14 ms·

The difficult thing with this sort of article is that while it generally sounds plausible, the layperson reader doesn't know about the specifics. I don't know a

The difficult thing with this sort of article is that while it generally sounds plausible, the layperson reader doesn't know about the specifics. I don't know anything about BFO spoofing or handshake rings. This means that all I can really judge this article on is its presentation and logical reasoning, and while both seem okay, there's no way for me to evaluate the premises and finer points that the piece critically hinges upon. Reading this article sort of left me feeling the same way I imagine a child might feel when reading Erich von Daniken or a book about Roswell or something like that: a set of allegations that are (1) surprising, (2) seem to make sense, and (3) that are totally beyond the reader's capacity for counterargument. I will deliver one counter-argument: I think the focus on Yubileyniy might be unwarranted. The extrapolation of the flight-path is mere speculation, and don't forget that there are lots of places to land a plane, even a very large one. Out of all the larger airfields on the eastern hemisphere of our planet, I'm not surprised to see one that's large enough for this plane and that had some apparently-unusual things going on within the last few months. Statistically, I just regard such an event as probable to occur, independently of any missing planes. Anyway, it was an interesting read.

alaskamiller 12y ago
This illustrates that feel: http://imgur.com/r/IASIP/YQi3ZFz http://imgur.com/r/IASIP/YQi3ZFz
bhouston 12y ago
I started reading this and then I thought of Occam's Razor. This theory is appears way too complex to be true, something much simpler likely happened.
- frogpelt 12y ago
  Yes, but then there would never be conspiracies because they are almost always more complicated than non-conspiracies.
  - chc 12y ago
    And indeed there almost never are.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Funny, secret archives being unlocked 50+ after the facts actually DO shows there were "plans made without public knowledge" (that could be called conspiracies if you prefer) very frequently. Do you think you know everything of the government's actions ?
    - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
      The simpler theory is our governments have lied repeatedly, are able to intercept our digital communications without warrant, and probably hide a whole bunch of other things from us, and will continue to do so. No convoluted conspiracy theories necessary.
- mikekchar 12y ago
  This is a common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor, IMHO. Simple explanations are not more likely to be true. What Occam's Razor says is that if you have 2 theories that fit the same data, you should pick the simplest one. Why? Because it is simpler, not because it is more likely to be true. It is important to remember that when we are dealing with scientific theories, we are not really all that concerned with truth. Are Newton's laws "true"? Well, they work reliably given certain constraints and they are definitely more simple than other theories, so it would be stupid not to use them. However, there are data to show that Newton's laws don't hold in other situations. Newton's laws are not "truth" -- they are useful. Another thing to keep in mind is that a scientific theory must make predictions which are falsifiable. In other words, it must not only fit data in the past, it must continue to fit data into the future. If your idea has no predictions, then it isn't a scientific theory to begin with and Occam's Razor doesn't apply. In this case, the author has a theory which (presumably -- I haven't checked) fits the data in the past. Even if we had a simpler theory that also fits the data, we couldn't invoke Occam's Razor, because neither theory makes predictions about the future. The event is already finished and will not happen again. With Occam's Razor, I'm saying, "Well, we could imagine it to be like X or like Y and no matter how you slice it, it's going to work the same. I will pick X because it is simpler". But with this event, it makes a huge difference which "theory" I pick, so I can't use Occam's Razor. Even if I could pick two equivalent theories -- let's say I had a theory that the plane crashed into a mountain and I had another theory that said the plane did a loop-de-loop and then crashed into the mountain. Maybe both ideas fit the data in the past and I could go and verify that the plane ended up crashing into the mountain. Both theories fit the data in the past and fit data in the future. I'll pick the simplest one because, hey, it really doesn't matter if the plane did a loop-de-loop before it crashed. Now, maybe some people really care about the loop-de-loop. If they can't find any data that supports the loop-de-loop but doesn't support the straight-on-crash, then we are still going to reject the loop-de-loop theory. Why needlessly complicate things when there is no data to differentiate the two theories? But this does not mean that the plane did not do a loop-de-loop. There is no justification for saying that at all. We don't have any data to support one position or the other. We are just accepting the simple answer because it makes our lives easy. Where most people get this wrong is: - They try to apply it to non-scientific theories. - They try to apply it to a single theory rather than a set of equivalent theories. - They try to apply it to a set of non-equivalent theories. - They believe that the result is "true". That last one is pernicious because if you believe that something is true just because it is the simplest explanation that fits your data, you have stepped from science to religion.
