It's a Conspiracy!

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    <Walks into room>



    <Notices we're debating Shakespeare on AI forums>



    <head explodes>
  • Reply 22 of 46
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Well obviously we see that Seg really likes and desires to buy into conspiracy theories. We can't fault him for that though because I've read enough of them, especially on the political side here, to fill that new Airbus 380.



    Seg claims that conspiracy theories are the domain of conservatives, but on that I will have to solidly disagree. They are very much the realm of the political left or of liberal thought in general and it is because they are great stories that all follow the same theme. Here is the little guy who was about to overcome the big guy, but this is how the powers that be put an end to it.



    UFO's, JFK, 1000 mpg cars, elections, it doesn't really matter. The outline of the story is always the same. All that changes are the elements. Like much good story telling, there are times where there are logical leaps or huge plot holes, but since the story is so enjoyable, the conspiracy folks don't care.



    Anyway, please don't believe what I typed... even though it is true because it is really all just a conspiracy to strip away your idealism. I've been hired by covert government operatives to post here and keep all these wonderful folks from going out and changing the world. If you stop believing in conspiracy theories, now then I've done my job and the "man" will have won. Instead you have to ignore the gaping holes and believe even harder now if you want to "win."



    Nick
  • Reply 23 of 46
    And again, Segovius, you've... just ignored half of the evidence and argument I posted. All the really juicy conclusive stuff that scholars all over the planet take for granted, that's the kind of stuff you're going to address if you're seriously going to attempt to prove that a 'controversy' exists, because there is no controversy. The evidence is explict, and abundant, inside the texts and outside. Really, honestly, you know those young earthers? That's you, that is.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    All that proves is that an actor from Stratford existed called William Shakespeare and that plays published under the name William Shakespeare existed contemporaneously.



    It does nothing to link the two or show that this actor was in fact also the writer.




    Well, like I said, I know it's going to be impossible to convince you with 'facts' and 'evidence'.



    All that evidence proves that William Shakespeare from Stratford wrote the plays he acted in. They were the same person. The facts are irrefutable unless, of course, the logic is less important to you than the questioning. I proved in like, one simple step, the Shakespeare the actor wrote the plays and the man who wrote the plays was from Stratford. You're just going 'No, he didn't.' There's no evidence and argument that's going to convince you.



    Quote:

    And you cannot do this because no scholar has ever been able to do this because the evidence is not there.



    I'm not a Shakespeare scholar and yet I appear to have done exactly this. My friend, amigo, you are as as wrong as people who claim that the planet is only 6,000 years old. You're as wrong as that.



    Quote:

    The greatest writer the world has ever known - the one who has a vocab of 20,000 words as opposed to the Bible's 5000 remember - does not need to rip off inferior minds.



    He made a lot of those words up, yes. But what you write is not evidence of any worth, but conjecture, intended to support a position with no reason to exist.



    As You Like It I think has many cryptic allusions to Marlowe. The writer quotes Marlowe's poem Hero and Lender in one place.



    Quote:

    The phrase 'the reckoning' was a key element in the inquest into Marlowe's death - but the interesting thing is that this fact was not discovered until the 20th Century so the writer must have had some intimate knowledge of this.



    If I remember correctly, he died over an argument over 'the reckoning' (the bill) in a tavern in Deptford. That was the official account, anyway. Yeah, I'm with you on that, some weird shit went down with Marlowe.



    Quote:

    Apparently, there is a system of analysis of writer's styles that is used extensively to determine copyright and is accurate to a highly significant degree. Kind of literary fingerprinting. This technique was used on Bacon and Shakespeare and came up a dud. but when used on Marlow/Shakespeare the ID was near perfect.



    But... they write completely differently. Marlowe and Shakespeare have different styles, utterly! Have you read Marlowe? His work is so completely different to Shakespeare's. I love Marlowe, and I can tell you, categorically, anyone with an ounce of sensitivity couldn't confuse their work. They both write so distinctively. Dude, it's kind of, well, it's like being a philistine on purpose to prove a point. I know you're not actually claiming that Shakespeare and Marlowe write in a similar style, but this one really pisses me off. It's just bollocks.



