So, I learned a new conspiracy theory

[TheManicMonocle]

So according to this interesting theory I heard, there was a global nuclear war in the year 2,000BC, about 4,000 years ago during a period of exceptionally high technology. Not only that, but supposedly the governments of the world are covering it up.

Edit: supposed evidence

Consider these verses from the ancient Mahabharata: …a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour… a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds… …the cloud of smoke rising after its first explosion formed into expanding round circles like the opening of giant parasols… ..it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. …The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, And the birds turned white. After a few hours All foodstuffs were infected… …to escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment. Until the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, modern mankind could not imagine any weapon as horrible and devastating as those described in the ancient Indian texts. Yet, they very accurately described the effects of an atomic explosion. Radioactive poisoning will make hair and nails fall out.

[factotum]

...apparently they're not doing a very good job of it since people know about it? And I guess the nuclear war in question was actually started by the lizards in an attempt to wipe out the humans, and since that failed they've just taken to wearing our skins and pretending to be our leaders?

[veti]

Did it mention why the governments of the world are covering it up? Bearing in mind that "the governments of the world" cannot, in general, agree on anything. (Search for "List of UN General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously". I'll wait.)

Or how they're doing it? Bearing in mind, again, their proven long-term utter incompetence at everything, especially as it pertains to "keeping secrets".

[Spanish_Paladin]

Yeah, all those theories are funny. I love to watch tv shows of aliens and conspirations, is a good entertaiment :smallbiggrin:

[TheManicMonocle]

Did it mention why the governments of the world are covering it up? Bearing in mind that "the governments of the world" cannot, in general, agree on anything. (Search for "List of UN General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously". I'll wait.)

Or how they're doing it? Bearing in mind, again, their proven long-term utter incompetence at everything, especially as it pertains to "keeping secrets".

Well they say that during this period of high technology we humans built bases on the moon and mars and that the government doctors any moon photos that show evidence of human habitation

[Aedilred]

Very few conspiracy theories have any merit. Those that appear to have merit usually have an obvious beneficiary or motive, a group or individual with the power to accomplish it, and/or elements of the official story that defy or resist explanation or are of clearly dubious reliability (e.g. there are multiple contradictory sources).

I can't see any of that for this one.

And even when they tick those boxes the vast majority of them are no more than the sort of "mind-blowing alternative interpretations" for films and fictional media that you see on places like Cracked.

Really, despite their association with tinfoil hats and people living on the outside, I think that conspiracy theories are fundamentally motivated by a desire for comfort: that the Powers That Be both have a plan and are competent enough to execute it, rather than the seeming reality that humanity blunders aimlessly from one crisis to the next in a near-constant state of panic.

There are probably some conclusions to be drawn about why conspiracy theories saw such a rise in prominence and seeming number at the point they did (i.e. the 20th century). But to discuss it would probably end up violating board rules.

[Strigon]

There are probably some conclusions to be drawn about why conspiracy theories saw such a rise in prominence and seeming number at the point they did (i.e. the 20th century). But to discuss it would probably end up violating board rules.

Eh, personally I just chalk it up to 3 things. First, the rise of governments being held accountable to their people, while leads to the people constantly questioning the government; second, the ability to quickly communicate, which spreads bad ideas just as easily as good ones; thirdly, the chemtrails making everyone paranoid.

Anyway, what was their logic behind this claim? Every theory I've ever heard has at least tried to provide evidence.

Edit: Did some reading and, oh... oh, my... that's some shaky research you're doing there, kiddos. My, oh, my, oh, my. I mean, it's a compelling read; I'd watch that movie, but... no.

Edit: "Generally speaking, the bigger a race is, the better its chances of survival, (at least according to evolution LOL)."
Yes. Yes, that's right. That's why insects are going extinct and whales number in the trillions.
Oh, wait, no, it's the other way 'round!

[veti]

Well they say that during this period of high technology we humans built bases on the moon and mars and that the government doctors any moon photos that show evidence of human habitation

You know you can go buy your own telescope and look at the moon for yourself? If the moon had anything on it the size of even a very small city, you should be able to see evidence of that yourself using a telescope that costs less than, say, a Playstation.

It gets really hard to see how "the governments" could keep a secret that literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of ordinary people would have to be in on.

[TheManicMonocle]

You know you can go buy your own telescope and look at the moon for yourself? If the moon had anything on it the size of even a very small city, you should be able to see evidence of that yourself using a telescope that costs less than, say, a Playstation.

It gets really hard to see how "the governments" could keep a secret that literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of ordinary people would have to be in on.

Naturally, don't get me wrong, I don't believe a word of it, I just think the theory is interesting in the way that it would make a good basis for a work of fiction

[Eldan]

You know you can go buy your own telescope and look at the moon for yourself? If the moon had anything on it the size of even a very small city, you should be able to see evidence of that yourself using a telescope that costs less than, say, a Playstation.

It gets really hard to see how "the governments" could keep a secret that literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of ordinary people would have to be in on.

The internet is full of pictures of Mars and the Moon with paint circles around what are apparently roads, pipelines, domes and towers.

[factotum]

The internet is full of pictures of Mars and the Moon with paint circles around what are apparently roads, pipelines, domes and towers.

Presumably, especially in the case of Mars, these pictures are based on ones that NASA and other agencies have released to the public, rather than being taken by Johnny Nobody using his backyard telescope? Which means we run into the usual problem of conspiracy theories--we have these government agencies who are competent enough to hide almost every detail of whatever the theory is about, but who are also so stupid as to release images which reveal the truth without thoroughly doctoring them?

[SirKazum]

...apparently they're not doing a very good job of it since people know about it?

That's true of pretty much all conspiracy theories, though, and it's generally one of their most glaring flaws (that and the fact that the conspirators are supposedly expending an insane amount of resources for no real tangible benefit). "It's not widely known because they cover it up" can be even considered only if the events in question are very recent (say, less than 10 years at the outside), or events involving an extremely small group (like 3-4 people at most) that happened a few decades ago. (That's talking about events that are of public interest, of course.) And that's assuming an intense, concerted and competent effort to maintain secrecy. Everything gets out eventually... the less people involved, the more time it may take, but it still gets out.

The main underlying contradiction, anyway, is: if nobody knows about it because it's such an extremely well-guarded secret, how does a random schmuck with only passing knowledge of the milieu involved (which is what those people always are) know about it? That's why a major component of conspiracy theories is a sense of self-importance; "I'm exceptionally smart and knowledgeable, that's why I know something nobody else does". Possessing something so exclusive, including knowledge, is the ultimate power trip.


Really, despite their association with tinfoil hats and people living on the outside, I think that conspiracy theories are fundamentally motivated by a desire for comfort: that the Powers That Be both have a plan and are competent enough to execute it, rather than the seeming reality that humanity blunders aimlessly from one crisis to the next in a near-constant state of panic.

Yes, I think comfort (as well as the aforementioned ego / power-tripping) is a significant factor to why people cling to conspiracy theories. Not so much as in "the government is smart and knows what it's doing" (a reassuring but utterly false thought - and I say that being in the government -though I doubt it's seen as a positive thing for people who view said government as evil), but rather as in "there is an underlying sense/meaning to the things happening in the world around me, and I understand what's going on". Believing that last phrase is a dire emotional need most people have, and understanding how completely false it is can be very distressing.

[Iruka]

You know you can go buy your own telescope and look at the moon for yourself? If the moon had anything on it the size of even a very small city, you should be able to see evidence of that yourself using a telescope that costs less than, say, a Playstation.

It gets really hard to see how "the governments" could keep a secret that literally thousands, probably tens of thousands, of ordinary people would have to be in on.

Obviously, all those commercially available telescopes have been manipulated by the government. Do you know anyone with a self-built telescope? No? Thought so, the ones who tried have been taken by the Black Vans.

[Knaight]

Obviously, all those commercially available telescopes have been manipulated by the government. Do you know anyone with a self-built telescope? No? Thought so, the ones who tried have been taken by the Black Vans.

The level of sophistication it would need to make a telescope that detected when it was looking at the moon, edited the pictures, and didn't have design features that obviously shouldn't be there is pretty ridiculous though.

[SirKazum]

The level of sophistication it would need to make a telescope that detected when it was looking at the moon, edited the pictures, and didn't have design features that obviously shouldn't be there is pretty ridiculous though.

How do you know the kind of technology that would or wouldn't require, though? Technical knowledge? And where did you get that? Books? And WHO wrote those books? They're all in Big Ancient Nuclear War's pocket, I tell you! It goes all the way to the top!