- bentcorner 12y ago
  This whole section seems implausible: > It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did. If your goal was stealing a large airplane, I think there's easier ways of doing that. If your goal was getting at the cargo or the passengers, it's highly probable that doing it on the ground is also much easier.
  - Arnt 12y ago
    You know, an airplane completely disappearing IS implausible. Airplane crashes leave debris. Finding much of the plane isn't likely, but finding absolutely nothing if you search in the right place is a stretch. Like looking for straws in a haystack and not finding even one. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-sees-mh370-investigation-deficiencies http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-s... says it well.
  - kpil 12y ago
    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 aeroplane and simultaneously sets it on fire, either from the inside or the outside, it's more likely than any crazy conspiracy theories I've seen so far, including the article.
    - stef25 12y ago
      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?
      - 12y ago
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Yet Occam's Razor is rarely found to be true - it's actually easy to hide a slightly more complex plan and make it look like a simple one and convincing everyone by saying "think Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor is not rationality, it's just brain applying laziness to assume nothing ever complicated occurs. Edit: a very simple example: look at magic tricks. If Occam's Razor was true, then all magic tricks should imply that those who perform them are actually magicians. Or, we all know it's not the case, so there is indeed a more complicated trick being performed that is difficult to uncover just by looking at things.
  - tiatia 12y ago
    "If Occam's Razor was true, then all magic tricks should imply that those who perform them are actually magicians." You obviously don't understand Occams Razor.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  The problem is that major air disasters are so incredibly rare that whatever happened is by definition enormously improbable. That means the speculative landscape is fantastically broad: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 Occam's Razor is only useful when one hypothesis stands out above all the rest in prior plausibility. In the case of major air disasters no such single hypothesis is favoured. Almost any prior, up to but not including "zapped by aliens", is sufficiently likely to be in the running.
- bambax 12y ago
  Occam's Razor isn't a way to measure the complexity of a given theory, taken in isolation. Occam's Razor shaves off unnecessary causes, and says that given two theories of equal explanation power, we should choose the simplest one. But in this case, there is no single simple theory; a crash is a simple theory but is very unlikely, given the available data and the searches that were performed. The OP's theory of Putin stealing the plane and hiding it in Kazakhstan sure seems far-fetched, extremely complex and, well, crazy, but he acknowledges that fact, and it's still an interesting theory.
greendestiny 12y ago
You can also ponder it from the perspective of a rational hijacker. Why fake BFO when you could have just had no pings at all?
- owlmonkey 12y ago
  Better to have people looking in the wrong place, in a way that they will look indefinitely
  - greendestiny 12y ago
    I suspect the Andaman Sea would have served that purpose just fine. There are other options like the burst data has just been misinterpreted, but the deliberate faking of a never before used piece of data seems very unlikely.
  - kevin_nisbet 12y ago
    I don't think I agree. I think this is something that can often backfire. If someone creates evidence that say's the plane crashed at location x, when location X is searched and there is no plane, I still have more information than I started. I know the evidence that led me to location x is incorrect. This could be because the data is bad, or due to tampering. If I'm now focused on tampering and able to corroborate that it is tampered with, I now have a new area to narrow my investigation, based on who has the skills, ability, and motives to tamper with that data. Now, I would agree, if the goal was to create a short term disruption to the investigation, which didn't require holding up to scrutiny in the long run.
    - greendestiny 12y ago
      It's even worse as a theory when you consider the hijackers give out accurate information as to their distance from the satellite but bet on inaccurate directional data to throw everyone off. You've still narrowed down the search space considerably - not to mention all the time between finding the distance pings and directional pings when the correct path is being checked.
