UFO or AUP's? Pentagon says BS. What say you?

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (36 posts)
  1. tsmog profile image85
    tsmogposted 2 months ago

    "The Pentagon says it found no evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft, in a new report reviewing nearly eight decades of UFO sightings.

    The 63-page, unclassified document published on Friday is the most comprehensive report the Pentagon has produced on the topic, and yet another instance in which it has batted down claims of alien spaceships."

    Pentagon finds 'no evidence' of alien technology in new UFO report by NPR (Mar 8, 2024)

    I only have one question at this time, even though they say they can be explained, i.e. "Many of the sightings turned out to be drones, weather balloons, spy planes, satellites, rockets and planets, according to the report." how do they explain the movement of the UFO's as witnessed. I am at a loss. Example is how fast they disappear from sight seen with films both civilian and military.

    1. peterstreep profile image79
      peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      This whole thing is an example of how conspiracy theories are rooted in US culture today.
      The fact that time an money (tax payers money I presume) is wasted on parliamentary comity and question time about UFO sightings is beyond me. Don't they have anything better to do?
      "how do they explain the movement of the UFO's as witnessed.?"
      The UFO movement is a movement of superstition and lack of critical and scientific thinking. (something you supposed to learn at school)

      Tell me why on earth sake would an alien civilization with the science to travel faster than light play hide and seek with us stupid human beings?
      If you have traveled light years to reach a planet with "intelligent" life I think there are a lot of other ways to present yourself.
      The UFO thing, is strangely enough a typical US thing. As the majority of the sightings of UFO's are above US soil.
      So why is it the US. Plain and simple, it's a cultural phenomenon. The UFO sightings have nothing to do with aliens, but with the beholder. The Americans in most cases and it's rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and QNON.
      And UFO's is not the only conspiracy in the US. You have the moon landing conspiracy and the flat earth theory as well!
      So you believe that the aliens have landed but don't believe that humans can travel to the moon!!
      On a nationwide U.S. survey, around 10 percent of respondents agreed with conspiracy claims that the Earth is flat. A whopping 10%!!!!! There's something seriously wrong in the education system here!!

      1. tsmog profile image85
        tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Okay . . . thanks for contributing to the 'Discussion' between participants each with their own views as you have.

        1. peterstreep profile image79
          peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, perhaps it was more a statement than a discussion.
          It is fun and interesting to talk and speculate about alien life. And personally I'm sure alien life will exist somewhere else. And possibly in such a strange way that we hardly recognize it.
          I'm a hard core fan of sci-fi. But the chances that alien life forms are flying around in UFO's only recorded with sketchy details is incredibly unlikely.
          UFO's are military objects, natural phenomena or practical jokes.

          1. tsmog profile image85
            tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Perhaps it is the differences between a creative mind and an analytical mind. Of course, some have a balance of the two. The creative mind will allow the mind the liberty of imagination whereas the analytical mind is bound by rules.

            Of course, neurologically speaking it is the theories of the left and right brain persons theories. The connection between the two is the corpus callosum doing the communicating.

            One article of many is next.

            Left brain vs. right brain: Fact and fiction by Medical News Today
            https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321037

            and,

            The Truth About Logical Left-Brainers vs. Creative Right-Brainers by The Coaching Room
            https://thecoachingroom.com.au/blog/the … -brainers/

            I encourage watching the video at the top of the article.

            For a deep dive take a look, if curious, at the Google landing page next and pick and choose an article or two.
            https://www.google.com/search?client=fi … brain#ip=1

            BTW . . . this contribution is a metaphor!

            1. peterstreep profile image79
              peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Ah yes, the left side and the right side of the brain. I'm an artist and taught for a long time art, sometimes referring to the book of Betty Edwards where she explains the relation between drawing on the right side or with the left side of the brain. Drawing what you see, or drawing what you know, and the conflict between them.
              Personally I've learned to have a balance between the two. When I make art I have to trust my intuition and go from there, but balance it out with the knowledge of materials, composition etc etc.
              Thanks for the links. I will have a look at them.