    Quote:

    These are held as being written in 1590. When Shakespeare the actor was 26 years old.



    Ah. So... we've got good, incontrovertible dates for the Sonnets, now? The individual ones? Cool! That's awesome! When did that happen?



    Oh. It hasn't.



    Quote:

    Well, there is a school of thought - one which has more support than the Shakespeare authorship issue but let's not go there - that Marlowe did not die when he was supposed to have died. It is possible.



    Segovius. You are... incorrigible.



    Quote:

    Can you send some over this way? I am fatigued and in need of stimulation.....



    By all means. If you promise to assassinate someone for me afterwards.
  • Reply 24 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Jesus Christ, enough with Shakespeare. Reading his (or whomever's) shit makes my eyes bleed and my brain fart.
  • Reply 25 of 46
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Can I request a graphic of that please?



    Nick
  • Reply 26 of 46
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iPoster View Post


    The thing is, for every debunking site there is a controlled demo/etc. site from a reputable source. I came across a .edu site from a structural engineering professor who had his class examine the WTC 7 collapse as their final project, and they came to universal conclusion that it was a controlled demolition, unfortunately I have re-formatted since and lost the link.



    Didn't mean to imply that I believe *all* the 9/11 theories, just that there are some things about it that are odd/unusual. That is how conspiracy theories get started after all. Have you debunked the JFK 2nd shooter theory at all? I know the official JFK story is probably correct, but that 'Magic Bullet' part is a bit unlikely. Considering how long the JFK theories have been with us, 9/11 ones are going to last decades if not centuries. \



    Care to name a few?



    On MY short list would be some of the following;



    Structural engineers (PE's) who are members of ASCE, ASME, ASTM, academia, and other formal professional engineering bodies NOT associated with the US government.



    In regard to the US government some orginizations would be the FAA, NIST, FEMA, and the US Army COE (where I work).



    And to address the original poster, yes to all being true.



    PS - addabox, as usual good post!
  • Reply 27 of 46
    snoopysnoopy Posts: 1,901member




    I have a question; since Shakespeare seemed to have a good insight into human nature, did he describe himself in any of his plays? How about in the Merchant of Venice?



  • Reply 28 of 46
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post


    But this isn't true. There's abundant and very clear evidence, for example, both inside and outside his texts. that Shakespeare wrote the plays and poems attributed to him. So much irrefutable evidence in fact that to question it seriously is perverse. Anyone who seriously questions this evidence demonstrates that they haven't read the plays or poems; it's a sort of classist philistinism to disbelieve that a non-university educated glover's son from Stratford could have written them.



    This isn't a 'conservative' viewpoint, it's to do with an honest and serious relationship to the world and to facts that admits the human and the remarkable.



    In the case of Diana's death, for example, it also admits that the world is fucked up and arbitrary, and this is frightening for the adherents of conspiracy theories. It makes them 'nervous and upset'.



    At heart, conspiracy theories, I believe, are comforting for those that believe them because they imply a non-existent order. The chaos and the pointlessness of life is pretty scary; they do not find the implications liberating or this fear exciting. In short, a self-protection mechanism.



    i read/ heard rather than an "assasination" diana driver was blinded by flash held by a photographer on the back end of a motorcycle, thus could have been a terrible tragedy accident rather than planned
  • Reply 29 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    White Fiat Uno.



    Great loss to, er, humanity.



    Anyway. Look everyone, we're having a Heated Debate about something we're passionate about. And we're getting a wee bit testy. But we're having fun. Yay internet.



    Tony Blair. Alien fascist. I want him dead.
  • Reply 30 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post


    Tony Blair. Alien fascist. I want him dead.



    Tony Blair: War Criminal?
  • Reply 31 of 46
    aries 1baries 1b Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Jesus Christ, enough with Shakespeare. Reading his (or whomever's) shit makes my eyes bleed and my brain fart.



    I disagree completely.



    This is the best thread of the year.



    Hassan & Segovius: Congratulations to you both.



    V/R,



    Aries 1B
  • Reply 32 of 46
    skatmanskatman Posts: 609member
    To decide whether something is true or not in the case of physical phenomena (such as a car crash or building collape), one needs access to source data.

