General / Off-Topic You haven't thought of everything

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
I would urge you to watch the video below, it is just over 6mins long and fascinating.

Before I start, I haven't posted this to open a discussion on the assassination and the million different theories, though of course, just because I start a thread does not mean I get to decide which way it is pulled. It's what he says at the end, which you won't understand unless you watch the whole video :)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yznRGS9f-jI



So the part I liked most about this is the part where he (paraphrasing) says you haven't thought of everything.

In this modern world, though it was always the case, many conspiracies are created seemingly because the 'official' explanation doesn't seem right. Even on this forum, we see many theories (I'm just as guilty as anyone) proposed based on the idea that 'it seems the most obvious'. that even covers things that Frontier have maybe done or not done in their game design. People make great leaps. "This wasn't done, then this action happened, therefore the only conclusion is...". I repeat, I'm as guilty as anyone on this.

Apart from introducing me to Umbrella Man, who I have to admit I was completely unaware of, I love this video because of the the 'You haven't thought of everything' baseline. This really rings my bell. There are so few facts in the world and so many theories are accepted as fact, from God to the Big Bang, to the believers of both, they are the most rational explanation, the most feasible, the most likely, the most probable but they remain theories. We are simply incapable with our knowledge at this time to be able to confirm or deny either God or the Big Bang outright, once and for all. This is accepted by the likes of Bertrand Russel when discussing his Teapot analogy. In the end, he accepts he only has his best guess but cannot say as a fact that God exists or not.

Again, I'm not trying to start a thread about the existence of God or not, but using that to explore the concept of how we turn belief, theories into fact, yet the above video demonstrates that we are seldom in possession of all the facts and some are just way out of our scope to be able to consider.

I love this philosophical stuff. It gets you thinking about thinking and I have long known, I haven't though of everything. This video reminded me of that.
 

Alien

Alien
Occam's Razor

, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami) or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity."[1][2] The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. It is variously paraphrased by statements like "the simplest solution is most likely the right one". This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[6][7][8]


I'm not sure where I first heard this said, but the simplest explanation, is usually the correct one.

I love looking at the conspiracy theories around the Apollo 11 moon landing. All of them seem to miss the fact it would have been easier and cheaper to simply send three men to the moon and back.
 

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
Alien said:
Occam's Razor

, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami) or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae) is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity."[1][2] The idea is attributed to English Franciscan friar William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), a scholastic philosopher and theologian who used a preference for simplicity to defend the idea of divine miracles. It is variously paraphrased by statements like "the simplest solution is most likely the right one". This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.

Similarly, in science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[4][5] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[6][7][8]


I'm not sure where I first heard this said, but the simplest explanation, is usually the correct one.

I love looking at the conspiracy theories around the Apollo 11 moon landing. All of them seem to miss the fact it would have been easier and cheaper to simply send three men to the moon and back.
Click to expand...

The other ones are the flat-Earthers. I’ve seen them claim it’s a cover up, that ‘they’ (whoever they are) don’t want us to know. Why? What’s the big deal? Who loses out the Earth is not a globe? Never seen that addressed.
 

metatheurgist

metatheurgist
Uh, sometimes I like to use an umbrella in the sun because I prefer that to sunscreen. No I am not a vampire. 🤷‍♂️

XloubellXX said:
The other ones are the flat-Earthers. I’ve seen them claim it’s a cover up, that ‘they’ (whoever they are) don’t want us to know. Why? What’s the big deal? Who loses out the Earth is not a globe? Never seen that addressed.
Click to expand...
You've never heard of Big Globe? Their offices are right next to Big Climate. Where do you think all those rich scientists get their yachts and Mercedes from?
 

Morbad

Morbad
My initial impression of the "umbrella man" was that it was perhaps someone who was sensitive to sunlight who was coincidentally standing near the motorcade when the shooting took place. I didn't get the obscure political reference it apparently was, but I didn't see anything sinister in it either. Sure, it could have been some sort of signal to the shooter, but as that would have been completely unnecessary for most any concievable scenario, it didn't seem especially likely.