              1. tsmog profile image85
                tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Just to add to the dialogue I'm sharing some of my exploring this morning while drinking my coffee. Watch the video next about Alien brains while smiling.

                Michio Kaku on Alien Brains | Big Think YouTube video (4:07 min) I found it interesting opening doors for me.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izp7q6OXXS4

                A bit about the speaker/presenter MIchio Kaku

                "Dr. Michio Kaku — theoretical physicist, bestselling author, acclaimed public speaker, renowned futurist, and popularizer of science. As co-founder of String Field Theory, Dr. Kaku carries on Einstein’s quest to unite the four fundamental forces of nature into a single grand unified theory of everything."

                Note: Key word = consiousness

                An interesting and intriguing article is next.

                Can physics explain consciousness and does it create reality? by NewScientist (Jul 7, 2021)

                We are finally testing the ideas that quantum collapse in the brain gives rise to consciousness and that consciousness creates the reality we see from the quantum world.

                https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg … e-reality/

                1. Nathanville profile image93
                  Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for sharing your exploring; greatly appreciated.

                  Michio Kaku is one of my favourite scientists, so I loved watching your video link of him.

                  Thanks for the New Scientist link at the bottom of your post, on the latest update on the subject; I read about the theory in New Scientist in the 1990’s, when it was still just hypothesis, so to read the latest on the subject was fascinating.

                2. peterstreep profile image79
                  peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes, Michio Kaku is right. In the many movies the aliens are most of the time humanized. Although the concept of a completely strange alien in sci-fi films gets better.
                  We consider intelligence and consciousness as one of the key aspects of alien life forms if the visit us. But is it necessary?
                  The last couple of years more and more is discovered about life on our own planet. The octopus is a great example who has parts of it's brain in it's tentacles (and therefore actually has 9 brains) and is a highly intelligent animal. It has roughly 10,000 more genes than humans. And it has 3 hearts!!
                  And so definitely a different perception of the world than that we have.

                  1. Nathanville profile image93
                    Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Yep, I've seen documentaries on TV that highlight the points you make about the octopus - most fascinating smile

            2. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Wow:  I loved the video in your 1st link – most fascinating: Thanks for sharing. smile

              Yep, the creative mind in our right brain, and the analytical mind in our left brain, is a subject we touched on at college when I did human biology – A most interesting subject.

          2. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            As a teenager I and a couple of others climbed a nearby small mountain at night.  We took dry cleaner bags (large, thin plastic bags), filled them with hydrogen we produced on the spot, built a framework of drinking straws across the bottom and set a candle of the framework.  Then we lit the candle and let the breeze carry them over the town. 

            Eventually the hydrogen would ignite and the whole thing would disappear in a soundless flash of light.

            Lots of UFO's over the town that night, and the police were kept busy answering calls about them!

            1. peterstreep profile image79
              peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Wow! That must have been a magical sight and a great thing to do. I saw it once on a bar mitzvah. Such a balloon with a candle drifting over a lake. It was mesmerizing. After that I believe the Chinese discovered these party balloons too....
              Haha, that you kept the police busy must have been fun. OMG the aliens have come!!!
              Apparently the radio play "The War of the Worlds" of 1938 was so realistic and convincing that a lot of people thought the Martians really had come to earth.

