(Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve
(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Conspiracy Theories (Part 2)
In Part 2 of this episode, Chris and Steve continue to explore conspiracy theories and the missing chapters of human achievement. They delve into the mysteries surrounding NASA's moon missions and alleged UFO cover-ups, and examine whether they challenge our perception of truth.
This discussion questions the impact of skepticism on societal trust and power dynamics, highlighting ethical concerns about potential government deceptions and corporate greed. The conversation reveals how misuse of terms can mislead debates and affect collective consciousness.
We also examine why past extraordinary feats seem unreplicable today, despite technological advances. This episode encourages you to ponder the balance between trust in experts and healthy skepticism, acknowledging the fallibility of authority figures. Embrace the complexity of truth and the importance of asking critical questions.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
In Part 2 of this episode, Chris and Steve continue to explore conspiracy theories and the missing chapters of human achievement. They delve into the mysteries surrounding NASA's moon missions and alleged UFO cover-ups, and examine whether they challenge our perception of truth.
This discussion questions the impact of skepticism on societal trust and power dynamics, highlighting ethical concerns about potential government deceptions and corporate greed. The conversation reveals how misuse of terms can mislead debates and affect collective consciousness.
We also examine why past extraordinary feats seem unreplicable today, despite technological advances. This episode encourages you to ponder the balance between trust in experts and healthy skepticism, acknowledging the fallibility of authority figures. Embrace the complexity of truth and the importance of asking critical questions.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some deep shit. That's all things are. Things are complicated and that, I think, is the core of a lot is most things require effort to figure out. We all cannot be an expert in everything. There isn't enough time, especially, I mean, maybe we could be an expert in a lot of things if we didn't have to spend, you know, most of our life toiling away to survive. But that's another, that's a story for a different day. So it's impossible to become an expert on everything. And that's why I say, with a lot of these conspiracy theories, with a lot of these things, I want to hear the arguments for and against lot of these things, I want to hear the arguments for and against. But the reality is, in a lot of these cases, I don't have the requisite knowledge to really say like, let's take, you know, let's take a big.
Speaker 1:Another conspiracy that often you hear of right is the moon landing. You know, there's reams and reams that have been written on that. You know, um, do I believe it? I don't necessarily, I'm not, I'm not inclined to believe it. Could I build a case in my head for where it's plausible? Yeah, I could if I thought about it. Um, it's just funny.
Speaker 2:How many people will not like, will not even entertain it like do you ever see the video of one of the capsules taking off from the moon? Yeah, apollo, it's one of them. I don't think it's the first moon landing and it's just such a bizarre video. Again, I'm not an astronaut, I'm not anything to do with that kind of science, so I don't know, but just as a regular person living in 2024, looking at something that happened in the 70s, right, right, because I don't think it was the first moon- landing.
Speaker 2:Right, right, right. You say to yourself okay, how did they film that? Right? And there's one video, chris, that the thing takes off, and it's just, first of all, it takes off. It looks weird. Okay, it almost off, and it's just, first of all, it takes off, it looks weird okay it almost looks like it's shaking on a string or something.
Speaker 2:But again, that's me looking at it, right, um, but the camera that is filming it is somewhere, um, you know, on the moon, right, right, and they say it was on a rover or something, right? And as the whatever they call that a capsule takes off, the camera, pans up and follows it going up into the sky. And I said to myself, well, who's manning the camera, right? And how do they get it to pan up while that's happening? And you know, if you read about it, you'll say, well, maybe they were able to use remote control. But then other people say, well, there was a delay, there had to be a delay in the signal. But my question that came to my mind right away was well, how come they didn't drive this rover around and use the camera and show us everything else on the moon? Yeah, it's just, I said, who's man Like? Again, I have a very basic knowledge of it.
Speaker 2:That's the problem, right, but my knowledge of it, but my basic knowledge at least questions, and then I say, okay, let me find the answer, but there isn't an answer, right, if?
Speaker 1:you want to get shut down in a group of people. One of the quickest ways besides mentioning UFOs, although that's getting less so but one of the quickest ways to get shut down is to bring up questions on the moon. Oh yeah, because that has been built into people. But that is an important issue is why do people act like they do to, first of all, the term conspiracy theory, the accusation of being a conspiracy theorist. Why do people react like they react? And it's a wonder to behold. Because there are certain conspiracies, the moon landing being chief among them.
Speaker 1:People are instinctive to repel and recoil and go no, no, no, no, that's crazy talk. And I'm like all right, I get it, maybe it is crazy talk. There's a lot of crazy talk. It's just talk. We're just talking Right, like I'm not, that's that was. I'd recently put out a bonus episode that kind of talked about you know, considering is not believing, and that was sort of my whole philosophy on that. It's like why can't we talk about things Like I'm not asking you to go whole hog on this, I'm just saying let's kick it around. And there are some very obvious questions. Now there are some questions on the moon landing that I don't understand.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of things about light and the pictures from the moon landing and they say and I don't know, enough about Like the way the shadows the way the shadows fall and the way the things, and somebody can construct a really good-sounding argument, and then I say I don't know enough about that subject to refute it. But I also don't know enough about that subject to say that's true, because you could just be talking gibberish, I don't know enough about it. And I think that's true of a lot of things. We just don't know enough to say, right, like there are questions.
Speaker 2:There's a saying and it was a quote, but I only know it as a saying and I think it has to do with a lot of the different stuff we talk about is this They'll say if the science cannot be questioned, it's not science, it's propaganda. So if you tell me something and you get mad that I question it, well, maybe your position isn't that strong, Because if I believe something and I know it's true, I can say whatever you want. I'm not going to get mad at you. I'll say, yeah, look at this. And that's the end I mean. After a while I'll say I'm not going to talk about it anymore, but I'll give you the answer. Now, if I can't give you the answer, well, maybe I should rethink what I believe, right?
