IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd March 2018, 04:20 PM   #1
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Weird conspiracy theory on Wikipedia

Since I was stoned and bored but my account here was suspended, I went and wandered around on Wikipedia a bit and somehow ended up on the article of the plane that never stops giving, the Su-25. On the talk page I noticed a recent discussion (start reading from about 1/3rd of the way through, starting with the 10 feb 2018 reply by user Santamoly and the resulting discussion) and the theory being peddled on it by the admins (Acroterion et al).

Santamoly asks why the flight ceiling has been lowered in the article from 10km to 7km when plenty of believable sources support the original figure. The admins then come up with bizarre theories about how the ceiling was actually "raised ex post facto" by the Russians after a July 2014 crash to "manipulate Wikipedia". Yep, you heard that right, apparently the Russians traveled back in time to raise the ceiling retroactively.

What happened next was pretty revealing, after Santamoly asked for some support for the theory of the ceiling being raised ex post facto, the admins started to threaten Santamoly with sanctions and blocks if he disputes or discusses their theory any further. The user was then indeed blocked for disputing it.[*] What's interesting is that the admins claimed to be doing all this on the authority of the Arbitration Committee, the highest level of Wikipedia. I then brought it up on the notice boards and was quickly blocked for disputing the theory there. Especially the combination of how bizarre the CT is (Russians traveling back in time to "raise the ceiling ex post facto") combined with ArbCom authorizing the blocking of anyone disputing the theory, either on the article's talk page or on the dispute resolution boards, makes for a really interesting situation. So I started digging, and it turns out that comments actually debunking the theory are simply removed from the talk page altogether and various other eyebrow-raising issues.

I've sent an email to the ArbCom mailing list informing them of the situation. My money is on that they'll stick to their "time traveling Russians did it" theory and the blocking and/or removing comments of anyone disputing, let alone debunking, it. I wonder why they're so quiet about it though, I'd have thought this would be a historic occasion: The first discovery of a Russian time agent.

The article has always had a flight ceiling of 7,000 meters and 23,000 feet, we have always been at war with Eurasia.

* ETA, as one of the admins supporting the block there said: "You only have to look at the entire history of the Su25 article, and then what happened after July 2014, to see exactly what the problem is." Remember kids, always call their bluff

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd March 2018 at 04:37 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 04:29 PM   #2
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Last time I really visited Wikipedia in that topic area was in 2015, and it seems some things have changed.

- The admins are much more candid and open as to why the lowered ceiling is in the article, in that discussion they constantly remind Santamoly that this figure is required for (presumably political) reasons relating to the MH-17 crash in July 2014.

- On the other hand, while the 'unspoken understanding' on the topic area (not just Su-25 but basically all articles on the larger topic area of Eastern Europe) at the time I left in 2015 was that the articles themselves must state the politically required information, and that this was non-negotiable, it was also the case that people could still go on the talk pages to get the real data. Apparently even that isn't true anymore, and discussion on the talk pages is also considered worthy of an indefinite block. Now one doesn't just have to go to the talk page, but check the history of the talk page for removed comments providing data. As I see it this makes wikipedia entirely useless on the topic.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 06:26 PM   #3
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Well, for one thing, 10,000 meters is not 22,000 feet, it's 32808 ft., which is why clarification was requested. Whover made the change to 10,000 never bothered to do a conversion, so it was revised back to 7,000 meters two revisions later...
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 06:29 PM   #4
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Well, for one thing, 10,000 meters is not 22,000 feet, it's 32808 ft., which is why clarification was requested. Whover made the change to 10,000 never bothered to do a conversion, so it was revised back to 7,000 meters two revisions later...
Congratulations on not even bothering to check the evidence linked to. Please let your next post be more productive.

ETA: and by "whoever made the change to 10,000" you mean the Russian time agent ArgentLA? Because that wasn't so much a change per se but rather the original insertion of the specs.

ETA2: one can see how easily you'd be taken in by this bluff, but I've highlighted the important bit for you now:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
ETA, as one of the admins supporting the block there said: "You only have to look at the entire history of the Su25 article, and then what happened after July 2014, to see exactly what the problem is." Remember kids, always call their bluff

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd March 2018 at 07:23 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:27 PM   #5
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Congratulations on not even bothering to check the evidence linked to. Please let your next post be more productive.

ETA: and by "whoever made the change to 10,000" you mean the Russian time agent ArgentLA? Because that wasn't so much a change per se but rather the original insertion of the specs.

ETA2: one can see how easily you'd be taken in by this bluff, but I've highlighted the important bit for you now:
Yay, combative and disdainful. In a way, even in 2007 it was 7,000 meters, because even then it said 22,200 ft, which was 6766.56 meters.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 23rd March 2018 at 08:32 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:29 PM   #6
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Yay, combative and disdainful. In a way, even in 2007 it was 7,000 meters, because even then it said 22,200 ft, which was 6766.56 meters.
Why was the 32,800 ft changed to 22,200 ft?
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:31 PM   #7
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Original: 10,000 m and 32,800 ft
First change: 10,000m and 22,200 ft
Next change: 7,000m and 23,000 ft

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd March 2018 at 08:34 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:34 PM   #8
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Original: 10,000 m and 32,800 ft
First change: 10,000m and 22,000 ft
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...did=467786990: 7,000m and 23,000 ft
When was the FIRST change of the metric value by itself, and for how long was it different from the feet, if they were different from the feet in 2007?

ETA: I see your links were added. 2006.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:39 PM   #9
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
ETA: I see your links were added. 2006.
Those links have been given in my OP and I've given them now three times already or something. Please let your next post actually be productive.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:43 PM   #10
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
A long-standing feud on Wikipedia erupted again and was stamped down before it could turn into a full conflagration? I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:46 PM   #11
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
A long-standing feud on Wikipedia erupted again and was stamped down before it could turn into a full conflagration? I am shocked. Shocked, I say.


Come on Loss Leader, don't spoil such historic occasions with your petty feuds, we've got ourselves here the first discovery of a Russian time agent, ArgentLA. Officially by Wikipedia's ArbCom policy, and literally indisputable, again by ArbCom policy of disputing it being a blockable offense.

Last edited by caveman1917; 23rd March 2018 at 08:53 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 01:32 AM   #12
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,352
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post


Come on Loss Leader, don't spoil such historic occasions with your petty feuds, we've got ourselves here the first discovery of a Russian time agent, ArgentLA. Officially by Wikipedia's ArbCom policy, and literally indisputable, again by ArbCom policy of disputing it being a blockable offense.

Jesus, man, it's Wikipedia, not the Warren Commission.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:10 AM   #13
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Original: 10,000 m and 32,800 ft
First change: 10,000m and 22,200 ft
Next change: 7,000m and 23,000 ft
What was the source of the original figures?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 08:00 AM   #14
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
What was the source of the original figures?
Don't know, don't care, it's irrelevant. The CT is that the "ceiling was raised ex post facto" by the Russians after July 2014.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 08:27 AM   #15
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Don't know, don't care, it's irrelevant. The CT is that the "ceiling was raised ex post facto" by the Russians after July 2014.
So it’s irrelevant to your theory to determine if the Russians did anything, or if there was a simple conversion error on the only site you source?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 08:41 AM   #16
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Jesus, man, it's Wikipedia, not the Warren Commission.
So what? Nobody is forcing you to post in this thread if you don't find it notable enough.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 08:57 AM   #17
StackOverflow
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Since I was stoned and bored but my account here was suspended
The whole purpose of this thread.
StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 09:02 AM   #18
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So it’s irrelevant to your theory to determine if the Russians did anything, or if there was a simple conversion error on the only site you source?
Look, we found a Russian time agent! Which will be my standard response to anyone trying to divert attention from the huge problem with Wikipedia's official CT (that the ceiling was raised ex post facto by a nefarious Russian conspiracy).

Unless you can explain how your arguments account for the original specs added in December 2004 to have been construed ex post facto after July 2014, don't even bother.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 09:04 AM   #19
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
The whole purpose of this thread.
Look, we found a Russian time agent!
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 09:51 AM   #20
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Look, we found a Russian time agent! Which will be my standard response to anyone trying to divert attention from the huge problem with Wikipedia's official CT (that the ceiling was raised ex post facto by a nefarious Russian conspiracy).

Unless you can explain how your arguments account for the original specs added in December 2004 to have been construed ex post facto after July 2014, don't even bother.
So you won’t offer any meaningful answer to to a simple question, to refute a plausible alternative to your argument, you offer nonsensical terms like “official CT”, accuse anybody who applies scrutiny to your idea of “diverting attention “ from your theory, and you tell people not to bother asking further questions.

How about this:
Given Wikipedia is edited by amateurs, and relies on unskilled editorial staff for fact checking, why don’t you show us WHY any changing of facts and figures is anything other than editors disagreeing on data, or conversion errors, and then posters here will have a reason not to assume you are a troll?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 10:51 AM   #21
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So you won’t offer any meaningful answer to to a simple question, to refute a plausible alternative to your argument, you offer nonsensical terms like “official CT”, accuse anybody who applies scrutiny to your idea of “diverting attention “ from your theory, and you tell people not to bother asking further questions.

How about this:
Given Wikipedia is edited by amateurs, and relies on unskilled editorial staff for fact checking, why don’t you show us WHY any changing of facts and figures is anything other than editors disagreeing on data, or conversion errors, and then posters here will have a reason not to assume you are a troll?
Yes, so unskilled that apparently even the highest level of arbitration (ArbCom) can not even be bothered to check the damn history of the article before making wacky CTs about it its official position. If that's the case, why even have an editorial staff for fact checking in the first place? You might as well just blindly put your stamp on whatever wacky CT comes your way.

Explain how Russia managed to change the ceiling in the original specs in December 2004 in response to a crash in July 2014, as asserted by Wikipedia's official CT. The CT can indeed be considered official (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), since it is asserted by admins on ArbCom's authority and disputing it on the talk page is disallowed on the same authority. Though maybe not "official", it's also notable[*] that comments on the talk page actually outright debunking it by linking to earlier versions of the article just get removed altogether.

Here's an idea to make this discussion more productive: Research it a little first, at least looking at the evidence presented. The links already given in my OP show the problem with that "conversion error" argument, links which I had to repeat several more times (the exact same links/information!) before this was even acknowledged. You know what this tells me? That you (plural) are only going as far through the data until you've found something you can interpret as confirming your previously held belief, and then stop looking further. Once your "plausible alternatives" stop including things contradicted by information already given in the OP then I'm sure this discussion will turn a lot more productive.

* ETA: and by "notable" I of course mean that it should set you off into analyzing the entire edit history of the talk page as well. So you want a productive discussion, well then be willing to dig, and you show me a reason not to assume you are a troll.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th March 2018 at 11:32 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 11:30 AM   #22
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
Assuming the OP's version of the dispute is somewhere close to accurate (A bit of a stretch to be sure), Russians changing the 2004 article wouldn't require time travel; it would simply require hacking whatever protections there are and altering the old version in the archive. Mind you, I would be sketpical of such a claim, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility. In any event, rightly or wrongly, it appears that the powers that be at Wikipedia have decided that 7,000 meters is the correct figure and don't want to argue about it any more.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 11:42 AM   #23
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Assuming the OP's version of the dispute is somewhere close to accurate (A bit of a stretch to be sure), Russians changing the 2004 article wouldn't require time travel; it would simply require hacking whatever protections there are and altering the old version in the archive. Mind you, I would be sketpical of such a claim, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
Yes, that would be a plausible alternative, but it would be problematic given that hard-copy reference works exist with the original 10km specs from before July 2014 as well. The theory doesn't explain how those were changed.

Quote:
In any event, rightly or wrongly, it appears that the powers that be at Wikipedia have decided that 7,000 meters is the correct figure and don't want to argue about it any more.
It's not just that, they've also decided that the 10km figure is a manipulation by the Russians ex post facto. That's a much stronger claim than just having a position on which figure is correct[*].