            2. Nathanville profile image93
              Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Cool smile

      2. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, I have to agree with you. smile

  2. Vlado - Val Karas profile image69
    Vlado - Val Karasposted 2 months ago

    I already mentioned it in one of my articles -- but not assuming my articles are that popular, here I'll repeat it.
    In one of my textbooks in the study of psychotherapy, there was a mention about "every government having a special department whose job is to monitor and manipulate public moods and opinions". It was something under the title of mass-hypnosis and messing with the minds of people by some mega-manipulators.
    Would they ever open their mouth about HAARP's secret vibrational projects to affect the brains of people into a submissive state? Or about using chemicals in drinking water to lower brain's capacity for independent, critical thinking?
    Now, when it's about UFOs, I am not surprised at all that they are suppressing this particular subculture of information, because extraterrestrials are not supposed to "steal the ultimate popularity away from gods and governments as two unconscious surrogates for a "father-figure" in grownups' mentality.
    Namely, no one with a superior intelligence is supposed to appear on that pedestal of ultimate authority -- to possibly raise hopes for overturning the institutions of the super-rich and powerful that are dictating the cultural paradigm on earth.
    Hollywood keeps portraying E.T.s as ugly and extremely hostile, even though it takes a little logic to figure how -- if anybody is that much more advanced than we are, they must have evolved away all their animalistic urges of arrogance. Besides, being that advanced they could have disabled all our spy satellites, all electronically run high armament, even telepathically enslaved us -- if that was in their agenda in all these years.
    When government lies to you about countless other things, why trust it about this one?

    1. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Thanks for contributing to the discussion. A lot to digest.

  3. Nathanville profile image93
    Nathanvilleposted 2 months ago

    Being scientifically minded (disciplined) I can only take the scientific route on this subject; which leaves me with an open mind in that there is ‘no concrete’ evidence to either support or dismiss UFOs e.g. “I have no opinion” on the subject.

    However, I did take part in the ‘SETI at Home’ project for many years – which is a proper scientific approach – and which was great fun participating in:  SETI & ‘SETI at Home’ are explained in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_fo … telligence

    1. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Howdy! I take pretty much the position you do as I am open minded while many times are very much intrigued by the subject of UFO's and alien visitors. In other words, I have immense curiosity. For me, it is an on and off again topic.

      I am familiar with SETI. At work I listened to a website that broadcast sounds from space 24/7. If anything it was cool white sound that made the long evenings at work go by easier. (I just now tried to find the one I listened to and it was to no avail. The link next is an interesting one.)

      Sounds from space by the European Space Agency
      https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration … from_space

      Interesting enough my understanding is sound can't be heard in space as it cannot travel since it is a void.

      Another facet that intrigues me is where history gives us opportunity to ponder if aliens have visited. Two videos offering that thought follows.

      ANCIENT ALIEN IMAGES FOUND by the History Channel (59 sec)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCyPDMWBRfY

      Alien Activity in Ancient Mesopotamia | Ancient Aliens by the History Channel (44:17 min)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl0650Xluek

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Yes you are correct; “sound can't be heard in space as it cannot travel since it is a void.” – For clarity, there is a distinct difference between ‘soundwaves’ and ‘radio waves’.

        Sound e.g. the vibration of a car engine, or the vibration you create in your mouth when you speak to someone in person, or the vibration of beating a drum etc. creates waves in the atmosphere, just like creating waves in a pond if you throw a pebble in the pond – And your ear drum picks up the vibration in the atmosphere and your brain interprets into sound in your mind.

        Whereas, the ‘sounds from space’ isn’t actually sound, it is part of the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’:-

        At the lowest end of the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ is ‘radio waves’ e.g. just like the radio waves transmitted by terrestrial transmitters, and received by your TV or Radio aerials.  The highest end of the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ are ‘gamma rays’:  Unlike sound waves which can’t travel through a vacuum, the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ waves can travel through a vacuum. 

        The full ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ from the lowest wave frequency to the highest is:

        •    Radio waves
        •    Microwaves
        •    Infrared
        •    Visible light
        •    Ultraviolet
        •    X-rays
        •    Gamma rays

        Visible light is called ‘visible light’ because that is the only part of the ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ that humans can see with their eyes; although there are plenty of other animals e.g. some species of fishes and insects who can also see ultraviolet light.

        All the other ‘electromagnetic spectrum’ waves that we can’t see with our eyes, which are coming from space, are detected using ‘radio telescopes’.