    In many cases, such as JFK, 9/11, Kursk I can't bring myself to believe any story, be it conspiracy or not, because very little relevant source data was presented. If somebody wants to convince me, I have a list of data that I need for me to be convinced one way or the other.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    aries 1baries 1b Posts: 1,009member
    For there to be a conspiracy, there must first be some manner of gain; gain to some one or a group. Who benefits if the works of a variety of authors are published under the name of one man?



    If the original handwritten manuscripts no longer exist, is that unusual? How many manuscripts of a like nature from that time period still exist?



    Could Shakespeare have 'purchased the rights' (for lack of a better term and if that kind of transaction existed back then) and then 'legally' have published them under his name regardless of the original author? Could he, in fact, have employed Johnson, Bacon, etc?



    500 years from now will the posters of AppleInsider2507AD.com argue that Steve Jobs couldn't possibly have invented the Macintosh, Newton, OS X, Apple TV, iPhone, iBrowser, AntiGravity, The Portable Reality Distortion Field (Fool Your Friends!), AT&T and Microsoft and that he must have had help?



    Do the printed materials claiming the authorship of Shakespeare date to a time before WS's death? Wouldn't the original authors, having been ripped off, raised a stink that would last to the current day?



    And why hasn't Midwinter (as far as I've seen) chimed in on this thead???



    V/R,



    Aries 1B
  • Reply 34 of 46
    jubelumjubelum Posts: 4,490member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post




    I believe that the moon landings were not faked.

    I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.

    I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.

    I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.



    Gee, Smithers, I think we have them all *fooooled*







    PS- the Bilderbergs are just playing checkers at their meetings. Never you mind, you tinfoil hat wearing 'wingers!
  • Reply 35 of 46
    franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    I haven't read EVERY word written in this thread, however, from what I have read, I see the following;



    1) As usual, it is best to place certainty of events into a probabilistic framework, so from my POV ordered chronologically/technologically/informationally;



    Willie wrote works, p > 0.5

    JFK single shooter (my add), p > 0.9

    Moon landings, p > 0.999999 (at least 6 sigma)

    Drunk driver did Di, p > 0.9999999

    911 caused by terrorists, p > 0.999999999



    2) Available "objective" data and when events occurred (i. e. no living witnesses or those who were born subsequent to the actual event(s)), seems important here. More "objective" data here does not mean more certainty to those who are unwilling to accept the "standard" story, if anything it means less to them, but in either case the "objective" data will always be << infinity (see (3) below).



    3) Also important is that the facts can never be established unequivocally, we are not all knowing, can't replay events from all spatial/temporal POV's (infinite = impossible), the real world can't be preserved/replayed from any position/angle like some kind of CGI physics based computer game. This also gets us into probabilistic versus deterministic views of our existence (clearly it's probabilistic in my POV, but we will probably never be able to model large scale temporal/spatial events (turbulence closure models come to mind here) in a "true" probabilistic sense).



    4) Because of (3) above we all have belief(s) or Belief(s). What set of "facts" are we willing to accept/reject depends to varying degrees on our temporal/spatial understanding of the physical universe, and how much "objective" data exists to support our belief(s) or Belief(s), and if we believe the existing "objective" data is "real." My own POV accepts that if a large amount of (time tested) "objective" data exists, then it appears that the commonly accepted "chain of events as told to us" are correct (as understood) to a significantly high probability.



    5) Apply the above "logic" to any "explanation of events as told to us by the gatekeepers," whether the event in question is your flavor of god and/or evolution, AGW and/or natural climatic rates of change, or GWB & Co. and/or terrorists did 911.



    6) Interesting discussion!
  • Reply 36 of 46
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 2,004member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    No - and there is an equal lack of evidence that he did.



    That is the point. I am admitting it could go either way and you are claiming it could only possibly be one way: that is what I meant by the Conservative mindset.



    Semantics:

    You need to stop using the capital C if you just mean conservative in general as opposed to a specific "Conservative Party."
  • Reply 37 of 46
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post


    I'm curious.



    If you're persuaded by one conspiracy theory are you likely to be persuaded by others? In which case are you possessed of a conspiracy-friendly mindset? Or is the world just very strange on the quiet?



