, Bilo said:

You understand that an Ivy League university professor has a very different set of interests and reputation to uphold than some random right-wing shitposter on social media, right? 

Of course, but I also consider that the same professor may use his perceived influence and sway in a way that might benefit him by tarnishing someone who had stated that they wanted to dismantle education in the same country. I think there is self-interest at play in that article and we would do well to take that into account when considering the points made.

[Guest Bilo]

8 hours ago, blabyboy said:

Of course, but I also consider that the same professor may use his perceived influence and sway in a way that might benefit him by tarnishing someone who had stated that they wanted to dismantle education in the same country. I think there is self-interest at play in that article and we would do well to take that into account when considering the points made.

And all of the other esteemed academics and medical practitioners who have said much the same thing? Are they all trying to smear poor Donald for clout as well? 

[blabyboy]

41 minutes ago, Bilo said:

And all of the other esteemed academics and medical practitioners who have said much the same thing? Are they all trying to smear poor Donald for clout as well? 

Idk. But we should not be afraid to ask the question. Some will not, but some may be. Let's not forget that Trump is dismantling the way education is being practiced in the US and some may be fearful of their jobs or future prospects and therefore exercise what control they have in partisan ways.

 

If we become a supine populace we lose out in so many ways.

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

I'm unsure how to read this, especially coming from you.

 

I hear that. Allow me to clarify below.

 

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

The very essence of the scientific method is to hypothesise, test, then offer up for consideration and testing by others... Why would anyone applying the scientific method NOT question the observations, irregardless of political persuasion?

That is exactly what the scientific method is, yes. However, what is happening now is questioning of people using that scientific method by people not using it themselves (or not rigorously, anyway).

 

They have the right to do that, but that comes hand in hand with the responsibility to take the consequences for decisions made based on that mindset. And there are some, there will be some, and some of them are and will be rather serious.

 

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

 

Sagan was not averse to using political means to get to his aims and goals either, and was noted for being highly speculative in some of his interviews. Some might say he became more akin to "do as I say, not as I do".

 

I am not saying that we deride experts at all, but experts must expect to be questioned when they make statements in public. I think when it involves matters of a medical nature it is even more critical to be precise and accurate, which I accept is very hard to do, especially in matters related to the mind.

 

Sagan knew that politics could be important in making sure necessary scientific progress occurred, yes, but see above. Additionally, I think his thought about ignorance having equal weight to knowledge in the future is sadly becoming prescient.

 

Certainly the study of the mind is an inexact science and it, like other areas, are open to question and discussion. However, again, if you're going to discuss and raise questions about such expert testimony, it would be a good idea to have solid evidence as a basis for it. Hitchens Razor applies.

 

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

 

Experts are valuable, they can provide shortcuts to knowledge and guidance on their subjects of study/interest, but that does not give them a free pass to expect everything they say should be accepted as accurate and correct. 

 

There has to be a distinction made between legitimate questioning of expertise and that expertise being sidelined entirely in decision making. There's an awful lot of the latter occurring right now, and all that shows is that free choice includes the right to choose disaster.

 

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

 

Trust, but verify. Everyone should be allowed to make mistakes without fear or favour, but the politicisation and coercion by funding of all areas of science has whittled this away. One mistake and you can never be funded again, it leaves factions even within the same sphere fighting each other for funding of projects, so that science is done for the highest bidder. So when I see an expert, I do consider what they have to say, but I also consider who's funded them and what are their overall aims.

 

If there are corruption issues within the scientific community as is inferred here, they will be rooted out by other scientists. Scientific fact cannot be bought, not for long, anyway.

 

If that's not true and the whole method is in fact corrupt, it would be nice to have some proof of that beyond mere assertion, before libelling decent people who are legitimately trying to make the future a better place.

 

9 hours ago, blabyboy said:

 

I'm not sure a pure scientific method does exist, or perhaps has ever existed the more I think about it.

I agree, the method is human and therefore imperfect, like anything else human.

 

However, it remains the best method we have for divining facts about the universe around us, and is self correcting. Critique of it is welcome, but in the absence of showing a better way, rather hollow, IMO.

 

I guess the thread of my thoughts throughout this response is pretty much this; people can be and have the right to be sceptical about the scientific method and the results it gives, but they should be warned that if that then leads to a world where the viewpoint of the layman has as much pull as the expert on scientific matters in terms of policy making, that will be punished by the Earth. It has been in the past, it will be in the future, and that punishment will be severe. And the responsibility for the depth of trouble caused by that punishment will lie, solely, on the shoulders of those who thought it would be a good idea for those with little scientific knowledge to steer policy decisions on matters of science.

Edited 26 March 2025 by leicsmac

[Dunge]

@leicsmac - I think the thing that originally bugged me about the whole Trump/dementia thing was seeing an article, presented either on this thread or one of its predecessors, where an expert was claiming (pre-election) that Trump was showing signs of dementia while Biden wasn’t. I’m perfectly happy and willing to listen to expert opinion but that one blatantly failed the eye test, and I have to then ask myself why the article existed. The one presented above was a similar thing, albeit without the Biden comparison in it, and unfortunately follows a bit of a trend I’ve noticed over recent years on several big issues such as Trump, trans and the origins of Covid - scientific experts posting things that they want to be true as opposed to being definitively objective.