        Thanks for the video links: 

        I use to like the documentary channels, like the History Channel, Discovery Channel etc.  But I have been a little more sceptical of them over the years because have broadcast a few documentaries which when I fact-checked them turned out to be dubious or bogus?  - which is a great shame.

        So although a lot of the documentaries on the History Channel are good, and mostly factually correct; when the claims being made in a documentary sounds a bit fanciful, it does pay to do a bit a background checking into the documentary (fact-check).

        With your first video link:  When I watched the video without sound e.g. so as to not be influenced by the commentary, my impression is that of for an example: Native Indians coming into contact with other tribes migrating from another part of the world, who looked different –

        On the above scenario, out of curiosity I asked Google if there was any mass migration to India 10,000 years ago.  And the answer I got is that the first Indians were hunter-gatherers who migrated from Africa to India 50,000 years ago e.g. the natives with spears shown in the cave paintings.  Then Google went on to say that another mass migration arrived in India about 10,000 years ago, from Iran, who were farmers, not hunter gatherers.  Could those strangers in the cave paintings be Iranian farmers settling in India???? And not Aliens, as suggested in the commentary on the History Channel Documentary?

        I couldn’t watch your 2nd video, as unfortunately it’s is blocked from being viewed in the UK (probably an issue over licensing laws)?

        Of course, one related topic which by its very nature is the stuff of conspiracy theories are the ‘Nazca Line’ – human artwork drawn in the desert thousands of years ago, which can only be seen from the air:  https://youtu.be/pnPTMuxJgO0

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Thanks for all the information. Appreciate the criticisms.

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            The criticism was only aimed at the American TV Documentary channels; which I used to think was good, they do broadcast a lot of good documentaries; but disappointingly not all their documentaries are factual, some are fanciful, sometimes feeding into conspiracy theories.

            In Contrast, UKTV (founded in 1992), a commercial multi-channel broadcaster wholly owned by the BBC (which is State owned) has two UK documentary channels, Eden and Yesterday; and so far (to the best of my knowledge) neither documentary channel has fallen into the trap of producing documentaries that aren’t well researched and factual.

            Yesterday UKTV – short preview of documentary on Madagascar: https://youtu.be/7hiNBLZlvvg
            Eden UKTV – 30 second Season Advert https://youtu.be/oxIxeNrw2OA

    2. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 months ago

      Just posting for the heck of it as I found it humorous. Maybe others won't so I offer an apology in that case.

      https://scontent.fsan1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/431024905_10160199581382087_1844878499042661147_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=qNibmngOpo4AX9JM9mV&_nc_ht=scontent.fsan1-1.fna&oh=00_AfANWaWmcJ76DhQ-St8ufL-7iouALokmd9gK_BlGcigwWQ&oe=65F342D0

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, I’ll not argue with that – A cool statement cool

    3. Vlado - Val Karas profile image69
      Vlado - Val Karasposted 2 months ago

      While being "scientifically-minded", one cannot dismiss the fact that much of the "science" is still a "theory" -- including Evolution, much of medicine's reductionist and mechanistic understanding of the man's body, and other things which we are taking for granted in "science" but which are not necessarily correct -- according to the New Edge (not New Age) scientists.
      Likewise, when bona fide scientists -- not fantasts -- are talking about multiverses, quantum field, biocentrism, simulated /virtual reality, and other unexplored areas of nature, they are brainiacs who are not satisfied with the existing limitations of science, and here we are talking about the exploring spirit of scientists, not about us --  "scientifically-minded" ignoramuses proud to know the high school physics.
      UFO's sightings have been happening elsewhere in the world, not only in the US, and are documented since times when weather balloons, spy- satellites, drones, and other flying things of modern times did not exist.
      Then, why not UFO movement? -- if government is spending money on bird watchers whose job is to study the migration of birds; or those experts studying insects, or sexual habits of monkeys.
      Today's science has been said to have come up with things which only decades ago were science fiction. What's the TRUE limit of physics, and why be intellectually arrogant to claim that "we already know what has to be known about interstellar travel"? It's like hearing a doctor say how there is no other way of curing a sickness but with scalpel and drugs -- while people are beating terminal cancers in phenomenon called "spontaneous remission", apparently involving nothing but a change in mindset.
      Indeed, what is known officially cannot explain UFO's -- but I am satisfied that some top brains are considering their existence -- not inclined to agree with those whose knowledge of "science" doesn't exceed the one of high school's curriculum.

      1. peterstreep profile image79
        peterstreepposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        The word theory has a different meaning in science than in general speech.
        Science is open minded in this respect. If a theory is proven wrong by scientific standards and peer review, scientists easily change and except the better theory that replaces it.
        The theory of gravity was replaced by the theory of general relativity by Einstein. Although many still work with Newtons gravity theory and it works fine in many cases.
        Darwin's theory of evolution still stands and is only improved over the last 200 years. It is basically a fact.
        The God theory has much more problems and facts that contradict it than the evolution theory.

        I don't think it's arrogant to say that the speed of light is the limit. It's the fact we work with. Just like 1+1=2. To say that you can go faster than light is speculation without evidence (at this moment)
        But speculation without facts is like faith. You can speculate that a god exists but without facts it's just a fantasy. That's the same with believing UFO's are alien artifacts. If you have no facts it's a science fiction novel. Fun to read, and again I love them, but not real.
        I think a lot of people, scientists and not, are considering life on other places than earth. And how it would have evolved and how it would look like.
        It is incredibly interesting to think about that and some scientists are thinking about it on a deep level.
        Stephen Hawking said once: "We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet...Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonize whatever planets they can reach."
        I think that the fact that we are not eaten yet, shows that according to Hawking aliens haven't landed yet.;-)

      2. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        You are confusing a scientific theory with the theories commonly produced by everyone in their everyday life.

        While the spelling and pronunciation are the same, the word has two very different meanings.  One is the scientific meaning where a hypothesis is made, rigorous testing applied, the idea is given to the scientific community which performs exhaustive testing by many people with every intention of poking holes in it; when they cannot, a "theory" is produced.  The "theory" of evolution is one such.

        The other is when someone concocts an idea and presents their "theory" to the public.  Scientifically it can only be a "hypotheses" because it has not been tested.  The theory of ET's in UFO's is one such.

        1. Nathanville profile image93
          Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Wow - well put: cool

    4. Vlado - Val Karas profile image69
      Vlado - Val Karasposted 2 months ago

      I can't but smile when I listen to so called "left-brain scientifically-minded" people's explanations of the UFO phenomenon. In a sense, all this discussion is of an inter-religious type, where Christian scholars and Islamic scholars would discuss whose belief is more realistic.
      The fact about "knowing" is that we DON'T -- and just because today's science is stating this or that, doesn't mean that it is even touching the ultimate reality.
      It's like comparing Newtonian with quantum physics, each working at its own level -- whereas quantum physics is leaving us all with open mouth as total ignoramuses, and with our brains' limitations to grasp the ultimate reality, we might come out from that rabbit hole completely insane in clinical sense.
      For instance, our body, on that tiniest level is but a bundle of well orchestrated energy and sub-atomical particles, and in that realm of entanglement we have no clue what's happening. The way we are wired in our brains we can only conceptualize up to a limit, and that involves Einstein and Darwin and Tyson...everybody all the way to us, armchair philosophers.
      We cling to what is "known" in science, because we love certainty, while we are still in the position of those blind dudes describing an elephant by touching its body.
      So, talking about UFO's -- of course, some will junk it as a fantasy and conspiracy theory, because they don't believe those sober military individuals who were among witnesses. Of course, they will be readily dismissed as hallucinators or something, just like a vegan is dismissing carnivore diet as a nonsense.
      It boils down to intellectual tastes, while that ultimate truth is not based on what this or that of the "famous" scientists is claiming.
      In those highest cycles of the physicists there is even talk about speed higher than the one of light.
      And even vacuum may not be all that empty, but loaded with cosmic energy.
      After all, how do we know that teleportation is impossible -- is it just because there is "no evidence" of it? There no "evidence" of a neutrino shooting through Earth without touching anything, and yet it is not considered a "fantasy".
      I am not defending UFO as a "proven" fact, but as something that, logically, shouldn't be dismissed after thousands of people have seen it. We can't call all those people, some including pilots and military personnel as fantasizing idiots detached from reality, or the "right-brain" thinkers.
      As a part of my own daily self-advancing routine, I am listening to those left-right moving Hemisync sounds, synchronizing my brain's hemispheres, so I know exactly what some of you are theorizing here.
      But, while, along with you and so many others, I don't have any proofs of UFO's existence, I am still calling it "intellectual arrogance" to deny it -- just because the present state of science is denying it.
      It really comes down to cherry picking, whether we choose to believe what one Neil DeGrasse Tyson says or one Michio Kaku. Or even worse, being blindly hooked to our intellectual limitations.

    5. Vlado - Val Karas profile image69
      Vlado - Val Karasposted 2 months ago

      I am done here. May we all stick to our own intellectual favoritisms.

    6. Peggy W profile image96
      Peggy Wposted 2 months ago

      This was an interesting thread to read.  I will simply state that I am open-minded on the subject of UFOs.  To my way of thinking, it would be AMAZING if we are the only planet inhabited with SOME type of intelligent life in the entire universe.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I’m confident there are other planets in the universe with intelligent life; such planets that are considered capable of supporting life are called ‘Goldilocks worlds’, and the hunt is on to ‘find and study’ them:  So far scientists have discovered 59 potential ‘Goldilocks planets’ in our galaxy; whether any of them contain life or not remains to be seen.

        But of course, the ability to travel between planets is a different debate to whether life exists on other planets e.g. the distances is vast.  The nearest potential ‘goldilocks planet’ to earth, discovered so far is ‘Proxima Centauri b’, which is 4.2 light years from earth.

    7. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 2 months ago

      For those interested. Conspiracy theories has been brought into the dialogue and now I am adding to that. First, conspiracy theories is not an 'American thing'.

      Begin by looking at this article by YouGov.

      Where do people believe in conspiracy theories?
      https://yougov.co.uk/international/arti … ories-true

      There are several topics used to discover with. Plenty of graphics. One was specifically Where are people most likely to think that humanity has made secret contact with aliens from other worlds. That goes along with OP Topic of this thread.

      For a quick results glance with the participants here so far:

      U.S. = 29%
      U.K. = 20%
      Spain = 24% (I think that is where peterstreep resides. I may have that wrong

      Of course, Britons can take pride with the opening subheading:

      "Research from the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project shows that Britons are among the least likely to believe many global conspiracy theories.

      Adding to discovery are the following articles.

      Conspiracy Thinking in Europe and America: A Comparative Study published at Sage Journals. Only the abstract (See following) is available at that link. For the full study it is by purchase.

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 … 1720972616

      Abstract:

      "What explains conspiracy thinking in Europe and America? This is the first and largest comparative study of conspiracy thinking to date, presenting findings using a representative sample of 11,523 respondents in nine countries. First, it shows that the overall level of conspiracy thinking in Europe is equal to or slightly lower than the United States, contradicting the notion that conspiracy theories is an especially American phenomenon. Second, people more inclined to conspiracy thinking position themselves towards the right of the political spectrum, engage in magical thinking, feel distrust towards public officials and reject the political system. Finally, we find that – surprisingly – the country context in which respondents reside has hardly any effect as predictor of levels of conspiracy thinking or as a moderator of individual-level determinants. Heterogeneity in conspiratorial thinking seems to be largely a function of individual traits."

      And, finally . . .

      Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries published at Nature Human Behaviour
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01258-7

      Reading the subheading Main sheds a lot of light.

      1. Nathanville profile image93
        Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        The YouGov article clearly demonstrates how wrong ones person’s perception of another person’s culture can be – something to bear in mind in other forum discussions when Americans and Europeans take a pop at each other.

        Thanks for sharing all the links; as usual, your research is so informative, and educational.

        It’s good to see that the USA is not at the top of the conspiracy theory believers; and of course, pleasing for me that the UK is near the bottom.  A loose relationship between “conspiracy mentality and political orientation’ (as shown in your last link) doesn’t surprise me – it would explain a lot. 

        Although I suspect a nation’s educational system, and ‘public awareness’ programmes etc., are also major factors in what and how people think and believe?

        Following on from my above comment, out of curiosity I asked Google the question; and a number of articles on the subject were listed – including this one published by the NIH (National Institute of Health), which although rather lengthy is worth at the very least a good skim  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248629/

        1. tsmog profile image85
          tsmogposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Howdy! Thanks for the contribution, Arthur! Appreciate the link to, Why Education Predicts Decreased Belief in Conspiracy Theories I found the four elements he investigated intriguing:

          ** Cognitive Complexity
          ** Experience of Control
          ** Self-Esteem
          ** Social Standing

          As with most academic studies I read the abstract, summary, and discussion while skim the method stopping here and there where something piques my interest especially with graphics/tables illustrating a point. As both the study you shared as well as the one I shared there appears to be a strong connection with the social element.

          Also, with both, is that conspiracy theories build upon each just as beliefs do thus a parallel. From, the study you shared comes:

          “Although many different conspiracy theories exist, belief in one conspiracy theory[b] predicts belief in conceptually unrelated conspiracy theories (Abalakina‐Paap, Stephan, Craig, & Gregory, 1999, Goertzel, 1994, Swami et al., 2011, Van Prooijen & Acker, 2015) or even contradictory conspiracy theories (Wood, Douglas, & Sutton, 2012). This suggests that people vary in the extent to which they are generally prone to explain societal events through assumptions of conspiracy formation. Correspondingly, research within this emerging domain has identified a range of demographic, individual‐difference, and situational factors that predict people's susceptibility to conspiracy theories (for overviews, see Bilewicz, Cichocka, & Soral, 2015; Van Prooijen & Van Lange, 2014)

          From the study I shared comes:
          Accumulating research has revealed that a reliable predictor of belief in one conspiracy theory is belief in another conspiracy theory 1,9,10,11. It therefore appears that people differ in their predisposition to explain events as conspiracies, which is sometimes referred to as ‘conspiracy mentality’ or the ‘conspiracy mindset’12,13,14.

          Anyways . . .

          One thing that stood out for me was the third element, Self-Esteem. With the summary of that topic my attention was drawn to the final sentence – “I therefore hypothesized that education would predict increased self‐esteem, which in turn would mediate the relationship between education and belief in conspiracy theories (Hypothesis 3)”.

          At that point of reading I considered ‘what self-esteem’ is from formal studies pursuing my degree in Social and Behavioral Sciences. I tend to stick to the basics many times. Essentially the easiest way for a person to raise their self-esteem is to compare themselves to someone else.

          Then I expanded that to social circles of individuals. In other words, group dynamics. The proposition being that groups seek to raise their self-esteem through conspiracy theories as a tool. In other words, they have secret knowledge that no one else has inter-playing with both seeking status as well as reasoning for the ‘unknown’ of their environments be that social, political, religious, etc.