I do agree that delving into the minutiae of any even will reveal some things that may be surprising, but this is usually just the noise of everyday existence, not evidence of anything in particular.

Anyway, we don't need to think of everything to have an explanation that fits available facts and doesn't have any glaring holes in it. Most conspiracy theories neither fit the facts nor are absent major holes in logic, which is why it's easy to dismiss most of them out of hand.

XloubellXX said:
The other ones are the flat-Earthers.
Click to expand...

My personal favorite nutjob conspiracy theory is "fire/jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams". Anyone who has so much as left a stick of butter out to warm up before trying to spread it has first hand experience with how elevated temperature can soften solids and has zero excuse for the level of ignorance required to think that steel, when exposed to fire for protracted periods of time, would not lose a significant fraction of it's strength, without having to get anywhere near it's melting point.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
Great video, I don't agree there's no possible non-sinister explanation as prior to the big reveal I was thinking pigeons, sensitive skin or just one of those people who insists on obeying the weather forecast without looking out of the window (Mrs Stigbob).
 

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
Stigbob said:
Great video, I don't agree there's no possible non-sinister explanation as prior to the big reveal I was thinking pigeons, sensitive skin or just one of those people who insists on obeying the weather forecast without looking out of the window (Mrs Stigbob).
Click to expand...

I too initially thought he didn’t like the sun, but they homed in in on him (Picture below) and look how he is holding it. That his high above his head, his hand holding it is almost chin height. Later inspection shows his shadow and the guy’s to the right peeling off hard right. So he’s not shielding the sun. He just looks damn odd.

2BBBCCDE-9CAA-44B7-9F47-5DF22AFFD823.jpeg

839E1AFE-C8D1-4D59-BFD6-53ED850D9E85.jpeg
 

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
Non Grata said:
I haven't watched the video, but why is the woman in front holding an invisible umbrella? And why does the guy's umbrella have a softer edge than the guy himself? And why is the stem so thick? And why would anyone think a bush is an umbrella?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t bother watching the video, it fails to answer any of these crucial questions. A shambles really.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
XloubellXX said:
I too initially thought he didn’t like the sun, but they homed in in on him (Picture below) and look how he is holding it. That his high above his head, his hand holding it is almost chin height. Later inspection shows his shadow and the guy’s to the right peeling off hard right. So he’s not shielding the sun. He just looks damn odd.

View attachment 181147
View attachment 181148
Click to expand...

I considered that, face in shadow, hand exposed. I thought light brown gloves, since it was pre good sun cream.
 

C64Fan

C64Fan
Non Grata said:
I haven't watched the video, but why is the woman in front holding an invisible umbrella? And why does the guy's umbrella have a softer edge than the guy himself? And why is the stem so thick? And why would anyone think a bush is an umbrella?
Click to expand...

Good questions, and it doesn’t look like an umbrella in that picture. But what is your opinion about this screenshot I just took from the video:

B258FD7A-496D-4FC3-9ED3-A1383FE27068.jpeg

I believe it’s an umbrella on my screenshot - but that it isn’t the same man.
 
Last edited:

Morbad

Morbad
Non Grata said:
And why does the guy's umbrella have a softer edge than the guy himself? And why is the stem so thick?
Click to expand...

It's probably moving.

XloubellXX said:
I wouldn’t bother watching the video, it fails to answer any of these crucial questions. A shambles really.
Click to expand...

The video isn't really about the Umbrella Man, it's just using him as an example of how events tend to look different when put under a microscope.
 

Arry

Arry
So I had to watch the video. I like what the man has to say. You can ask a question and open a whole can of worms.

I have mentioned this before: Dallas. November 22nd and the second gunman.

Yes there was a second gunman. The nutter in the book depository, was the first gunman and was there with the intention of killing the president. His reasons, will never be fully known or understood, time has blurred these facts.