    I did this before (but in a different thread) and I shall do it again:



    Conspiracy:

    "a plan or agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act".



    Theory: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact".



    When the 'conspiracy theory' bullet is fired, it is usually aimed to discredit the notion of crime being committed by officials in high places.. such as in government, corporate, military, law enforcement etc, namely those in positions of authority. It seldom happens the other way around. It is usually those of a conservative mindset (either politically or socially) who invoke the "discredit via C.T. accusation" tactic; conservatives tend to hold "authority" in higher esteem than "non-conservatives" and those who try to discredit authority are defiling conservatives' most hallowed ground. Woe betide....



    Judging by the way some folk attack "alternative explanations" of (controversial) events with such extreme rage and anger, one would think that they believe that people who get into positions of authority are incapable of putting a foot wrong, committing a crime, or doing anything unlawful, immoral or unethical. Why is it that so many are obsessed with the idea that authority figures always, by default, behave in a lilywhite, halo-shrouded 100% unimpeachable fashion, as if they have some weird element of divinity about them? It is far more likely that people who arrive at positions of power within society will exploit the "basement" aspects of human nature, and band together to commit criminal acts, especially knowing that the well-connected and wealthy in authority are far more likely to "get away with it", purely on the fact that they are "well-connected and wealthy"! Once in positions of power, the temptation to commit criminal acts with ones' peers is constantly present, far more so than for "ordinarily connected folk", especially if such acts enrich the perpetrators politically and materially, and the risk of being prosecuted is less than it is for "ordinarily connected" folk. There IS a lot of reality to the notion that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Millennia of human history shows this to be the case time and time again. To deny "conspiracy" by people in authority is to deny the very part of human nature that allows people to submit to the temptations to easily enrich oneself with a minimum of effort, and with a minimum chance of being caught.



    Quote:

    I believe that the moon landings were not faked



    .



    Same here. Theres is precious little (read virtually zero) evidence that the Moon landings were faked. One of the people who "popularized" this little item of wackiness was one Eric Hufschmid. Mr. Hufschmid was, without his immediate knowledge, set up as a pawn to discredit alternate explantions of the 9/11 attacks, by material association with notions that are totally ridiculous and easily debunkable, including 'holocaust denial. This made him a prime target for spreading deliberately non-believable disinformation about the 9/11 attacks, most especially the idea that 'no plane hit the Pentagon".



    Quote:

    I believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays and poems attributed to him.



    I do also, but to believe that Bacon (or another) wrote those works is not ascribing to a "conspiracy theory", since there is no criminal intent, and only one person is involved.



    Quote:

    I believe that Diana Princess of Wales died because her driver was drunk and drove too fast.



    There are problems with the official story. I think we all know what they are, and as of yet, there has *not* been a satisfactory resolution to Diana's death. You can either digest the BBC, or do the research.



    Quote:

    I believe that terrorists crashed jets in the Twin Towers.



    When something of such magnitude happens, like the 9/11 attacks for example, then the inquiry into how it happened should be absolute, thorough, no expenses spared, no punches pulled, and completely transparent and open. This has happened re. all national tragedies in the past with promptness, for example the inquiry into the death of JFK, and the two Space Shuttle accidents. Inexplicably and sadly, we broke with tradition re. 9/11. The report we finally got was a sick joke, a vicious insult towards those who were murdered. The Bush administration flatly refused to conduct *any* form of inquiry or investigation into the attacks for 411 days afterwards, (!!!!!!) and when they finally, reluctantly quit sidestepping, and grudgingly gave the go ahead to the request for an investigation (to avoid much potentially damagingly bad PR had the balking continued for much longer), the resulting inquiry was starved of both funding, staff and time. Then Bush insulted the American peoples' intelligence by appointing Henry Kissinger (!!!!!) to head the inquiry... even he had the savvy to bow out of that one. The final executive director, former White House adviser and arch NeoCon Philip Zelikow could not have been any less impartial... and all the material (10s of thousands of pages of evidence) that contradicted the obviously preordained conclusion of the "Commission" was summarily excluded from the Commission's final report. Even vital testimony on the radio from firefighters in the WTC Towers just before the collapses, were disallowed. When Bush was summoned to testify, he invoked "executive privilege": he literally sat on Cheney's lap, his testimony was in closed session, the media were not allowed in, no transcripts of the procedings were permitted and the questions were all pre-screened. Much of the Commission's final Report has been widely criticized as being inaccurate or improbable, or riddled with half truths, lies and misrepresentations, for example the text re. the internal structure of the Twin Towers themselves. Then theres the issue of tampering of both sites (Pentagon and WTC) where evidence was removed wholesale from crime scenes and rapidly disposed of.... it goes on and on.