Speaker 1:I would love to see no-transcript, like I want to see all these things dissected. There's that Buzz Aldrin was on Conan and there's a clip and you can find it out there on YouTube where Conan is talking about the moon landing Right and he says something along the lines of I remember getting woken up and brought down to watch the moon landing live on TV and Buzz Aldrin interrupts him.
Speaker 2:He says no, you didn't.
Speaker 1:No, you didn't. He's like there were no cameras. You saw an animation and your mind is equating that animation with seeing the actual event. But there is footage of them walking on the moon and according to, stepping off and walking on the moon so is he saying that footage? Was shown later. He may have been talking about the landing itself, and like that's the thing is, when he's talking about the landing, he may have been talking about the capsule, but before that.
Speaker 2:Do you remember in your life anyone ever telling you that some of that's animation I don't remember I never heard that.
Speaker 1:I never heard any of that I said okay, now we'll watch an animation. Well, there was the question of like okay, there's the footage of him stepping onto the moon, but wouldn't the cameraman have been the first person on the moon? Cause somebody had to go out there and turn with the camera and they said well, no that was an arm that came up, but the one I always come back to is like yeah, but how long does it take a signal to get from the moon?
Speaker 2:Could we do that back then, Like it seems hard now I find it interesting how a lot of really great scientific minds today talk about the difficulty with getting to the moon because of the radiation. They say how they're still trying to figure it out. Talk about the difficulty with getting to the moon because of the radiation. Yes, right, they say how they're still trying to figure it out to get a person there. And you say wait a minute, did the atmosphere change? What happened?
Speaker 1:The argument I've heard is that a lot of that data of how to do it was stored on tapes that no longer exist, because obviously Kind of like the footage, right, like the storage of that stuff no longer exists and, of course, a lot of the obviously the people who were involved in that are dead and somehow NASA didn't do a good job of keeping the knowledge. Like the knowledge that they developed while doing it is lost now because of x, y and z, and I kind of like all right, that's a reasonable explanation, but it still opens up more questions. Like, really like this data, just from a technological standpoint, right, if we were able to do something, then are you really saying we have zero idea how to do it now with 2024 technology? With 2024 technology, we have no idea when we knew exactly how to do it in the late?
Speaker 2:60s. Well, you know all these different discussions you can kind of put into different topics, right, because you know I really enjoy ancient civilizations that are known to be mainstream. I enjoy ancient civilizations that are not so much mainstream, and the not so much mainstream discussion a lot of times involves the fact that there may have been technology that somehow got lost and that's how things were done. Maybe it wasn't you know some out of the outer space person that came to help, but humans were on a different track, or their civilization was on a different path than ours is today, and they were able to figure out how to do things and we just don't know what. That is Right. So and that's a lot of times saying that's crazy how could someone come up with something and we don't't know what that is? And that's a lot of times saying that's crazy how could someone come up with something and we don't learn from it down the road? Well, this exact thing is saying that in a span of 50 or 60 years, right we lost it, we lost this knowledge.
Speaker 2:So if we believe that, why is it so hard to believe the other thing?
Speaker 1:Right, it's cognitive dissonance when you hold in your mind two opposing ideas that can't coexist, but somehow you make them coexist, like we trust our organizations and we distrust our organizations at the same time. We will frequently make jokes about the airlines losing our luggage and being shitty and the shitty meals we get. Like, we joke about, like almost, the incompetence of our airlines, yet we get on these planes and trust them with our lives to fly us from point A to point B. We trust, you know, we trust government, but we don't trust government. We, you know, like it's these two thoughts like oh, technology can't be lost. Once something's discovered, it's here forever. Well, why haven't we been back to the moon? Well, we lost that technology, right? Okay, so it does happen. Apparently happens quite frequently. It happened just now.
Speaker 1:How many artifacts have we found? I've there's. There's been a few. I'd love to do a deep dive in that one of these days. Of these ancient things, we found that we don't really know what they're used for, because we don't know what they are, but they existed in ancient times. And somebody, there's something on a ship. I can't remember exactly what it was, but it was some sort of like device that they're like what is this Like? What was it used for? And they think it might have been like a very basic computer. They don't know, it's ancient and it's kind of like it's a curiosity and they just kind of have it. It says things like could knowledge be lost? Was going down?
Speaker 1:Here's a kind of a conspiracy theory. Nikolai Tesla, that's a big one, right, it came down to two paths for our future development the Tesla way, or I think it was the Edinson way. Right, you're talking electricity. Electricity, right, the way we have now was a choice. It was a choice. We could have gone this road. We could have gone this road. We went this road, which gives us what we have today. What would have happened if we took the other road? What if the Tesla methods, which supposedly, again, I'm not an expert, another thing that I want to dive into at some point, to do a show on, but my understanding of the Tesla thing is there's talk about electricity through the air and that like transmitting it without wires and without I don't know, like the people who supposedly, again, part of the quote-unquote conspiracy theory is that all of Tesla's papers were seized by the government upon his death. Some have been released, most of them have not.
Speaker 1:What were the thought things? You know what were the things that tesla, what would our world look like if tesla, uh, his way of transmitting electricity? Now they'd'd say, well, his way wasn't viable, that's why we went with the other way. Okay, I could believe that. Could you also believe a world where we went with one way over another because profit could be made from one way where it was harder? Like, if you're transmitting electricity to the air, it's really kind of hard to meter that. Right, if you have to run a wire, then that's a that you can meter, that you can say, okay, I'm running this wire and any electricity that comes to you through this wire I'm going to charge you for. Now, if you put an antenna up and you're getting electricity wirelessly, I don't know how much you're getting and how much you're using, so therefore it makes it harder for me to like.
Speaker 1:Could you believe a world where decisions were made not for the betterment of everybody but to keep uh, you know, either to create an industry or keep an industry safe?
Speaker 1:No, you know how many quote-unquote conspiracy theories have we heard over the years about water engines? You know how many things have I heard about this person supposedly invented an engine that could run on on hydrogen, you know, in water or whatever, and and it worked. And oh you know what. They suddenly committed suicide and all their records were lost and other technologies didn't really work. Now fill up your car with gas and get the hell out of here. You know, am I saying that's what happened? I don't know. I have no way to know that. I'm just saying it's plausible. Here's another one, another conspiracy that I've heard kicked around, that there's a whole line of research that physics was pushed away from, and that's gravity. That in the 50s there was a big push to research gravity and how gravity could be used as a power source, how gravity could be used to harness that power, and it never went anywhere according to conventional wisdom.
Speaker 2:And it was abandoned.
Speaker 1:But man, it's weird because it seems like everybody abandoned it at just the same time and over the years, a few people have dipped their toe back in and gotten promising results and something's happened to them. Now is that a conspiracy.
Speaker 1:Yeah, there's a woman named amy eskridge and she's the one I heard about, if you, if you google her, amy eskridge, she was a scientist of some sort and she was putting out as of a few years ago, was putting out all this stuff about gravity research, about how, you know, this is research that has been kind of dumped, but it had promise and then she suddenly that she suddenly killed herself. You know, it's like how many people suddenly do that? Where you go, I'm not saying I'm not saying that's what's going on, but man, something's going on you know how many people who are working on scientific things just suddenly one day go. You know, I've been putting all my efforts into this but I think I'm just going to off myself and move on. It's like did you, did you really do that?
Speaker 2:Oh yeah, she was an anti-gravity propulsion research scientist Died. She allegedly died of suicide after presenting an anti-gravity propulsion paper to NASA. Interesting Now again.
Speaker 1:I'm just reading one thing here this is the theory, though this is the idea behind this. Remember we were talking about the degree of power necessary for these UAPs to do what they do. There's a thought that it's gravity, that if you can harness the power of gravity, you can do these things like. That's the explanation. Do you want to know how these things fly at crazy ass speeds? It's because of they're able to manipulate gravity in a way, and what's scary about that?
Speaker 2:um, okay, she's the daughter of a retired nasa engineer yeah, she was a big deal.
Speaker 1:I remember hearing about her and then when she passed away, it was a big deal online. It was like people talking about you know, amy eskridge and how you know she was dipping her toe back into gravity and she was saying that you know, different people had told her kind of behind the scenes. You know, don't be careful, because they don't want, they don't want you looking into this. Now here's the question why? Why would somebody not want somebody else to look into gravity? Well, if you look into it theoretically, if you were able to harness that power, that's a lot of energy. Remember how much energy it takes for the UAP to do that. Put that in a lot of energy. Remember how much energy it takes for the uap to do that. Put that in a bomb. Like unlocking this technology, really unlocking it. We think that the nuclear, you know, splitting the atoms a big deal. This unlocking this could make that look like a squirt gun. So I guess you could understand why they wouldn't want just anyone looking into it. Like, can you imagine some, you know somebody, with ill intent unlocking the secret of harnessing the power of, like, all of a sudden, unlimited power? Oh man, we can make this bomb, and this bomb has the power to literally destroy the planet. I'm not talking about like nuclear, which just would like wipe the planet clean. What if there was a power that literally could blow up the planet, like the death star blew up alderaan, like that kind of thing. Is that conceivable? Well, when they talk about the, the degree of of energy that is theoretically possible to access via this technology Theoretic Wouldn't you think they'd really want people not to get there? Like it's understandable, you know, like it's, and we see it play out all the time.
Speaker 1:Our government has clearly done things to other nations to prevent them from getting technology. How many times have we heard about Iran having nuclear scientists, you know, assassinated, basically to prevent Iran from, because we don't want them to get a nuclear weapon? So we put a lot of effort into making sure that if they make progress on a nuclear weapon, that progress is lost, that facility is blown up. That facility is blown up, those scientists are killed. We make damn sure that they don't get that technology, because the thought of them having that technology scares us. Now take something like gravity, holy shit. That's a whole other level.
Speaker 1:I'm not saying that's the truth, I'm just saying one could build a case like the laziest argument is why? Like? When people are like, why would they do that? Like the ufo one, I hear that a lot. Well, if there were ufos, why would the government hide it? They ask that question very like why would they hide it?
Speaker 1:And you think about it for like two seconds and you go why wouldn't they hide it? It's destabilizing to our way of existence. It's destabilizing to our energy consumption. It's destabilizing to our nation states. It's destabilizing to our confidence in our, in our organizations and our institutions. Like I said, you, you tell the public that their institutions have been lying to them for 90 years, about 70 years, about ufos, and they lied to you. But now we're telling you the truth. You know what I'm saying. Like it's, it's obvious. If you think about it for one second, you'd go, of course, like you know. Like you know, like if you found out somebody you knew well was lying to you about some fundamental thing about themselves, like something fundamental, and you'd be like, would you ever trust anything they said again, like you'd be like a little suspicious, like I thought for years. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 2:Now if they had a good reason, you might Maybe.
Speaker 1:Well, again, a good reason is is there a good reason for hiding this? Of course there is. I'm sure there is. Of course there's a good reason for hiding this.
Speaker 2:Of course there is. I'm sure there is. Of course there's a good reason If it's being hidden. I'm sure there is a reason that a lot of people say is good or proper.
Speaker 1:You could make an argument that when this all again talking about UFOs, when this started to percolate was in the late 40s, after world war ii, and at that point the soviet union, the cold war like that was ramping up. Like the last thing that they needed at that point was another complication. So let's hide it, like I think the core of hiding some of these things were probably, at its core, a good intention, but it why would they hide it? Well, it's very likely that major crimes have had to have been committed. If you were to keep like, if you do an intellectual exercise and say this secret has been hidden, could you conceivably think that major crimes have been committed in?
Speaker 1:Many people have been, like, totally mocked and ridiculed for coming out and saying I saw this thing, I know about this thing or this ufo thing. Right now, years later, the government comes out and says it's all true, right, well, isn't that illegal? Like, couldn't someone whose life was ruined because they saw something and they were denounced by everybody, including the government? This doesn't exist. What you saw doesn't exist. You're crazy. Now, years later, the government comes out and says oh yeah, we lied, it does exist and we're hiding it. There's another reason to keep it secret? Can you imagine the legal implications of that? Can you imagine the legal implications of okay, lockheed got the pieces of the crashed UFO to try to back engineer? We gave it to Lockheed. We didn't give it to this aerospace or that aerospace. We gave it to Lockheed. We can't tell anybody. We have it either. So this company got an edge from the government that these other companies didn't get. Do you think that they will look at you know the day the government comes out and says all this stuff is true? Don't you think all those companies will turn around and go wait a second. That means my competitor got an edge that I didn't.
Speaker 1:I'm suing because we're supposed to get equal treatment, like the implications of the coverup, let alone the implications of the thing itself, like how disruptive the existence of someone else out there would be to our way of life. But the implications of the cover-up are probably more scary than that, because would you ever trust anything again? Like, really, ufos are real guys. Everything about UFOs is 100% real. We've been lying to you all this. We had to actually kill them because they got way too close. Yeah, sorry about that, Our bad. Do you know what I'm saying no, I do.
Speaker 1:If you really start to think it out, the reason for covering this up becomes clear. And how many secrets have to get uncovered. Iran-contra, that was a big one back in the day. I remember, yes, reagan. Iran-contra, that was a big one back in the day. I remember. You know, like our government was selling weapons to, you know was selling to our enemy in order to fund a secret war in South America. Like the legal implications of that. We were breaking so many laws by doing that. And they did it. They got caught for it. You know, like it's not, like this stuff hasn't happened. It happens all the time. We see it happen, we acknowledge it happens and then you say, well, they could be doing that with UFO. That's crazy talk. Oh, come on, if there was UFOs, why wouldn't they just come out and say it? And I hear that so much.
Speaker 2:I hear it less, though, the older I'm getting.
Speaker 1:I know. But it's like I hear that like a lot, like it's not that big a deal, like why would they keep something like that secret? And it's like are you kidding me?
Speaker 2:everything about it is huge well, I think that it's, um, it's something that, if it's what's happening right, it's self-perpetuating, in that maybe today there isn't a really great reason to keep it secret I, if so, more reason to let it out. Yeah, so I don't know Right, um, but uh, so if it wasn't something that was already said, hey, no, no, don't worry about it, that's nothing happening for decades.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:I might believe it, like, oh yeah, what is the real reason to not tell us now, right? Um, but to your point, well, you're going to undo all these other things that have been going on for decades now. So that could be one of the strong reasons, right? I don't know. We're a planet, especially the developed countries, that pretty much we pretty much run on the trade of energy, right, the trade of energy right. So, yeah, if there is another alternative energy source that is pretty much free for everybody, yeah, it would certainly turn things on its head as the power structure of the civilized world. So that's kind of a big thing.
Speaker 1:It would be a disruption. Like anything's a disruption, and you know the old saying it's not the crime, it's the coverup it's. That's often true.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean that's why you get mad at your kids right, not so much for what they did wrong. It's what they lied about. It's just you're not being upfront with me. With me about it.
Speaker 1:And that's true of most, and you know there are punishments for that. But in covering it up, it's hard to cover up a crime without getting sucked into more crime.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, you get punished worse when you lie about it. Right, that's just how life goes, that's human reaction and how many times.
Speaker 1:You know, you know that people will cover up.
Speaker 1:You know the degree of things that people will do to another person, especially if they don't know. It's easy to do things to people you don't know. If you know somebody personally, you've got to be a certain level of like psycho to do something horrendous to someone like that you know well. But it's very easy for people to do horrendous things to large groups of people they don't know at all, especially if they, you know, um, make them in their mind or in propaganda, make them not equal humans. You know you'll hear that a lot like when somebody's trying to like they're animals, they're, they're, they're not worthy of anything, they're whatever. Whoever our, our enemy is evil. Anything we do to our enemy, up into and including evil acts, is justified because our enemy is evil. It's a very common tactic Dehumanize your enemy and then you don't have to treat him like a human. We do that all the time and we see it done all the time. But then if you take it a little bit like, you take it to its natural conclusion and you go well, then obviously people are doing things. You know, would somebody put profit above the safety of people in an airline, oh God, no, nobody would ever do that. That's crazy, okay, but yet you'd have. You've had some airplane crashes where it was, where it was tracked back to defective, like cost cutting and things like. We know that that has happened. There was a boeing, the boeing one. There were these planes that were crashing and I didn't know about this, but there was a new system they had put in the plane. I can't I don't know the specifics of it, but basically it would detect and it would make certain aircraft maneuvers based on things that it detected. And when they rolled it out, if they made a big deal of it, they would have had to retrain all the pilots. They didn't want to do that because it was expensive, so they just kind of did it and didn't really make a big deal that there was this new feature, and this new feature went haywire and it caused a crash. It was because this I can't remember something to do with like detecting the angle of the plane and opening flaps or something like that, and the pilots didn't realize that the new version of the aircraft had changed the way they did this thing and it caused it caused a crash. That was a decision that was made fiscally, like we don't want to spend the money doing this, so we're going to flip a coin and like, literally like, risk the lives of, you know, hundreds and hundreds of passengers each day. They did it. It happened, like we know it happened.
Speaker 1:But then when you say, well, somebody could do it, nobody would ever do that. It's weird. It happened, like we know it happened. But then when you say, well, somebody could do it, nobody would ever do that. It's weird. It's. It's a self protection. We love to protect ourselves. We don't want to think that people would really do that People would put. Would there be people who would literally kill, like thousands upon thousands of people If there was a little bit of profit that they could make from it? Nobody would ever do that. Of course they would. Happens all the time. Happens all the time. We don't want to admit it it's. It's. It's startling to behold that, really that that's the biggest implement, uh, impediment I should say to these conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2:I think the people listen I think one of the hard things people have is coming to grips with the fact that we live in a society that is pretty much a lot of the commerce is controlled by corporations, right, and we don't want to believe that a corporation could be that heartless, because once we believe that it kind of just makes everything else kind of just kind of suck, and you know, everything does kind of suck, you know like if you just said you know I enjoy X in my life and who supplies it to me as this corporation.
Speaker 2:But the minute they could get the upper hand on me, even if it has to do with my demise, they don't care, right, you know, the only reason they don't care about my demise maybe is the fact that I can keep buying things, right. So if you wrapping your brain around that because, like you know, I would never feel that way about you, right, right. So it's hard for me to think well, there's this company that does feel like that about me, you know it just, it kind of isn't a good feeling, so we don't want to feel that way and it wasn't like the company said we want to kill these people.
Speaker 1:Like it wasn't that overt. What they said was people like it wasn't that overt. What they said was this was more we can make more profit if we do this, but this makes it a little less safe. Are we okay with that? And pretty much universally, they said yeah, we're okay with that, right? We?
Speaker 2:don't want to have. We don't want to believe that there could possibly be a meeting where there's a cost analysis and part of the cost analysis is what is the cost that we're going to have to pay out if there's human lives lost? And I can't tell you I've been in a meeting like that because I haven't, but I'm not so Pollyanna in this world to think those don't exist and they do exist, and because they exist makes us know that there's a part of society that's soulless, that's heartless, and I think that as individuals, we don't want to think that way.
Speaker 1:And that is the core of a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is your theory that there are a group of people conspiring to do something that's not right for their own gain and we laugh at conspiracy theories, while, if you really break it down, conspiracies happen all the time, every day. Some are uncovered, some are not. Some are uncovered years later, some are never uncovered, you know, especially when you know, uh, when all involved are dead, you know, uh, isn't that like a I can't remember? There's a saying or something like that is how do you, how do three people keep a secret?
Speaker 1:well, when two of them are dead, right now, because you know one person could keep a secret once it's more than one, you can't guarantee anything. So how do you do it? Um, what's another way to keep a secret? You don't write anything down.
Speaker 1:There used to be in our society not our society, but like in in the world an oral tradition. We hear about that all the time. Right, there are oral traditions where these, this culture, didn't really write stuff down, but they passed it from story to story to story. It was their oral tradition. Right, that's how they pass their knowledge. We understand that that happens, but that doesn't happen anymore. We write everything down. Do you know that's not true that there are insiders from the government that'll tell you there are some top secret stuff that when they talk about it UFOs being one of those topics that in some cases it's pens down, it's pencils down, it's the pencils down or something they call it. They basically say we're going to discuss this and those of us in the room are going to discuss this, but none of us are going to write it down. It's not going to be written anywhere except in our heads, and when somebody new comes in the program, we'll bring them in.
Speaker 2:Now you think that that sounds crazy. I'd be kicked out of that within minutes.
Speaker 1:Hi, my memory's so bad I bet you don't. They'd be like do you remember what we talked about? Last time and I'd be like I have no idea what we talked about last time.
Speaker 2:No, I do not. We just talked about it 10 minutes ago, steve, but that's.
Speaker 1:The thing is like that it's impossible to keep these things from us. It's really not, because in many cases, people don't want to know. People don't want to know and so they will blindly look at the obvious in front of them and go I don't see that and turn the other way, because to accept it would disrupt their reality.
Speaker 2:So, really, I think I get really like I'm going to start railing against when people say conspiracy theory, because it's such a stupid thing. If you're trying to, if you're trying to elicit that kind of feeling in people, I just think it should be called something else, honestly, because, um, but I don't know what it could be called but that I think what's trying to be put across is, instead of saying, conspiracy theory, I think what the person that's using that term is trying to say, you know this is bullshit, yeah, bullshit, yeah Right, and um, it's a really clever way of doing it. Um, but I think that people generally are becoming way more accepting of the fact that there are kernels of truth that are known today, that they are truths within these so-called I mean, they are conspiracy theories. This is exactly what they are, but when you say it that way, it elicits a different response.
Speaker 1:Right, the word conspiracy and the word theory when used in their definition Right, they're innocuous, but when put together conspiracy theory, they have this power. And I think what people should be asking themselves is where did this come from? Did this aversion to conspiracy theories, did it naturally develop? Because I think that's what a lot of people think is they say people don't like conspiracy theories. I even said that like people don't want to think that it's that conspiracies can happen, and that is true. But do you think our aversion to conspiracy theories, do you think that was a natural evolution or do you think that was kind of helped along? Like there's there's, there's evidence, sufficient evidence that that was very much helped along, that certain elements and it sounds crazy when you say it. I can already hear people out there.
Speaker 2:Well, it's controlling a narrative.
Speaker 1:Of course a government would want to control a narrative. That's how you run a civilization. You don't run a huge civilization by letting everybody just think whatever the hell they want. You really want to make sure you control the narrative. You don't want people thinking things that is, you know, inconvenient to what you're trying to set up. And I think it's obvious. When you say it like that, it's like duh, of course, but like all right, our government, parts of our government, elements of our government, pockets of our government, might be manipulating what we think. Oh my God, that's crazy talk.
Speaker 1:And then you watch a little bit of news and you go oh, wow, it's interesting. Watch, pay attention to words they use, pay attention to how, if they're covering a certain side of a story, they'll use certain words, but if they're covering the other side, they'll use other words. You know, um, they'll say and I'm not gonna get specific because you know people get all upset but they'll say these people were killed. And then, when the other side, these people murdered these people. Right, so when one side does it, they murder these people, then the other side does it these people were killed, and just killed. They were just. It just happened like they died.
Speaker 1:That's how it goes just, you know, and it's subtle, it's very subtle, it's the it's and again, when you talk about this, it sounds like a conspiracy theory. Oh my god, you're telling me that somebody, that all the news organizations get together and decide. No you don't have to do that. You don't need to control everything that people say and think. You just need to draw the lines.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, if you watch even just the news today, right, it happens with everything, right? It just popped into my head as you were speaking about that. Today we have the again I think I was talking about it earlier the Palestine-Israel thing that's happening. It's a big deal. Some news outlets will call different people pro-Palestine, others will call those same people anti-Israel and when you hear it, just know, just like anything else, like I'm not going to get into abortion, but when you say abortion issue, you're pro-choice or you're pro-life. Now in a vacuum, you know people get mad at me when I do it because I like to have fun right.
Speaker 2:But I'll say pro-choice, pro-life. I say I like both of those things. They both sound really good to me because I like both when you're pro something pro is positive.
Speaker 1:Positive when people are pro something, that's good. You're pro something when you're anti something.
Speaker 2:It's negative.
Speaker 1:You know, it's how it's Right, words matter, words have meaning, and specific words, the choice of specific words matters, and I think that's why it's important to have as wide a vocabulary as possible, because if you're limited on what words you can use, then you're limited on what ideas you can get across, and language is a very inefficient way of communicating because they're dependent on you understanding what I'm saying, right, not just on a like linguistic level, but also on a level of like understanding what my point is. But if my vocabulary, let's say my vocabulary, is limited, so I can't really get across to you my exact point, cause I don't have the right word to really, so I use the next best thing, which is the closest word. It doesn't really mean what I mean, but it's close enough, but in your mind it takes it into a whole nother level.
Speaker 1:So, but it's close enough, but in your mind it takes it into a whole another level. So, like our communication is imperfect, anytime we have to communicate with each other, it's an it's an imperfect thing because we're not. Uh, we've been watching um the three body problem on netflix. Have you watched that?
Speaker 2:no, so it's uh, it's very interesting I'm.
Speaker 1:I think I've read like six episodes and I think it's eight episodes. I believe it's the idea of a non-human intelligence interacting with us. I'm not gonna give anything away, but, um, but basically one of the tenets is is that whoever this others are, they seem to communicate. When they have a thought, they communicate it like literally, like it seems to almost be like a hive mind kind of thing, like everybody knows what everybody else is thinking. Okay, okay, so there are no deceptions, because I have a thought and you immediately know that thought, you know everything I'm thinking. And when they discover that we don't operate like that, that we deceive, they get worried and they say we can't trust anything you say. And they say we can't trust anything. You say we don't lie, you guys lie, you're a danger to us. So and think about that Like it makes total sense, like humans lie to each other constantly and they can get away with it because nobody knows what you're really thinking. But how quickly would that go away?
Speaker 1:If all of a sudden like people could like read your thoughts. Nevermind, there's no more lies. That scares the crap out of a lot of people but I like it one could also see how that could make things better. Can you imagine just taking lies off the table like that? How quickly you'd solve? Problems exactly right, like things would get solved instantly because you'd be like there'd be no more deception, right? I mean, that's a, you's a, you know it's a no, but a lot of self-initiative.
Speaker 2:If that was the case, there'd be a lot less selfishness in the world, because a group of people probably wouldn't stand for the selfishness of just a couple yeah, which, if you really think about it, you know the problems would get solved faster. Now, would they get solved in a way that you? Would they get solved in a way that, you know, maybe at the expense of?
Speaker 1:some people.
Speaker 1:Yeah, probably Well isn't everything at the expense of somebody? Like no problem can be solved without being at the expense of somebody, like no matter what problem it is. If it were a solution that didn't negatively impact anyone, then it would be done. Obviously, every solution is going to negatively impact anyone, then it would be done. Obviously, every solution is going to negatively impact somebody.
Speaker 1:A new energy source is going to, you know, be great for planet earth. They're going to be so great for the energy companies who that's their whole bread and butter is selling energy, and when somebody could just put up an antenna and you know, power their house and they don't have to talk to anybody, you know when. So when, oh know when a car, an automobile can be powered by water. You know that's not great for the gas companies or anyone who invests in the gas companies, or you know any of that. It's funny. Like I said, we admit that these things are plausible. We admit that they've even happened before in various ways, and yet we just refuse to admit that they could even happened before in various ways, and yet we just refuse to admit that they could be happening now. It's, it's. Yeah, it's something, it's something, all right.
Speaker 2:I was reading here about conspiracy theory and there's a conspiracy theory of where the theory, where the term came from and they're saying that it looks like in some of the documents provided by the cia during the kennedy assassination investigation is whether it were first was something that was now.
Speaker 2:Conspiracy theories have been around since the beginning of time, but it wasn't being called that until they're saying this article is talking about um, it first being seen in the documents regarding the investigation, and they called anyone that um was believing something outside the narrative was a conspiracy theorist. Yeah, it was a very, because that would be a conspiracy that there were two more actors involved. Uh, yes, in the process where the the narrative was, there was just this one guy. Nobody knew he was this kind of person and you know we shouldn't have given him a job here at this book depository which I mean, I never even knew what a big I might have said I don't know what a book depository is.
Speaker 2:yeah, like before, I'm not sure I could like, even today, I don't know I what a book depository is. Yeah, like before, I'm not sure I could understand. Like, even today, I don't know, I'm sure we're exactly what that is?
Speaker 1:I'm not really quite sure.
Speaker 2:Would that be like Amazon now?
Speaker 1:I don't know. I don't know that we have book depositories.
Speaker 2:What is it?
Speaker 1:I don't actually know. My thought process is it's a depository. That means books like maybe it was like a, maybe like a library we call those libraries a library nobody else can go to. Maybe it was like a library that has too many books and so they keep. Yeah, look it up. I have no idea what a book depository is. That's right. It's funny how often we say things. People say things like confidently and with no hesitation, but if you dig in a little bit, you know like how many years have I been saying yeah, you know, you know, I don't think. Uh, you know, lee, lee Harvey Oswald shot really was the lone gunman from the book depository, and that's a great question. I don't think anyone has ever asked me the question what is a book depository? Because now I think about it.
Speaker 2:I have no idea.
Speaker 1:I do not know what a book depository is.
Speaker 2:It says a library could also be called a book depository.
Speaker 1:You just said that, yeah, yeah, that, yeah, yeah. If I were to take an educated guess based on the words used, my thought process would be it's a place where overflow books are kept, maybe for the library system of of you know, saying of that of that area, like they were at multiple libraries, and they have an offsite place. Wait a minute.
Speaker 2:The Texas school book depository company was the one in Dallas. Yeah, okay, it was a school textbook distribution firm.
Speaker 1:Okay, there you go. All right, book depository. All right. Yeah, I never really thought about what that word meant.
Speaker 2:I never really cared until? Have you? I never really cared until. Have you ever really cared that much? No, but it's interesting, it would pop in my head. Then I'd move on to something else.
Speaker 1:It's funny, though, because to not even consider that I mean it doesn't invalidate anything, but like but how many of them said it without really knowing what it was? And that's just another example of people do that. All the time People will argue things that they don't really know that they heard that they picked up on and it's conventional wisdom or whatever.
Speaker 2:And then they get angry when you ask a couple of questions Right, because they have no basis.
Speaker 1:They don't know where the knowledge they have comes from. Therefore they can't take questions about it. Go back to the moon landing. You ask any questions about the moon landing, most people can't answer them. They can't really give you a comprehensive answer of why we had the technology then we don't have it now, why we we able to get footage Then we can't get it now, why everything seems so hard now and it was seemed so easy then and our technology is so much more advanced. I mean, you've you've heard the thing right About our cell phones have more computing power than the module that landed on the moon.
Speaker 2:Right.
Speaker 1:I'll frequently say that, like your, your phone has way more, not even like a little bit more, like thousands of times more than the space shuttle, the little shuttle that landed on the moon. You hear that all the time, and then we think about the implications of that. Okay, so if they were able to do that with that technology, shouldn't it be like a snap for us to do it with ours? And it's not. And yet if you ask anyone about that, get mad at you. They get angry. Don't question it. You're a nut if you're questioning the moon landing. I'm not questioning the moon landing. I just like a little clarity. The other thing I'll hear from people who don't know any better was well, if you understood the science behind it, you wouldn't ask those questions. And then you ask them well, do you understand the science behind it?
Speaker 2:No.
Speaker 1:But if we did, we wouldn't ask those questions. It's like all right, I think there's a whole topic there I would love to tackle at some point about the tyranny of experts, how we've given up our we've given to experts. You're an expert in this field, Therefore you know all about it. I know nothing about it. Therefore, whatever you say, I have to accept without any questioning, because you're the expert and I'm not.
Speaker 2:But it doesn't work that way in a lot of other aspects of the world. It just doesn't.
Speaker 1:It works that way in the media and it works that way with like let's just say in court If I was going to have a cancer, like if I was going to have a cancer, let's say I had cancer and I had to have, like a procedure done to cancer.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Like I want an expert, like I want someone.
Speaker 2:But you might want more than one.
Speaker 1:Oh well, of course.
Speaker 2:But like I'm not going to hire a, you know, I'll just talk about what I do. Let's say we're having a trial, right, and let's say you were my client, chris, right, and you had some injury to your knee, or I know you're recovering from your shoulder injury, right? So there's an expert that we hired for the trial and they talk about how well, it's clear, and they get up and they show you on the diagrams. Well, here is exactly how the load happened from the car accident and it caused this and his shoulder was in a compromised position and all this stuff. It's clear, the science is clear, and I can show you exactly the science of why this happened. Okay, then you get someone else up there, equal qualifications. We're not talking two bums, right? Someone else comes up there and they have a lot of other science as to why. Well, you know what. This is arthritis and this happened because of this. The other thing Two totally different opinions about the same thing.
Speaker 1:And can even use the same set of facts, oh yeah, and be built in a different way.
Speaker 2:That's why, when somebody you know so I'm not saying if you rely on experts, well there's differing experts on almost everything.
Speaker 1:On most everything right. It's most dangerous when all experts agree, because then that's the case where the experts agree most everything, on most everything right. It's most dangerous when all experts agree, because then that's the case where the experts agree on this and anyone who questions it is told well, don't question it, because the experts but like very rarely, even on the most controversial of subjects, you can always find quote-unquote experts who have a differing opinion of where those facts lead. And then those experts are often, often, you know um, minimized or you know, pushed off to the side and say don't listen to them, and the lay person doesn't know what to think because we rely on experts. We don't.
Speaker 1:One person cannot know about everything. So you need experts, you need people who know stuff, and it all works as long as you trust the word of your experts. And again, that goes back to my main thesis of a lot of these conspiracy theories that the experts have been telling us. No, you're wrong, there is no conspiracy. If you start uncovering them and say, well, all right, there was on this case and this case, so the experts lied to you, suddenly their word becomes crap for everything they've said.
Speaker 2:I don't know if that means they lied. I think it means that their conclusion was faulty Right.
Speaker 1:But they gave their conclusion with such certainty to say I'm the expert, you're not. My expertise tells me that this is the truth and this is not true. And then you find out okay, what you said was not true. Like again, how, how much faith are you going to put in experts in the future when experts can lie to you? You know, it's like discovering that lying is possible. I think there's a movie like that, the invention of lying.