The second gunman, was not so intentional. He is the reason why most of the conspiracy theories have come about. He is the reason why the number of shots fired in the 'recorded time' were not possible, using a bolt action rifle. He is the reason why, we have the so called 'magic bullet'. He is the reason why the number of bullets found, are less than shots heard and recorded. (Well one bullet was said to have disappeared, when they were trying to save him in the hospital) He is the reason why Jackie shouted, 'They are trying to kill us!' She heard that shot came from very close to them. He is the reason why the presidents close bodyguard no longer carry automatic weapons. He is one of the men, riding in the car behind the President's car. Who heard the first shot, already standing, he instinctively raised his automatic rifle and accidentally applied too much pressure to the trigger and put a bullet, into the back of JFK's head. Thus the coverup and dozens of conspiracy began.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
Arry said:
So I had to watch the video. I like what the man has to say. You can ask a question and open a whole can of worms.

I have mentioned this before: Dallas. November 22nd and the second gunman.

Yes there was a second gunman. The nutter in the book depository, was the first gunman and was there with the intention of killing the president. His reasons, will never be fully known or understood, time has blurred these facts.

The second gunman, was not so intentional. He is the reason why most of the conspiracy theories have come about. He is the reason why the number of shots fired in the 'recorded time' were not possible, using a bolt action rifle. He is the reason why, we have the so called 'magic bullet'. He is the reason why the number of bullets found, are less than shots heard and recorded. (Well one bullet was said to have disappeared, when they were trying to save him in the hospital) He is the reason why Jackie shouted, 'They are trying to kill us!' She heard that shot came from very close to them. He is the reason why the presidents close bodyguard no longer carry automatic weapons. He is one of the men, riding in the car behind the President's car. Who heard the first shot, already standing, he instinctively raised his automatic rifle and accidentally applied too much pressure to the trigger and put a bullet, into the back of JFK's head. Thus the coverup and dozens of conspiracy began.
Click to expand...

Not true about automatics.

In this photo of the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Reagan eighteen years later you can clearly see the secret service dudes have uzi's. If you look to the right of the photo at the discarded briefcase you can see its a dedicated covert carry uzi case from the shaped foam lining.

69ObgwA.jpg
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
Morbad said:
My personal favorite nutjob conspiracy theory is "fire/jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams". Anyone who has so much as left a stick of butter out to warm up before trying to spread it has first hand experience with how elevated temperature can soften solids and has zero excuse for the level of ignorance required to think that steel, when exposed to fire for protracted periods of time, would not lose a significant fraction of it's strength, without having to get anywhere near it's melting point.
Click to expand...

I'm really enjoying all the various infowars/qanon bug eyed nonsense doing the rounds at the moment. It's a bit like watching an amateur fire eating competition though, entertaining but you know sooner or later someone's going to get hurt again.

Even pizzagate had a recent resurgence and just lol at the Wayfair thing.
 

Arry

Arry
Stigbob said:
Not true about automatics.

In this photo of the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Reagan eighteen years later you can clearly see the secret service dudes have uzi's. If you look to the right of the photo at the discarded briefcase you can see its a dedicated covert carry uzi case from the shaped foam lining.

View attachment 181174
Click to expand...
There is a lot of difference, between carrying them in a case and having them in the hand.
 

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos

[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos
In the original post I discussed Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy. The famous text is easily found on google, but the really fascinating part (for me anyway) is what he goes on to say about beliefs:

It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. Practically all the beliefs of savages are absurd. In early civilizations there may be as much as one percent for which there is something to be said. In our own day.... But at this point I must be careful. We all know that there are absurd beliefs in Soviet Russia. If we are Protestants, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Catholics. If we are Catholics, we know that there are absurd beliefs among Protestants. If we are Conservatives, we are amazed by the superstitions to be found in the Labour Party. If we are Socialists, we are aghast at the credulity of Conservatives. I do not know, dear reader, what your beliefs may be, but whatever they may be, you must concede that nine -tenths of the beliefs of nine -tenths of mankind are totally irrational.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom