that's nice dear
You actually wouldn't need to have any of the movie crew in on the conspiracy to do it. For example, the conspirators could be in position to hand them a long list of props only some of which contain the hints. Everybody would be oblivious. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Even though that would risk the prop not being used correctly/at all by the director; or become a deleted scene? Scherben (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- sure it would risk that, but then you try again. Anyway the idea that everbody involved would be "in" on it is wrong. Just watch a making of of a movie. There is many scenes they have to take several times because of small details the director doesnt like, if he wants that prop to say "sandy hook" then "sandy hook" it is, why would the guy making the prop have to know why it says "sandy hook"? ´The "too many people involved" argument is in general used very selectively. Example 911: "al kaida" a whole organisation did it. Except, no, because too many people would have been involved. Holocaust: not plausible, because too many people involved. Ever heard these ones? No, you only hear that argument when it comes to "conspiracy theories".— Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
- the sandy hook one would not require a mass of people to get one shot of a map with a place name sandy hook on it. that's not what makes it implausible. what makes it implausible is because if by some outlandish turn of events it as put in as predictive program it would have achieved absolutely nothing. what is it meant have to produced? if it were not there would not there would we have all thought sandy was a false flag? no we would not. its idiotic. that it is there means nothing - there dozens of places called sandy hook, afik its not that sandy hook in the map.
- also that we are 'selective' with 'too many people involved' is because its not applicable to every situation. the holocaust - there loads of people involved. and we know who they are. we knew a whole lot about it at the time. its probably easier to keep things secret in wartime before internet, but the holocaust was not a kept secret. 9/11 lots of people involved and know many of them, and intelligence failures missed the abundant warnings before hand. sandy hook? we only know the shooter. any far reaching conspiracy requiring dozens of people in shadowy organisations - nothing but base speculation and obvious lies, not one leak of anything from anywhere or anyone to make this remotely plausible and adding a pointless clip in a movie achieving nothing but potentially leaving (tenuous) evidence out in the open and giving more people information making leaks even more likely. but nothing. and unlike the other too examples, its dependant on secrets being kept. such a shadowy organisation is the only one in the history of mankind that doesn't make any fuck ups it seems. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia article for the chop
The Wikipedia article is up for deletion, 'cos it has literally no non-crank sources. But as documentation of crankery it's excellent, and we should nick the text and references for here - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Types of predictive programming
There will be some predictive programming that is based on actual research and extrapolation and logical consequences therefrom - and some will so develop (or not develop - as 'the situation is undesirable'): Arthur C Clarke's description of communications satellites. (And in a few cases someone encounters something in SF and decides 'I want one of those and can make it.')
Then there are examples of pure chance - 'The Wreck of the Titan' (a coincidence of names - and sooner or later a large ship would strike a very large iceberg).
the false dilemma of "predictive programing" vs. pareidolia
like most sceptics, I think the idea that governments or secret societies have the ability or inclination to predictively program is ridiculous but that does not necessarily mean that synchronistic or apparent allusive events are just the product of random chance filtered through pareidolia. to be is to be perceived. from quantum mechanics we know at the small scale observation causes wave function collapse. it is possible that a similar effect works in the aggregate. we don't really know how time works. we don't know if events are predetermined, co-determined or just the product of random chance. true random chance appears to arise from microscopic quantum events which in turn condense out of an ensemble of possibilities when observed. so what would be most interesting to genuinely curious people like me would be rigorous statistical testing the apparent correlation of events across time. can the effect be wholey explained by randomn chance or is there an unexplained degree of correlation suggesting anotger hypothesis like reality is created by the aggregate of conscious observations or reality is fractal like and exhibits self similarity preferentially to raw randomness across time. just hand waving and saying it is all pareidolia is untenable if an unexplained effect remains after statistical analysis. this is how other natural phenomenon like the photoelectric effect were discovered. it is possible if not likely that history is naturally fractal like at all levels. — Unsigned, by: 2600:1000:b150:d280:e588:837:7270:f837 / talk / contribs
why is jill stein linked in this article as a "sheeple waker", i dont care much for jill stein but i clicked on the linked article about her and it looks rather like a crusade/pov-pushing kind of thing instead of a pressing example of a "sheeple waker"
There was a time when scientists would commonly publish their discoveries in anagrams, so that if the claim was confirmed they could say "see, I said so," without risking ridicule before then. I'm a bit surprised not to see a suggestion that media predictions are in the same vein. —Anton Sherwood (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)