As early as 1913, Woodrow Wilson warned of the shadow government that was behind the 9/11 tragedy

WhistlingWinds

New Member
That's a lot of words!

But I still don't see the "kernels of truth" you're asserting.

Study after study clearly establishes that there is almost no voter fraud.
The few times that someone accidentally voted twice (mostly confused,
older white males, incidentally)
are infinitesimal compared to the number
of votes cast. There's literally zero evidence of a concerted, large scale
conspiracy (never mind successful!) that could misrepresent hundeds
(never mind thousands or millions!) of votes. I just don't see a
"kernel of truth" here.

As to the lizard people, out of all the words you used,
which part are you actually claiming is a "kernel of truth" ?
"Almost no voter fraud" does not mean it does not exist. It still exists, just conspiratorial narratives extrapolate on its existence with personal opinions that can not be corroborated through any actual data points, they narratives expand on the unknowns surrounding voter fraud. Please re-read the above, in fact, I lay out exactly how it progressed from simple voter fraud (which does happen on a very, very limited scale from the data we have), to a conspiratorial narrative adding in random points.
You yourself pointed out that people have accidently voted twice also. That is an example of where the "kernel of truth" can be, and one we actually see used as a specific amplification point for election fraud conspiracies. People will take legitimate, accidental errors (like accidently voting twice), and will add in their own personal opinion saying that it was done as part of some larger coordinated effort, with absolutely 0 data to back it up what so ever.
Here's an example of specific, legitimate data points, that are then taken, and people throw their own personal opinions and beliefs into a false narrative. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/Report_HeritageAnalysis_Final.pdf

And for the "lizard people" again, re-read. The "kernel of truth" is based around their perception of someones appearance and body movements. As pointed out in the post, the person does have the appearance they claim, as with the body movements. EXCEPT, they use their own personal opinion to add causation or surrounding specifics to those actions and *how* he looks (insert lizard or shapeshifter narrative, whatever; rather than recognizing humans themselves don't all look and act the same).


Or a disconnected example, for COVID. The VAERS database. The data in there is legitimate, BUT, people will ignore that VAERS data does NOT MEAN CAUSATION. They will then add their own believed causation, which does not actually exist in the data.


Also, didn't even notice the Game Designers Analysis post. Still going through it but, that does a much better job explaining a lot of the factors, way more in depth than I could.
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
"Almost no voter fraud" does not mean it does not exist. It still exists, just conspiratorial narratives extrapolate on its existence with personal opinions that can not be corroborated through any actual data points, they narratives expand on the unknowns surrounding voter fraud. Please re-read the above, in fact, I lay out exactly how it progressed from simple voter fraud (which does happen on a very, very limited scale from the data we have), to a conspiratorial narrative adding in random points.
You yourself pointed out that people have accidently voted twice also. That is an example of where the "kernel of truth" can be, and one we actually see used as a specific amplification point for election fraud conspiracies. People will take legitimate, accidental errors (like accidently voting twice), and will add in their own personal opinion saying that it was done as part of some larger coordinated effort, with absolutely 0 data to back it up what so ever.
Here's an example of specific, legitimate data points, that are then taken, and people throw their own personal opinions and beliefs into a false narrative. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/Report_HeritageAnalysis_Final.pdf

And for the "lizard people" again, re-read. The "kernel of truth" is based around their perception of someones appearance and body movements. As pointed out in the post, the person does have the appearance they claim, as with the body movements. EXCEPT, they use their own personal opinion to add causation or surrounding specifics to those actions and *how* he looks (insert lizard or shapeshifter narrative, whatever; rather than recognizing humans themselves don't all look and act the same).


Or a disconnected example, for COVID. The VAERS database. The data in there is legitimate, BUT, people will ignore that VAERS data does NOT MEAN CAUSATION. They will then add their own believed causation, which does not actually exist in the data.


Also, didn't even notice the Game Designers Analysis post. Still going through it but, that does a much better job explaining a lot of the factors, way more in depth than I could.
No.
Just no.
A "kernel of truth" implies that there's something there.
Some jackass claiming a human "looks" a bit lizard-y is not a
"kernel of truth."
You might as well say: "Well, Johnson is a murderer, because well,
murderers are carbon-based life forms, and so is Johnson!"
 

WhistlingWinds

New Member
No.
Just no.
A "kernel of truth" implies that there's something there.
Some jackass claiming a human "looks" a bit lizard-y is not a
"kernel of truth."
You might as well say: "Well, Johnson is a murderer, because well,
murderers are carbon-based life forms, and so is Johnson!"
The issue is he didn't just claim he "Looks a bit lizard-y"

The guy in the video most literally pointed out specific physical features and body language which did in fact exist on/for the person.
He then proceeded ascribe his own personal belief as to the reason *why* they look and act that way, this is where the conspiratorial narrative starts and the narrative split from reality to falsehood starts.

In this example, factually existing things were extrapolated on originally to provide the basis of the conspiratorial narrative (because X factual appearances and body language exist / he is a lizard), this is a good example of a false cause fallacy at work.
 
The issue is he didn't just claim he "Looks a bit lizard-y"

The guy in the video most literally pointed out specific physical features and body language which did in fact exist on/for the person.
He then proceeded ascribe his own personal belief as to the reason *why* they look and act that way, this is where the conspiratorial narrative starts and the narrative split from reality to falsehood starts.

In this example, factually existing things were extrapolated on originally to provide the basis of the conspiratorial narrative (because X factual appearances and body language exist / he is a lizard), this is a good example of a false cause fallacy at work.
I would agree with previous commenters that this isn't a kernel of truth. It's taking a kernel of truth (someone's physical appearance) and falsely interpreting that truth. The person's physical appearance and the lizard-people belief are entirely unconnected by anything true. As soon as someone thusly interprets physical appearance, all truth goes out the window.
 

WhistlingWinds

New Member
I would agree with previous commenters that this isn't a kernel of truth. It's taking a kernel of truth (someone's physical appearance) and falsely interpreting that truth. The person's physical appearance and the lizard-people belief are entirely unconnected by anything true. As soon as someone thusly interprets physical appearance, all truth goes out the window.
Well, I wouldn't disagree with that either, IMO both are correct ways to state it. Appreciate you countering with reasoning behind it.

My point was that the conspiracy itself piggy backs off things that did factually exist. Without that person, or that person being there, well, we can't really gauge if it would've come about, but the result from that specific event could've been very different.
As you said in your post, they *falsely interpreted* that truth. If that truth (the person) was not there, there wouldn't have been anything to interpret about them/it specifically.
As for whether or not the same narrative would've arisen from the same event without that person having been there, we don't know. But there is a very high likely hood given the context, that it wouldn't have been centered around that person at least.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The issue is he didn't just claim he "Looks a bit lizard-y"

The guy in the video most literally pointed out specific physical features and body language which did in fact exist on/for the person.
He then proceeded ascribe his own personal belief as to the reason *why* they look and act that way, this is where the conspiratorial narrative starts and the narrative split from reality to falsehood starts.

In this example, factually existing things were extrapolated on originally to provide the basis of the conspiratorial narrative (because X factual appearances and body language exist / he is a lizard), this is a good example of a false cause fallacy at work.
I think I understand your position, (not positive), but I also believe that stretching the phrase "kernel of truth" that amazingly far,
renders the phrase virtually meaningless...
and I think applying it to the situations I've discussed,
falsely implies that there's more true about it than there really is.
 
I think I understand your position, (not positive), but I also believe that stretching the phrase "kernel of truth" that amazingly far,
renders the phrase virtually meaningless...
and I think applying it to the situations I've discussed,
falsely implies that there's more true about it than there really is.
This is an interesting discussion. Generally regarding conspiracy beliefs, I'd say "kernel of truth" doesn't apply if the belief is merely an alternative explanation of real observations. I agree, it renders the phrase meaningless. So, there's a kernel of truth to Massive Election Fraud (there is probably some election fraud, microscopic as it may be) — but there isn't a kernel of truth to Lizard People. And, there isn't a kernel of truth to 9/11 Demolition, because it's not like there was a little demolition going on.

So getting getting back to the topic, is there a kernel of truth to the WW belief?
 
Last edited:

Oystein

Senior Member
... there isn't a kernel of truth to 9/11 Demolition, because it's not like there was a little demolition going on. ...
Well, to be true, there was a deliberate effort to massively damage the towers far beyond anything ever contemplated before, and as a foreseeable (even if perhaps not actually foreseen) direct consequence, the twin towers were demolished.

In the same vein, there is quite a bit more to the claim that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy - of course 19 (perhaps more) hijackers in 4 (perhaps more) teams, with their planners and sponsors, are a veritable conspiracy.

But of course I agree that there is no kernel of truth to the assertion that there was an demolition carried out by pre-planted explosive or incendiary demolition, nor by nukes, nor by exotic rays.
Just as there is no kernel of truth to many of the "conspiracy theories" peddled around - where we need to take careful note that the composite term "conspiracy theory" has a well-defined meaning that's different from the mere sum of its constituents words; for starters, these "conspiracy theories" generally do not rise to the level of a "theory", and are, by definition, untrue.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
There's truth, and then there's fiction ("any resemblance to existing people or events is coincidental"). Conspiracy theories live in the space between, using real events, people, and observations to weave a fictional tale. We all agree on this, there's no need for debate here.

As such, conspiracy theories always involve kernels of truth bathed in a sauce of fiction. The people protesting this need to open a dictionary and recognize that this is the proper expression; what you want to say is that the CTs don't have a core of truth. I would also ask you to not argue the linguistics unless you have a) actually looked up the idiom, and b) can suggest a more fitting expression for the use of these particles of truth in conspiracy theories.

image.jpegimage.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Top