Speaker 1:I never saw it, but I remember ricky gervais I think is in it where it basically takes this it's the idea that we got to right around the same point in history but lying didn't exist. The idea of saying something that wasn't true just was unheard of. And he discovers lying and starts saying things and realizes that, because nobody has a familiarity with lying, that anything he says is accepted as truth and it just goes off on this crazy thing where you know. It's that idea like once you realize that everybody lies. It's like the three body problem. They say wait, you guys can lie to each other. That means you could lie to us. How can I ever trust anything? Any of you say you've admitted to me that you're all liars and we know like well, that's not true, people do lie.
Speaker 1:But people also tell the truth like it's not even to the point in again, uh, spoiler alert but like they were talking about a story and they didn't understand the idea of a story. Like these guys communicating with like a microphone, like talking to them. They're supposedly far away and didn't understand that a story. They thought it was a lie. They're like, well, that doesn't. It was like the big bad wolf in Little Red Riding Hood and they were asking follow-up questions about the wolf and his habits. And then the person had explained well, well, no, this is a story. It doesn't like it's, it's not true. And they're like, oh, it's in a lie. Like they didn't understand, their aversion to not knowing what a lie was, even got to the point where they had no stories, because a story is just a lie. The story is telling you something that didn't happen. It's not intent on lying and everybody understands the lie. Well, you know the, the Goldilocks or whatever, and and all those things. They're not true events. They're, they're a parable to teach you some lesson, or something like that.
Speaker 2:Well, isn't it only a lie if you're trying to make someone believe it's the truth?
Speaker 1:lie if you're trying to make someone believe it's the truth.
Speaker 2:If you take the absolute, I'm not sure if you take the absolutist view, though that I mean, I know you're telling the truth or you're telling a lie, and if you're saying something that isn't true, then you're lying.
Speaker 1:Yes, that's a like, that's a extreme view to take and you can't imagine it, but like it's bizarre when you think about it, like oh my god, that changes everything. Like you'd understand why they couldn't. They couldn't trust us. And to us it's like what do you? Of course we all lie, they'll lie all the time. Sometimes we lie for good reasons.
Speaker 1:Sometimes you sell a lie, the little white lies you tell you know, they're to prevent someone's feelings from getting hurt or, you know, from something bad happening. You're lying, but for what you'd consider to be a noble purpose. But in their absolutist view, you're either telling fact or you're not telling fact. And if you're not telling fact, then I cannot trust anything you say.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean like if your wife asks you five minutes before you go out how does my hair look, you say it looks great. Right, every single time. Right, it looks better than it ever has, right.
Speaker 1:The last thing you're going to say is oh, it's pretty good, but I bet you, if you gave it another 15, 20 minutes, I'm sure you could make it look a little bit better. Like that's not in your interest to say that no.
Speaker 2:If you're already running late, in anyone's interest Around you, right?
Speaker 1:Although I'll tell you if, I, if, uh, you know, if, if you're not in a rush.
Speaker 2:If there's no rush to it, then there's. I think that's people's first. Were you looking at that woman? Oh yeah, there's that. No, no it.
Speaker 1:Well, that's just a silly one. I'm joking around no, I mean this, but you're right, that does happen, but it's just, I don't know it's, it's uh, humans are funny little creatures, but anyway. So we've talked a lot. Now we've had a nice long episode here. We may put this out in two parts. I might see I'm going to have to review in editing but we might have two episodes here. We just touched on conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2:We're coming back. We're coming back to that Right.
Speaker 1:We're going to probably tackle each of these individually, right. Like deep dives, yeah because I would love to really dissect the kennedy. The most recent information on the kennedy assassination like what? What is known, what has been disproven?
Speaker 2:um, you know is there any relationship at all to the rfk assassination to the jfk?
Speaker 1:or to ufos to ufo. There's a lot of people who trace the that say that if you just assume that JFK was assassinated for reasons like that don't have to do with UFOs, and some people will say, well, it might have been a connective tissue. But there's other people who say, like no, that was it, like that was the reason, and supposedly can pull up communiques something days before where things were referenced that could be. You know, I mean again, you can always take facts and make them out to something. So when somebody comes to me with a conspiracy theory, my first thought is not to believe them and also not to disbelieve them. I just want to hear what you have to say. But I love it when people will say, well, this, this, this and this must equal this, and it's like it could equal that. It could be that one of your facts is off, which would change the dynamic of everything. Or it could be that those same sets of facts are true, but there's this one additional fact that, if you add to it, changes everything.
Speaker 1:we don't know, everything, and I think I think that's the thing that people have to come away from this is be skeptical. Changes everything. We don't know everything, and I think I think that's the thing that people have to come away from this is be skeptical about everything, about things that are unproven, be somewhat skeptical of even things that are quote unquote proven.
Speaker 2:I'm not saying or even be open-minded.
Speaker 1:It's right. Skeptical is yeah Negative term open-minded and say could be, could be something else but um no, this was a good one.
Speaker 1:This was a good discussion. So, as always, wonderful to see you. Yeah, you too, we'll be back with more um and deeper dives and stuff. There's so much to talk about. I think we are living in one of the most interesting times. I say that a lot to people that, like we're living through, I think in the next few years, it's just the amount of things that are coming up, new discoveries being made, whether the web telescope or like discovering another ocean under ours, like it sounds bizarre to talk about this, but I feel like we're on this cusp where, like, things are just going to happen and new discoveries are going to have to change our perspective on things because, uh, I don't know, I think, I think it's a lot more weirder than we think.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm really I'm. I'm excited about whatever's coming next.
Speaker 1:Yes, indeed, and we'll be back to talk about it. So, uh, that's all for now, until next time. I'm Chris and I'm Steve, and this has been some deep shit. We'll be you next time.