[Fishybugs]

Naturally, don't get me wrong, I don't believe a word of it, I just think the theory is interesting in the way that it would make a good basis for a work of fiction

Terry Brooks has you beat.

[cobaltstarfire]

Did it mention why the governments of the world are covering it up? Bearing in mind that "the governments of the world" cannot, in general, agree on anything. (Search for "List of UN General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously". I'll wait.)


Clearly their apparent disability to agree on anything is also a conspiracy to cover up their conspiracy :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

The only true conspiracy is the Finland conspiracy (https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/comments/52f5ae/the_finland_conspiracy_and_all_you_need_to_know/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=browse&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=finlandConspiracy).

[TheManicMonocle]

So, I actually left out the only piece of pupported evidence that has some merit, which is a quote from an article quoting ancient Indian texts.


Consider these verses from the ancient Mahabharata: …a single projectile charged with all the power of the Universe. An incandescent column of smoke and flame As bright as the thousand suns Rose in all its splendour… a perpendicular explosion with its billowing smoke clouds… …the cloud of smoke rising after its first explosion formed into expanding round circles like the opening of giant parasols… ..it was an unknown weapon, an iron thunderbolt, a gigantic messenger of death, which reduced to ashes The entire race of the Vrishnis and the Andhakas. …The corpses were so burned as to be unrecognizable. The hair and nails fell out; Pottery broke without apparent cause, And the birds turned white. After a few hours All foodstuffs were infected… …to escape from this fire, the soldiers threw themselves in streams to wash themselves and their equipment. Until the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, modern mankind could not imagine any weapon as horrible and devastating as those described in the ancient Indian texts. Yet, they very accurately described the effects of an atomic explosion. Radioactive poisoning will make hair and nails fall out.

Still bogus, but interesting

[TuggyNE]

Eh, personally I just chalk it up to 3 things. First, the rise of governments being held accountable to their people, while leads to the people constantly questioning the government; second, the ability to quickly communicate, which spreads bad ideas just as easily as good ones; thirdly, the chemtrails making everyone paranoid.

Used to know a guy who lived up the road, right under a high-voltage cross-country powerline. Said it was bad for his health, and eventually moved away to get away from the line.

In particular, he said it was making him paranoid.

[HandofShadows]

Really, despite their association with tinfoil hats and people living on the outside, I think that conspiracy theories are fundamentally motivated by a desire for comfort: that the Powers That Be both have a plan and are competent enough to execute it, rather than the seeming reality that humanity blunders aimlessly from one crisis to the next in a near-constant state of panic.


For most conspiracy people it's the opposite. They *are* looking for "comfort" in a way. But they are looking for someone to blame for what they feel is going wrong with the world or their lives. Say there is bad weather in a part of the country for several years, some people want a reason for it and can't accept that sometimes the weather sucks. So they need a person or an institution they can point a finger at and get angry at. Some people want that hate and anger, they many even NEED it because it gives them power (or feel it does). It's also a way to avoid responsability. If your life is bad, blaming a conspiracy means you get to avoid looking at the prosibility that the reason it's bad is you and nothing else.

[Jay R]

And there was a second global nuclear war on the grassy knoll.

[cobaltstarfire]

For most conspiracy people it's the opposite. They *are* looking for "comfort" in a way. But they are looking for someone to blame for what they feel is going wrong with the world or their lives. Say there is bad weather in a part of the country for several years, some people want a reason for it and can't accept that sometimes the weather sucks. So they need a person or an institution they can point a finger at and get angry at. Some people want that hate and anger, they many even NEED it because it gives them power (or feel it does). It's also a way to avoid responsability. If your life is bad, blaming a conspiracy means you get to avoid looking at the prosibility that the reason it's bad is you and nothing else.

This makes me want to really grill the folks who think the moon is a hologram and stuff like that. Mostly because I don't see the benefits to a shadow organization for fabricating and/or stealing the moon.

[Eldan]

The only true conspiracy is the Finland conspiracy (https://www.reddit.com/r/finlandConspiracy/comments/52f5ae/the_finland_conspiracy_and_all_you_need_to_know/?utm_content=title&utm_medium=browse&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=finlandConspiracy).

They should have sent a poet.


That's the best theory I've ever read.

[AnachroNinja]

Edit: "Generally speaking, the bigger a race is, the better its chances of survival, (at least according to evolution LOL)."
Yes. Yes, that's right. That's why insects are going extinct and whales number in the trillions.
Oh, wait, no, it's the other way 'round!