    - 12y ago
javert 12y ago
This is how I feel about climate change.
- pipermerriam 12y ago
  I've struggled with this as well when it comes to issues that are under heavier debate [1]. I like to think that I am capable of reading most technical things and evaluating them with a healthy skepticism, but at a certain point, I know that I just have to trust people who are smarter than me. One thing I try to pay attention to is consensus. It's probably very easy to get duped by a single voice that's smarter than you (or just knows more about a specific subject), but it's less probable that a bunch of those people are all in on it together. The larger the consensus, the easier it is to trust. I think I have read (source?) that the consensus level on the broad category of climate change and whether it's likely to end badly for us is pretty near the high 90% if not close to the 99-100% mark. But then when it comes to the more detailed bits like how bad, and how soon, that's where I don't know who to listen to. Any suggestions? [1] - I don't like the word debate here because it feels loaded, but I can't think of a better one. Update: I feel silly even amending this, but upon re-reading my post, I see there may be some doubt as to whether I believe in climate change. I do, and only after a healthy amount of research and some level of blind trust in consensus of people more knowledgeable than myself. The uncertainty I have is around what the effects will be, how severe, and how soon. The answers to those help to inform my choices on how to go about helping fix it.
  - sparkman55 12y ago
    The oft-cited statistic is "97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change" and the wikipedia article [1] is actually quite thorough. I personally do not know any scientist who doesn't believe in global warming, although I did know some skeptics a decade ago. Skepticism is healthy, but so is respecting statistical tests. No one really knows the specifics of what's going to happen, but the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has started focusing on 'adaptation' as some degree of climate change is inevitable (and, indeed, has already happened). The IPCC would be my choice as the closest guess as to what the next century will look like [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ufmace 12y ago
I don't know much of anything about that type of technology, but I think it's far more useful to judge these types of theories based upon the political side. This means questions that go like: If it was a conspiracy, it must have been carried out by some group. Who was that group? What are the goals of that group? Why did that group decide that the proposed plan was the best way to use their limited resources to achieve their goal, as opposed to some other plan? I suppose the group here would be Putin and/or some group of Russian nationalists, and the goal would be to get the Ukrainian conflict out of the news. Then the plan would involve a highly elaborate scheme of secretly designing sophisticated equipment, performing careful analysis, and smuggling highly-trained personnel onto a flight for the purpose of secretly diverting it to an obscure airfield. Then you'd have to execute all of the passengers who weren't in on it and dispose of their bodies and the plane somewhere where they won't be found for a long time, and make sure that none of the people who were in on it ever talk about it. And if you screw any of that up at any point, then you get the opposite of what your goal was - massive media attention of what a world-class asshole you are. But if the goal is to disappear the flight for news coverage, why bother with all of that when 1% of the effort and even less risk would get it to crash somewhere in the Indian ocean, where it would likely never be found? Why bother with any of it at all? Aren't there lots of much simpler ways to distract the news media? Does anybody in Russia even care that much what the Western media thinks? Another thing - what about China? As far as I know, the US and Europe are currently unhappy at Russian interference in the Ukraine, but China don't seem to care much. There were a lot of Chinese nationals on that flight, though, and I bet China would be very unhappy indeed if it was ever discovered that they were killed by Russia in a ham-fisted attempt to distract the Western media. Possibly enough to lead to a change in the Chinese position on the conflict, including diplomatic, economic, and maybe military support for the Western position. Why would Russia take that risk, when there must be far simpler options out there? I find that a lot of conspiracy theories fall apart under this type of analysis, without even paying much attention to the technical details. If you want me to believe that this happened, you've gotta come up with a group and set of goals that make it look like a good idea.
- thenonsequitur 12y ago
  This reminds me a lot of this Kurz Gesagt video: "The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 The idea in this video is also that most conspiracy theories are easy to debunk without even analyzing the contents of the theory, just looking at political factors.

alaskamiller 12y ago

This illustrates that feel: http://imgur.com/r/IASIP/YQi3ZFz http://imgur.com/r/IASIP/YQi3ZFz

bhouston 12y ago

I started reading this and then I thought of Occam's Razor. This theory is appears way too complex to be true, something much simpler likely happened.

frogpelt 12y ago
Yes, but then there would never be conspiracies because they are almost always more complicated than non-conspiracies.
- chc 12y ago
  And indeed there almost never are.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Funny, secret archives being unlocked 50+ after the facts actually DO shows there were "plans made without public knowledge" (that could be called conspiracies if you prefer) very frequently. Do you think you know everything of the government's actions ?
  - TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
    The simpler theory is our governments have lied repeatedly, are able to intercept our digital communications without warrant, and probably hide a whole bunch of other things from us, and will continue to do so. No convoluted conspiracy theories necessary.
mikekchar 12y ago
This is a common misinterpretation of Occam's Razor, IMHO. Simple explanations are not more likely to be true. What Occam's Razor says is that if you have 2 theories that fit the same data, you should pick the simplest one. Why? Because it is simpler, not because it is more likely to be true. It is important to remember that when we are dealing with scientific theories, we are not really all that concerned with truth. Are Newton's laws "true"? Well, they work reliably given certain constraints and they are definitely more simple than other theories, so it would be stupid not to use them. However, there are data to show that Newton's laws don't hold in other situations. Newton's laws are not "truth" -- they are useful. Another thing to keep in mind is that a scientific theory must make predictions which are falsifiable. In other words, it must not only fit data in the past, it must continue to fit data into the future. If your idea has no predictions, then it isn't a scientific theory to begin with and Occam's Razor doesn't apply. In this case, the author has a theory which (presumably -- I haven't checked) fits the data in the past. Even if we had a simpler theory that also fits the data, we couldn't invoke Occam's Razor, because neither theory makes predictions about the future. The event is already finished and will not happen again. With Occam's Razor, I'm saying, "Well, we could imagine it to be like X or like Y and no matter how you slice it, it's going to work the same. I will pick X because it is simpler". But with this event, it makes a huge difference which "theory" I pick, so I can't use Occam's Razor. Even if I could pick two equivalent theories -- let's say I had a theory that the plane crashed into a mountain and I had another theory that said the plane did a loop-de-loop and then crashed into the mountain. Maybe both ideas fit the data in the past and I could go and verify that the plane ended up crashing into the mountain. Both theories fit the data in the past and fit data in the future. I'll pick the simplest one because, hey, it really doesn't matter if the plane did a loop-de-loop before it crashed. Now, maybe some people really care about the loop-de-loop. If they can't find any data that supports the loop-de-loop but doesn't support the straight-on-crash, then we are still going to reject the loop-de-loop theory. Why needlessly complicate things when there is no data to differentiate the two theories? But this does not mean that the plane did not do a loop-de-loop. There is no justification for saying that at all. We don't have any data to support one position or the other. We are just accepting the simple answer because it makes our lives easy. Where most people get this wrong is: - They try to apply it to non-scientific theories. - They try to apply it to a single theory rather than a set of equivalent theories. - They try to apply it to a set of non-equivalent theories. - They believe that the result is "true". That last one is pernicious because if you believe that something is true just because it is the simplest explanation that fits your data, you have stepped from science to religion.
bentcorner 12y ago
This whole section seems implausible: > It’s not possible to spoof the BFO data on just any plane. The plane must be of a certain make and model, 17equipped with a certain make and model of satellite-communications equipment,18 and flying a certain kind of route19 in a region covered by a certain kind of Inmarsat satellite.20 If you put all the conditions together, it seemed unlikely that any aircraft would satisfy them. Yet MH370 did. If your goal was stealing a large airplane, I think there's easier ways of doing that. If your goal was getting at the cargo or the passengers, it's highly probable that doing it on the ground is also much easier.
- Arnt 12y ago
  You know, an airplane completely disappearing IS implausible. Airplane crashes leave debris. Finding much of the plane isn't likely, but finding absolutely nothing if you search in the right place is a stretch. Like looking for straws in a haystack and not finding even one. http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-sees-mh370-investigation-deficiencies http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/emirates-clark-s... says it well.
- kpil 12y ago
  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 aeroplane and simultaneously sets it on fire, either from the inside or the outside, it's more likely than any crazy conspiracy theories I've seen so far, including the article.
  - stef25 12y ago
    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?
    - 12y ago
ekianjo 12y ago
Yet Occam's Razor is rarely found to be true - it's actually easy to hide a slightly more complex plan and make it look like a simple one and convincing everyone by saying "think Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor is not rationality, it's just brain applying laziness to assume nothing ever complicated occurs. Edit: a very simple example: look at magic tricks. If Occam's Razor was true, then all magic tricks should imply that those who perform them are actually magicians. Or, we all know it's not the case, so there is indeed a more complicated trick being performed that is difficult to uncover just by looking at things.
- tiatia 12y ago
  "If Occam's Razor was true, then all magic tricks should imply that those who perform them are actually magicians." You obviously don't understand Occams Razor.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
The problem is that major air disasters are so incredibly rare that whatever happened is by definition enormously improbable. That means the speculative landscape is fantastically broad: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1364 Occam's Razor is only useful when one hypothesis stands out above all the rest in prior plausibility. In the case of major air disasters no such single hypothesis is favoured. Almost any prior, up to but not including "zapped by aliens", is sufficiently likely to be in the running.
bambax 12y ago
Occam's Razor isn't a way to measure the complexity of a given theory, taken in isolation. Occam's Razor shaves off unnecessary causes, and says that given two theories of equal explanation power, we should choose the simplest one. But in this case, there is no single simple theory; a crash is a simple theory but is very unlikely, given the available data and the searches that were performed. The OP's theory of Putin stealing the plane and hiding it in Kazakhstan sure seems far-fetched, extremely complex and, well, crazy, but he acknowledges that fact, and it's still an interesting theory.