          However, having read further along to his conclusion:

          The Study 1 findings did not support the mediating role of self‐esteem. Although we found a small but significant correlation between education and self‐esteem (cf. Baumeister et al., 2003), self‐esteem was uncorrelated with belief in conspiracy theories (Table 1). Indeed, we note that the relationship between self‐esteem and belief in conspiracy theories does not replicate in all studies (Swami, 2012). Here, I speculate about two possible reasons why the relationship between self‐esteem and belief in conspiracy theories is not empirically robust. First, research indicates that narcissism predicts belief in conspiracy theories through increased paranoia (Cichocka et al., 2016). Whereas narcissism is not the same as self‐esteem—and it is likely that narcissism and self‐esteem are associated with conspiracy beliefs through different processes—many narcissists tend to have high explicit self‐esteem. Cichocka and colleagues reason that narcissism suppresses the relationship between self‐esteem and conspiracy beliefs. Second, there are more dimensions to self‐esteem than whether it is high or low. One study found that self‐esteem instability—that is, the extent to which self‐esteem fluctuates over time—is a better predictor of conspiracy beliefs than self‐esteem level (Van Prooijen, 2016). These considerations suggest that more research is needed to fully explain when and why self‐esteem is related with belief in conspiracy theories.”

          Well, that was a bit of wandering . . .

          You know, a thought just flashed by. How about considering analogously that a hypothesis in essence through scientific inquiry is a conspiracy theory seeking proof. In other words,  it is something that counters conventional thought. Is that hogwash?

          BTW . . . on the OP Topic yesterday in the afternoon after lunch I went to my one and only movie channel. They broadcast:

          Men in Black
          Men in Black II
          Men in Black 3

          I had never seen Men in Black 3. Watching all three with the OP in mind I had a good mood and chuckled quite a bit. I pondered, the writer was influenced by something and let his imagination run with it.

          Conspiracy theory? Did it produce some? How many minds were swayed that alien life forms exist today and we just don’t know about it?

          As I say a lot of the time when an inquiry comes my way, “I simply, don’t know.”

          If interested still on the conspiracy topic take a peek at a new discovery for compare/contrast with the earlier one I suggested along with yours.

          Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6282974/

          Abstract
          “In this introduction to the EJSP Special Issue on conspiracy theories as a social psychological phenomenon, we describe how this emerging research domain has developed over the past decade and distill four basic principles that characterize belief in conspiracy theories. Specifically, conspiracy theories are consequential as they have a real impact on people's health, relationships, and safety; they are universal in that belief in them is widespread across times, cultures, and social settings; they are emotional given that negative emotions and not rational deliberations cause conspiracy beliefs; and they are social as conspiracy beliefs are closely associated with psychological motivations underlying intergroup conflict. We then discuss future research and possible policy interventions in this growing area of enquiry.”

          I think, though unsure, EJSP is European Journal of Social Psychology
          https://www.easp.eu/publications/ejsp/

          1. Nathanville profile image93
            Nathanvilleposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Wow – your description in your 2nd paragraph on how read and digested my linked article is exactly (word for word) on how I read and digested the article – ‘great minds think alike’.

            Yep, your conclusions, thoughts and summary in your post, match with what I concluded.

            Yeah, I think that the idea that “considering analogously that a hypothesis in essence through scientific inquiry is a conspiracy theory seeking proof. In other words, it is something that counters conventional thought” is hogwash:  I see it as just a study and research.

            Yep, the ‘Men in Black’ films are great (I’ve seen all three films, and loved them); it’s a good question “How many minds were swayed that alien life forms exist today and we just don’t know about it?” – I don’t know the answer, but I suspect there are some people who actually believe these science fiction films have some basis in fact?

            Likewise “…. a lot of the time when an inquiry comes my way, “I simply, don’t know.””

            Thanks for the link, most enlightening read; using the same reading technique that you use.

            Yes, “EJSP is European Journal of Social Psychology”

       
      working

      This website uses cookies

      As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

      For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

      Show Details
      Necessary
      HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
      LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
      Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
      AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
      HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
      Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
      CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
      Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
      Features
      Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
      Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
      Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
      PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
      MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
      Marketing
      Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
      Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
      Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
      Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
      Statistics
      Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
      ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
      Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
      ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)