Well evolutionarily, whales were doing great. Almost no natural predators and an endless food source. Size is a very strong trait. See elephants, rhinos, great white sharks, brown bears... A common theme to these types of critters is that they are primarily going extinct or losing habitat due to man, not other predators or what have you. By comparison, we've also wiped out thousands of species of insects, many of them by accident.

[HandofShadows]

This makes me want to really grill the folks who think the moon is a hologram and stuff like that. Mostly because I don't see the benefits to a shadow organization for fabricating and/or stealing the moon.

It wouldn't do any good. People who believe that kind of stuff are irrational and fanatical in their beliefs. Speaking reason to them just means that you are part of the conspiracy and they will reject any points you bring up out of hand. It's not that they won't admit their conspiracy theory could be wrong. On a deep level the CAN'T admit it could be wrong because it would destroy the alternate reality they have created in the minds. :smallfrown:

[SirKazum]

It wouldn't do any good. People who believe that kind of stuff are irrational and fanatical in their beliefs. Speaking reason to them just means that you are part of the conspiracy and they will reject any points you bring up out of hand. It's not that they won't admit their conspiracy theory could be wrong. On a deep level the CAN'T admit it could be wrong because it would destroy the alternate reality they have created in the minds. :smallfrown:

Plus, there's the backfire effect (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect). When people are committed to an idea (in a way that conspiracy theorists invariably are), whenever anyone argues against them, it will only make them even more entrenched and committed to their idea. The quality of the argument or whether it provides verifiable facts doesn't matter - presenting facts that counter your opponent's ideas tends to make them believe them more, not less.

I chalk that up to our tribal instinct that's so prevalent throughout mankind - people denying what you believe are seen as "the enemy", the arguments are seen as an assault on your "side", and you psychologically jump into "battle" mode, boosting your natural inclination to reject those you see as enemies and favor those you see as allies, which extends to the ideas/arguments/facts presented by each party. You gird yourself for conflict, making you more resistant to "attacks" (i.e. facts) and inclined to automatically be against whatever the person in front of you defends. That's just my own interpretation, anyway, that doesn't come from any sort of study (as the backfire effect itself does).

Of course, I'm keeping this all 100% purely in the abstract realm, as providing any sort of example at all would be rather shaky in terms of forum rules, at best :smalleek:

[Strigon]

Well evolutionarily, whales were doing great. Almost no natural predators and an endless food source. Size is a very strong trait. See elephants, rhinos, great white sharks, brown bears... A common theme to these types of critters is that they are primarily going extinct or losing habitat due to man, not other predators or what have you. By comparison, we've also wiped out thousands of species of insects, many of them by accident.

First off, can you name a modern-day species that wasn't doing fine before humans? We've only been around for so long on the grand scheme of things, and we've been recording on such a short time frame that we really can't say what was on the way out before we started massacring species by the boatload.

Secondly, I never said size couldn't be strong, but to make the blanket statement "larger organisms are better at surviving" is demonstrably false. Larger organisms are better at surviving under circumstances where larger organisms are better at surviving. Tautological, yes, but still true. His whole claim was that large organisms would ordinarily have prevailed, and since all the giants were wiped out, there must have been something specifically targeting them. In reality, a larger organism needs more food to survive, so if anything bad happens, at all, they'll be the most affected. Poisons work their way up the food chain, food shortages hit the apex predators hardest... the big guys might not have any natural predators, but that doesn't mean their posititon is stable.

[Knaight]

For most conspiracy people it's the opposite. They *are* looking for "comfort" in a way. But they are looking for someone to blame for what they feel is going wrong with the world or their lives. Say there is bad weather in a part of the country for several years, some people want a reason for it and can't accept that sometimes the weather sucks. So they need a person or an institution they can point a finger at and get angry at. Some people want that hate and anger, they many even NEED it because it gives them power (or feel it does). It's also a way to avoid responsability. If your life is bad, blaming a conspiracy means you get to avoid looking at the prosibility that the reason it's bad is you and nothing else.

The subtext here seems to be that you're calling the existence of global warming a conspiracy theory here. If not, fine. If so: Are you serious? The overlap between a conspiracy theory and a tragedy of the commons situation (or just lots and lots of distributed stupidity) is pretty minimal.

[HandofShadows]

The subtext here seems to be that you're calling the existence of global warming a conspiracy theory here. If not, fine. If so: Are you serious? The overlap between a conspiracy theory and a tragedy of the commons situation (or just lots and lots of distributed stupidity) is pretty minimal.

I am not. Any accusations of a conspiracy in regards to global warming do not come anywhere near what I am taling about. That kind of stuff all falls under politics and soundbites. I do find it odd that anyone could consider I was talking about the subject though.

[Aedilred]

Well evolutionarily, whales were doing great. Almost no natural predators and an endless food source. Size is a very strong trait. See elephants, rhinos, great white sharks, brown bears... A common theme to these types of critters is that they are primarily going extinct or losing habitat due to man, not other predators or what have you. By comparison, we've also wiped out thousands of species of insects, many of them by accident.
But this is confirmation bias. Go back to the period actually before man and we'll find megafauna of size and diversity unmatched by species in the Holocene.

Moas and Elephant Birds were confined to insular populations before the arrival of man; elsewhere, nothing matched the size of the Terror Birds. Dire Wolves, Megatherium, Paraceratherium - these were all larger than their modern relatives and went extinct apparently independently of man. Where are the monstrous crocodiles, like Deinosuchus, of yore? What of the Hell Pigs? Or the gigantic Andrewsarchus? And that's without getting into the obvious: the larger dinosaurs. All gone.

Gigantism is an evolutionary strategy like any other, but it is a relatively high-risk one, for the reason. I think it would be possible to make the argument that large size is, all other things being equal, suboptimal. There is a reason why many of the largest species that man has encountered have been on islands: the enclosed ecology makes more outlandish survival strategies more viable - which also gives a clue as to why so many of these species have gone extinct relatively quickly after man (and his good friends Dog and Rat) have arrived on the islands in question.

[AnachroNinja]

But this is confirmation bias. Go back to the period actually before man and we'll find megafauna of size and diversity unmatched by species in the Holocene.

Moas and Elephant Birds were confined to insular populations before the arrival of man; elsewhere, nothing matched the size of the Terror Birds. Dire Wolves, Megatherium, Paraceratherium - these were all larger than their modern relatives and went extinct apparently independently of man. Where are the monstrous crocodiles, like Deinosuchus, of yore? What of the Hell Pigs? Or the gigantic Andrewsarchus? And that's without getting into the obvious: the larger dinosaurs. All gone.

Gigantism is an evolutionary strategy like any other, but it is a relatively high-risk one, for the reason. I think it would be possible to make the argument that large size is, all other things being equal, suboptimal. There is a reason why many of the largest species that man has encountered have been on islands: the enclosed ecology makes more outlandish survival strategies more viable - which also gives a clue as to why so many of these species have gone extinct relatively quickly after man (and his good friends Dog and Rat) have arrived on the islands in question.

There's some truth to what your saying, but not really for the right reasons. With a few exceptions, evolution almost unequivocally favors larger size. Studies and records indicate that a given newly emerging species will almost always be larger then it's predecessors. Where your right is the risk angle. Larger species are more vulnerable to extinction. Primarily to extinction events due to their greater need for food and space. Meteor strikes, climate change, sudden environmental changes... That sort of thing. As far as inter species competition though, size is an almost overwhelming benefit, the primary problem being that there are only so many ecological niches available for larger creatures. Large predators aren't driven out by small predators, they are driven out by other large predators until there's only one left.

Overall the evolutionary benefits and the greater risk of extinction balance out, which is what maintains the breadth of size that we see in must ecological systems. In a closed system with minimal outside interference though, size will pretty much always win out.

[Zarohk]

Did it mention why the governments of the world are covering it up? Bearing in mind that "the governments of the world" cannot, in general, agree on anything. (Search for "List of UN General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously". I'll wait.)

Or how they're doing it? Bearing in mind, again, their proven long-term utter incompetence at everything, especially as it pertains to "keeping secrets".

Yeah, that's why I find SEELE from NGE less believable that Cauldron from Worm. One is a world-spanning conspiracy that controls nearly everything and only gets revealed due to sabotage, while the other is approximately six people and gets due to an unlucky turn of events. This conspiracy requires far too much concerted human competence to be plausible.

[Appleciders]

Did it mention why the governments of the world are covering it up? Bearing in mind that "the governments of the world" cannot, in general, agree on anything. (Search for "List of UN General Assembly resolutions passed unanimously". I'll wait.)


'Cause that's what governments do, man.