Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#201

Post by hindsightbias »

koolkat wrote: post #130
Klinky wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a large portion of the conspiracy theorist population probably has a mental illness that makes them susceptible to delusional thinking. Delusional people can lead very normal fully functioning lives, but mix a certain topic that offers patterns which make their brain go down a certain path, and they suddenly become very adamant about believing something that is illogical and irrational. There is probably litt…

I don't think being a "conspiracy theorist" is delusonal at all if there are overwhelming facts supportig the theory. When did it become crazy to "...have an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation." Watergate, Iran-contra, prism, the cia drug traffickin…

I don't think "conspiracy theorist" is really accurate term to define what is going on in most of these cases.

The vast majority of "conspiracies" are more like Underpants Gnomes business models. There's no explantory proposition anywhere. There's no overwhelming theory - put ten truthers in a room and you'll get ten wildly different theories (if you get a theory at all), and no overwhelming facts.

Watergate didn't require any theory - people connected with the Nixon administration were caught red-handed breaking and entering. It's obvious why they might do what they did and to ask who knew what/when. It was obvious people had a motive for covering up a criminal action. It was just a matter of documenting it.

When Iran leaked the Iran-hostage story via a Lebanese newspaper, nobody had a conspiracy theory before that. There was no "why would Reagan do that?" - the motivation was obvious and it was in print. When the -Contra side came out, no one had a conspiracy theory about a connection there. It was more investigation/leaks and a total surprise.

So I don't see where Conspiracy Theories really equate to uncovering Criminal Conspiracies. They seem to be more exclusive than related to each other.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#202

Post by stifledissent »

mturmon wrote: post #198
stifledissent wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. That's a reasonable stance. I tend to agree with you. It seems uncontroversial that it is important to look for supporting evidence and gather facts. I wonder what do you make of this public statement, published by Le Monde and written by 34 French scholars, made in February of 1979: "The question of how technically such a mass murder was possible shou…

You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust deniers. You have quoted a small piece of an article from Le Monde (out of context). The context was the need to debunk claims by Robert Faurisson, who was and is a notorious Holocaust denier. You have also made truly outrageous claims about gas chambers, with justif…

Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scholars published a statement saying that they, as scholars, think that question should not be raised.

I have no problem sourcing the statements I made here. For the BBC interview, see here (timestamp: 3:33): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF4GFGMNm3g which I quote below:

David: "The judge says 'I always assumed that there was the evidence that Auschwitz had gas chambers, I was surprised to find that there wasn't until this case came along"

Tim: "There wasn't documentary evidence, is what he said, he doesn't say there wasn't any evidence, he said there wasn't documentary evidence"

David: "There were eyewitnesses and he relies on half a dozen eyewitnesses"

The transcripts for the trial are available for you to investigate for yourself, but the BBC acknowledging in public there's no documentary evidence for it, and quoting from the trial itself, should be enough for you to investigate for yourself from now on, and should be convincing enough.

I do not believe in the racial conspiracy theories you're trying to accuse me of. Nor do I need to. I do not need to believe in any conspiracy theory in order to be interested in the facts about WW2, and in order to understand that in the reality we live in, there is no documentary evidence for an event that is heavily glorified and propagandized in the mainstream education system and media.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#204

Post by huherto »

bobmoretti wrote: post #36

The scenario described in the article could only have gone down with the support of a state level actor. In foreign affairs, states are mostly rational and risk-averse. The risk involved in such an operation would have been astronomical: - It stretches the imagination that in the Post-9/11 world, hijackers could access a panel in the cabin without raising passenger and crew suspicion. So the hijackers would have requ…

> In foreign affairs, states are mostly rational and risk-averse.

Oh yes. This is a great insight. Thanks. Why would take great risks when you are on top?

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#205

Post by kpil »

stef25 wrote: post #157
kpil wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a simper theory: Some kind of structural failure caused a fire and possibly also a decompression - or the other way around. While following the procedure to handle the problem ( disable AP, descend, turn back, shut down the damaged avionics) the pilots lost consciousness and the plane eventually leveled out and kept flying until it run out of fuel. While it's not likely that something punches a hole in an aero…

I guess this indeed the most plausible theory. But then how plausible is it that no debris was found? Too much time went by, the area is too big for us to notice?

The ocean is huge. They didn't look in the right place initially. The area that needs to be searched may be as large as half of USA. I do not know how far debris scatters, and how fast it will sink.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#206

Post by rqebmm »

notahacker wrote: post #192
madaxe_again wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also ponder it from the perspective of a state who are very keen to keep the news media as distracted as possible from what you're up to. If this was the goal, then it was achieved admirably - a mystery was provided, and the press took the bait, and largely ignored the brewing unrest in Ukraine. In terms of the plausibility of his theory... it's plausible. It doesn't mean it's right, but it's plausible. I've…

Pondering it from the point of view of the alleged perpetrators is actually the best way to discard theories like this as bullshit. Making an aircraft disappear might have taken Ukraine off a few front pages, but the propaganda benefit to Russia was - as any reasonable person would have anticipated - minimal at best. It made essentially no difference to Western policy towards Russia, and if anything drew a bit more a…

This is all assuming that the ultimate goal was merely to distract the world. IF (it's a big if) some group plotted and executed this elaborate, risky plan, then there must have been something bigger at stake.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#207

Post by mturmon »

stifledissent wrote: post #202
mturmon wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say you don't mean to be inflammatory. This is bizarre, because you have written a confused set of paragraphs taken out of the playbook of Holocaust deniers. You have quoted a small piece of an article from Le Monde (out of context). The context was the need to debunk claims by Robert Faurisson, who was and is a notorious Holocaust denier. You have also made truly outrageous claims about gas chambers, with justif…

Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scho…

You're quoting from a TV interview focused on a very narrow question (specific kind of evidence, specific location, specific killing mechanism, etc.) -- and treating an offhand interjection from an interviewer as some kind of BBC statement. Neither of us is qualified to judge this, and certainly NOT from such a third-hand source.

The gap between the Le Monde excerpt you quote and your claim about what it shows is similarly large.

You are not arguing honestly, so I'm done.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#208

Post by crimsonalucard »

Retra wrote: post #200
crimsonalucard wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If P is true, its negation is false. Not exactly sure what you're referring to here. Still let me give you some detail on how I negated that statement: I'm essentially negating phrases within the sentence using the distributive property from algebra: ~( ) = ( ) If the positive statement is valid the negated statement is also valid. Negating +2 into -2 doesn't make the -2 any less true then the +2, in fact it's not e…

>This is established scientific philosophy within academia. Well, I'm sure that is proof of its correctness? >What is happening is that you have formed a very reliable conclusion based on intuition, you haven't gathered proof. That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw. >it is actually fundamentally impossible to establish a "proof." See? That's why it's a stupid concl…

>Correlations are what the word "proof" refers to. >That's what proof is. Saying proof is not proof is not all that useful a conclusion to draw.

No. Proof is a synonym for causation not correlation. Establishing correlation between stork population and baby population is not establishing proof that storks bring babies to mothers. Proof and correlation are entirely different things.

>See? That's why it's a stupid conclusion.

Sure applying the scientific method to daily life is stupid, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about the nature of logic itself. That is the context of this debate. You're attempting to deny the validity of my argument by shifting the context into some vague definition of the word proof.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#209

Post by crimsonalucard »

joepvd wrote: post #139
rdtsc wrote: post #32

I think the main point of the story is not to convince us that he has a good proof. But rather to document how we convince ourselves, and how we latch on to small things and head down a path. Once we are on a path we become commited to it and it becomes hard to turn back. Notice how he talks about the "crazies" on the forum. How they would use aliases, log back in and mention their stupid "lightning" theory, and he h…

I took this excellent story the same as you did. For me, this is the central point: My gut still tells me I’m right, but my brain knows better than to trust my gut. This is a nice phrasing of one of the things one has to come to term with while becoming a computer professional.

Beware, there are many times where my gut has been right over my logic. Don't deny the intelligence of your gut. Your brain has subconscious processes that are just as intelligent as your conscious processes.

Your gut often does follow some kind of logic, it's just you don't have access to what it did to arrive at that uneasy feeling in your stomach.

Though you don't realize it but our ability to see in three dimensions is a subconscious process. If you look at a cube you cannot choose how or when you process that image. In fact you don't even have a choice, once you look at a cube your brain forces you to know what you're looking at. Additionally, you don't even know what your brain did to interoperate that image as a cube. Yet you do know that there is some powerful subconscious calculation going on that derives that analysis.

In short, don't underestimate your gut.

Re: How crazy am I to think I actually know where that Malaysia Airlines plane is?

#210

Post by stifledissent »

mturmon wrote: post #207
stifledissent wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed the published Le Monde statement was in response to Faurisson. I don't see how this is important. What's important is the attitude of the historians and academics that made that statement. The statement is very clear in that it seeks to supress certain questions from being asked. I don't understand your accusation that the quote is "out of context". The context is that someone questioned something, and 34 scho…

You're quoting from a TV interview focused on a very narrow question (specific kind of evidence, specific location, specific killing mechanism, etc.) -- and treating an offhand interjection from an interviewer as some kind of BBC statement. Neither of us is qualified to judge this, and certainly NOT from such a third-hand source. The gap between the Le Monde excerpt you quote and your claim about what it shows is sim…

I don't understand your complaint about the narrow focus here. This is on purpose. No one says Jews didn't suffer. They were round up and uprooted and shoved into trains and drained of their wealth and they suffered immense and undeniable horrors along with all sorts of other victim groups. The narrow focus here is on the question of gas chambers. This specific alleged killing mechanism never existed. It is a conspiracy theory to think they did. A conspiracy theory that 99% of people firmly believe in, without evidence. That is all that is being argued. In the same way that all historians deny the existence of steam chambers, electrocution schemes, head shrinking procedures, killing machines powered by pedaling, some more brave historians also deny the existence of gas chambers, because there's as much evidence for it (none) as there is for those other wartime rumors.

Why are you not overly analytical like that with regards to the claims that there were gas chambers? If you are in possession of any documentary evidence for them, which seems to be the case since you dispute what two people on opposite sides of an interview take for granted, then you should just show it and the discussion would be over.

I'm giving you a shortcut into this. Look up the trial of Ernst Zundel and you can read the transcript of when Raul Hilberg declares that, from the (literally) tons of records that the Nazis left, there is no document that can serve as evidence for there being gas chambers, or for gas chambers being used as an extermination method. Also look into the work of David Cole who was responsible for unearthing the now mainstream fact that the supposed gas chambers in Auschwitz are post-war reconstructions.

If you want more information on the Le Monde publication, you can go and read or watch what Sylvia Stolz has to say. She is a lawyer who was arrested while doing her job of arguing for her client.

I am 100% arguing honestly. I have no agenda but to show people that everyone falls for conspiracy theories, and that they should get out of their high horses with all of this armchair psychiatry of judging other people's characters by what they believe in.

Please show me where I'm wrong.

Post reply on HN