    Clearly, the conduct of the powers that be has not been "thorough and scientific" when it came to the much delayed "investigation" into the 9/11 attacks. Who needs "the other stuff" (such as explosives in the Twin Towers, alive hijackers, disappearing planes, conflicting FDR data etc etc etc), when the conduct of the people running the investigation into the worst crime ever committed on American soil is so damned suspect, cagey and...... ? When it comes to raising red flags, we don't even need to invoke the "other stuff"!



    I get the impression that many people are happier to just 'let this one go', on the grounds that the "possibility that a few people within hallowed institutions" could have either "allowed the attacks to happen" or "worse", is too disturbing for many people to bear. It is definitely easier for many just to "believe and have faith" in the authorities, rather than "upturning rocks", for fear of finding ugliness lurking beneath. And in general, the more conservative the mindset, the harder it is to publicly acknowledge that "problems exist" with the official story (not just 9/11, but most other controversial incidents which havent been adequately explained by government or authority. Just look at Bill O'Reilly's frothing-at-the-mouth rantings and ravings towards anyone who expresses any element of doubt or suspicion re. what the Bush Administration (etc) told us about 9/11. His recent ad hominem attacks on Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and Kevin Barrett (for example) are quite the eye opener, and probably do more to discredit the "official story" than had his response been "measured and factual". [quote]



    ***



    The depressing aspect of the current landscape of "conspiracy theory" (mongering), is that the "powers-that-be" and the mainstream media own the term, as well as mischaracterizing it of course, and use it to "discredit amongst the masses" anything that portrays the "powers that be" in a less than favorable (or criminal) light. To illustrate: the term "conspiracy theory" (when using dictionary definitions), can be just as easily applied to the "official explanation" of 9/11, the theory being that 19 Arabs conspired to slam 4 hijacked planes into US landmarks and kill lots of people. QED. But that isn't an acceptable or valid use of the phrase "conspiracy theory", as it is exclusively employed to make non-authority parties appear the crazies, not the authorities! And since the authorities/powers-that-be tend to own the lines of communication to the public, they are in a virtually invincible position.



    We're all doomed! :P
  • Reply 38 of 46
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Jesus Christ, enough with Shakespeare. Reading his (or whomever's) shit makes my eyes bleed and my brain fart.



    No Kidding.. I had to scroll down this topic page for days it seems in order to post a reply to something I deemed an interesting statement..



    I for one believe Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll, Oswald was a patsy. A UFO did crash at Roswell and we have reversed engineered most of its tech for our personal use..Some UFO's are ET's and some are not. My 2 cents.
  • Reply 39 of 46
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa View Post


    No Kidding.. I had to scroll down this topic page for days it seems in order to post a reply to something I deemed an interesting statement..



    I for one believe Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll, Oswald was a patsy. A UFO did crash at Roswell and we have reversed engineered most of its tech for our personal use..Some UFO's are ET's and some are not. My 2 cents.



    What have UFOs gotta do with "conspiracy theory"?



    Yikes....
  • Reply 40 of 46
    @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    I saw a UFO once a few years back - 2 in fact - and took a photo of them which I still possess. They were over the city in Paris and executing some highly unfeasible aerial maneuvers.



    We must see photo.



    I also saw a UFO when I was a young lad (way before my drug daze) and have believed since. The only conspiracy link would be if the US government has captured UFOs, the technology and will not share or disclose them.



    If anyone's interested, here is the video link to The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 National Press Club Conference. Long and boring, but it was the launch of a whole new investigation on UFOs. Ironically(?), I think another conspiracy a few months later eclipsed them.
Sign In or Register to comment.