greendestiny 12y ago

You can also ponder it from the perspective of a rational hijacker. Why fake BFO when you could have just had no pings at all?

owlmonkey 12y ago
Better to have people looking in the wrong place, in a way that they will look indefinitely
- greendestiny 12y ago
  I suspect the Andaman Sea would have served that purpose just fine. There are other options like the burst data has just been misinterpreted, but the deliberate faking of a never before used piece of data seems very unlikely.
- kevin_nisbet 12y ago
  I don't think I agree. I think this is something that can often backfire. If someone creates evidence that say's the plane crashed at location x, when location X is searched and there is no plane, I still have more information than I started. I know the evidence that led me to location x is incorrect. This could be because the data is bad, or due to tampering. If I'm now focused on tampering and able to corroborate that it is tampered with, I now have a new area to narrow my investigation, based on who has the skills, ability, and motives to tamper with that data. Now, I would agree, if the goal was to create a short term disruption to the investigation, which didn't require holding up to scrutiny in the long run.
  - greendestiny 12y ago
    It's even worse as a theory when you consider the hijackers give out accurate information as to their distance from the satellite but bet on inaccurate directional data to throw everyone off. You've still narrowed down the search space considerably - not to mention all the time between finding the distance pings and directional pings when the correct path is being checked.
  - 12y ago

javert 12y ago

This is how I feel about climate change.