 

I agree with what you’re saying in principle, and I’m not saying that such posts are conspiratorial or anything like that. I think it’s more a case of people making the classic statistical mistake of coming to a conclusion and then trying to find the data to back it up.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

@leicsmac - I think the thing that originally bugged me about the whole Trump/dementia thing was seeing an article, presented either on this thread or one of its predecessors, where an expert was claiming (pre-election) that Trump was showing signs of dementia while Biden wasn’t. I’m perfectly happy and willing to listen to expert opinion but that one blatantly failed the eye test, and I have to then ask myself why the article existed. The one presented above was a similar thing, albeit without the Biden comparison in it, and unfortunately follows a bit of a trend I’ve noticed over recent years on several big issues such as Trump, trans and the origins of Covid - scientific experts posting things that they want to be true as opposed to being definitively objective.

 

I agree with what you’re saying in principle, and I’m not saying that such posts are conspiratorial or anything like that. I think it’s more a case of people making the classic statistical mistake of coming to a conclusion and then trying to find the data to back it up.

Yeah, this plays into what I said earlier about while the method and the way it is executed can be flawed because it is human, it's also self correcting.

 

People can raise legitimate noise about the topics you mention here but when that is then used to go further and craft policy that ignores legit scientific consensus and bad things happen as a result of it (and they almost always do), that's on the people that took it too far, no one else.

 

We've talked in person about this before, and we both know what's out there in the future if ideas not derived from the scientific method are used for critical decision making at a high level.

[the fox]

I remember when the Clean Break Memo was just a conspiracy theory.

Edited 22 June 2025 by the fox

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, the fox said:

I remember when the Clean Break Memo was just a conspiracy theory.

It was never a conspiracy theory though. 

[the fox]

1 minute ago, SpacedX said:

It was never a conspiracy theory though. 

Oh but it pretty much was. Not in the sense that it lacked tangible evidence but the de-platforming of anyone who engaged in such discourse pre-covid/socially media era.

 

Imagine telling someone that the same people who made the memo worked for George Bush, not only worked for him but for the defence department, but not only that but they organised an office in the pentagon that made-up the "Saddam has WMDs". And it's all public knowledge.

[the fox]

The Clean Break Memo was written in 1996 if anyone is wondering 

 

 

 

Here's a wiki of the office of special plans for anyone interested.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans

 

The Clean Break Memo

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

 

 

Edited 22 June 2025 by the fox

[Lionator]

Maybe tinfoil but I think we will have nuclear war before the end of 2025.

I’d say mark this but I don’t think we’ll be needing that. Send help. 

[Clogger_]

13 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Maybe tinfoil but I think we will have nuclear war before the end of 2025.

I’d say mark this but I don’t think we’ll be needing that. Send help. 

You have been concerned about this for some time, and I sincerely hope you're wrong. But there is really no point worrying about it. Be careful not to overthink or over-read on this one: I reckon it could be a right old rabbit hole

[Clogger_]

Either that or get digging your shelter haha

[Lionator]

22 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

You have been concerned about this for some time, and I sincerely hope you're wrong. But there is really no point worrying about it. Be careful not to overthink or over-read on this one: I reckon it could be a right old rabbit hole

Oh it is. I am completely messed up. But the signs are there. I don’t know how others can breathe freely. 

Edited 21 August 2025 by Lionator

[Clogger_]

22 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Oh it is. I am completely messed up. But the signs are there. I don’t know how others can breathe freely. 

I can tell you my thoughts, as can others. But I suspect this is one you have to work out for yourself.

 

Personally I can breathe freely because (1) Putin/Russia are a paper tiger - basically bankrupt - and any nuclear strike against the West would ensure their annihilation (2) other nuclear players can't hit the West and won't strike their neighbours (3) other issues have a MUCH greater probability of a disastrous outcome*. In a risk assessment context, nuclear war has the highest possible severity, but I reckon the likelihood remains very low (4) It'd be over before we get chance to worry (5) It'd save me from dark thoughts about the City!

 

(*The global and local rise of the fash worries me more, as does the medium to long-term impact of climate change. To my mind social cohesion is the most pressing problem. Some *vile* actors are trying to pull us all apart.)

Edited 21 August 2025 by Clogger_

[Clogger_]

Oh and just to add, I've had several decades to work through this problem in my own mind!

[Lionator]

13 minutes ago, Clogger_ said:

I can tell you my thoughts, as can others. But I suspect this is one you have to work out for yourself.

 

Personally I can breathe freely because (1) Putin/Russia are a paper tiger - basically bankrupt - and any nuclear strike against the West would ensure their annihilation (2) other nuclear players can't hit the West and won't strike their neighbours (3) other issues have a MUCH greater probability of a disastrous outcome*. In a risk assessment context, nuclear war has the highest possible severity, but I reckon the likelihood remains very low (4) It'd be over before we get chance to worry (5) It'd save me from dark thoughts about the City!

 

(*The global and local rise of the fash worries me more, as does the medium to long-term impact of climate change. To my mind social cohesion is the most pressing problem. Some *vile* actors are trying to pull us all apart.)

My response 

1) yea they’re a declining country but if Russia nuked, let’s say Krakow, would the west risk it all for that? 
 

2) China and India have Russia’s back, that is clear to see. Ten years ago their oppo would be enough but these are major players now.

 

3) it doesn’t take too much for it to escalate into nuclear war. Trump is a moron. He will give the go ahead for Ukraine to use US cruise missiles to hit Russia. Russia will respond with oreshnik then tactical nukes. 
 

4) thank god, I hope so, then this misery will be all over. 

[urban.spaceman]

Well this is ****ing cheerful