pipermerriam 12y ago
I've struggled with this as well when it comes to issues that are under heavier debate [1]. I like to think that I am capable of reading most technical things and evaluating them with a healthy skepticism, but at a certain point, I know that I just have to trust people who are smarter than me. One thing I try to pay attention to is consensus. It's probably very easy to get duped by a single voice that's smarter than you (or just knows more about a specific subject), but it's less probable that a bunch of those people are all in on it together. The larger the consensus, the easier it is to trust. I think I have read (source?) that the consensus level on the broad category of climate change and whether it's likely to end badly for us is pretty near the high 90% if not close to the 99-100% mark. But then when it comes to the more detailed bits like how bad, and how soon, that's where I don't know who to listen to. Any suggestions? [1] - I don't like the word debate here because it feels loaded, but I can't think of a better one. Update: I feel silly even amending this, but upon re-reading my post, I see there may be some doubt as to whether I believe in climate change. I do, and only after a healthy amount of research and some level of blind trust in consensus of people more knowledgeable than myself. The uncertainty I have is around what the effects will be, how severe, and how soon. The answers to those help to inform my choices on how to go about helping fix it.
- sparkman55 12y ago
  The oft-cited statistic is "97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change" and the wikipedia article [1] is actually quite thorough. I personally do not know any scientist who doesn't believe in global warming, although I did know some skeptics a decade ago. Skepticism is healthy, but so is respecting statistical tests. No one really knows the specifics of what's going to happen, but the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has started focusing on 'adaptation' as some degree of climate change is inevitable (and, indeed, has already happened). The IPCC would be my choice as the closest guess as to what the next century will look like [2] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ufmace 12y ago

I don't know much of anything about that type of technology, but I think it's far more useful to judge these types of theories based upon the political side. This means questions that go like: If it was a conspiracy, it must have been carried out by some group. Who was that group? What are the goals of that group? Why did that group decide that the proposed plan was the best way to use their limited resources to achieve their goal, as opposed to some other plan? I suppose the group here would be Putin and/or some group of Russian nationalists, and the goal would be to get the Ukrainian conflict out of the news. Then the plan would involve a highly elaborate scheme of secretly designing sophisticated equipment, performing careful analysis, and smuggling highly-trained personnel onto a flight for the purpose of secretly diverting it to an obscure airfield. Then you'd have to execute all of the passengers who weren't in on it and dispose of their bodies and the plane somewhere where they won't be found for a long time, and make sure that none of the people who were in on it ever talk about it. And if you screw any of that up at any point, then you get the opposite of what your goal was - massive media attention of what a world-class asshole you are. But if the goal is to disappear the flight for news coverage, why bother with all of that when 1% of the effort and even less risk would get it to crash somewhere in the Indian ocean, where it would likely never be found? Why bother with any of it at all? Aren't there lots of much simpler ways to distract the news media? Does anybody in Russia even care that much what the Western media thinks? Another thing - what about China? As far as I know, the US and Europe are currently unhappy at Russian interference in the Ukraine, but China don't seem to care much. There were a lot of Chinese nationals on that flight, though, and I bet China would be very unhappy indeed if it was ever discovered that they were killed by Russia in a ham-fisted attempt to distract the Western media. Possibly enough to lead to a change in the Chinese position on the conflict, including diplomatic, economic, and maybe military support for the Western position. Why would Russia take that risk, when there must be far simpler options out there? I find that a lot of conspiracy theories fall apart under this type of analysis, without even paying much attention to the technical details. If you want me to believe that this happened, you've gotta come up with a group and set of goals that make it look like a good idea.

thenonsequitur 12y ago
This reminds me a lot of this Kurz Gesagt video: "The Ultimate Conspiracy Debunker" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug0rfFC_L8 The idea in this video is also that most conspiracy theories are easy to debunk without even analyzing the contents of the theory, just looking at political factors.