* the answer being: obviously 5km max height for attacking ground targets with main cannon, 7km max height of an old, degraded export variant (Su-25K) without a life support system, about 10km max height loaded, and about 14km max height unloaded. But that's not the issue under debate, the issue under debate is the CT that the 10km figure was manipulated by the Russians ex post facto. This is, after all, the CT subforum and not the Science (jet plane performance) subforum.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th March 2018 at 12:10 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:17 PM   #24
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yes, that would be a plausible alternative, but it would be problematic given that hard-copy reference works exist with the original 10km specs from before July 2014 as well. The theory doesn't explain how those were changed.
And this just boils back down to: Why should we assume some publications have been changed, when they could just be wrong?

Bad data can and has been repeated in the past, without time travel.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:24 PM   #25
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And this just boils back down to: Why should we assume some publications have been changed
Because that is the CT under consideration, that the "ceiling was raised ex post facto" (ie after July 2014).

Quote:
, when they could just be wrong?
Or could just be correct, as happens to be the case here.

Quote:
Bad data can and has been repeated in the past, without time travel.
So has good data. One thing that data/information, whether good or bad, has never done though, is being transmitted from 2014 to 2004.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:27 PM   #26
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
If anyone wants to discuss the flight characteristics of the Su-25 then feel free to start a thread in the Science subforum, I'll be happy to provide the information there. This thread, however, is about Wikipedia's official CT regarding the origin of flight ceiling figures above 7km (ie "time traveling Russians did it").
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:35 PM   #27
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Because that is the CT under consideration, that the "ceiling was raised ex post facto" (ie after July 2014).
And part of that consideration should be supply evidence to counter more mundane explanations. I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Or could just be correct, as happens to be the case here.
You seem to be saying something is correct and happens to be the case without evidence. Until you provide evidence, that supports your claim, to the exclusion of other more likely possibilities, I doubt you will convince anybody it is the case.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So has good data. One thing that data/information, whether good or bad, has never done though, is being transmitted from 2014 to 2004.
Data has never been transmitted from 2014 to 2004? Well, gee, that means there was probably just bad data in 2004 and you are mistaking it for evidence of a conspiracy theory.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:46 PM   #28
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Cui bono?

Who actually benefits from inaccuracy in the Wikipedia numbers for Su-25 performance?

Who benefits from misrepsenting those numbers?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:46 PM   #29
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And part of that consideration should be supply evidence to counter more mundane explanations. I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel.




You seem to be saying something is correct and happens to be the case without evidence. Until you provide evidence, that supports your claim, to the exclusion of other more likely possibilities, I doubt you will convince anybody it is the case.




Data has never been transmitted from 2014 to 2004? Well, gee, that means there was probably just bad data in 2004 and you are mistaking it for evidence of a conspiracy theory.
You see, this is the CT subforum where CTs get debunked. I presented a CT I found somewhere (that the Russians changed the figure upwards ex post facto) and presented the evidence debunking it.

If you think the CT is incorrect ("I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel") then feel free to argue about it with those promoting it (ie Wikipedia) rather than those debunking it, because I already think that Russians don't have time travel technology, and so you don't have to convince me of that.

And again, if you want to discuss the flight characteristics of the Su-25 then feel free to start a thread in the appropriate subforum.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:47 PM   #30
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,903
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And part of that consideration should be supply evidence to counter more mundane explanations. I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel.
No doubt Caveman thinks that too. His issue not that there was an error in the article or that it was edited on this or that date. His issue is that someone with some sort of administrative capacity (or something similar) at Wikipedia has declared that the edit in question was made by someone in Russia or with Russian sympathies in response to the 2014 Malaysians Airline crash in Ukraine.

However, the edit in question happened in 2004, ten years before the event it was supposedly edited in response to.

His comment about Russian time travel is clearly a fatuous remark about how the explanation given after some dispute about the article, could only make sense if the article was edited by someone time travelling back to 2004 in order to make edits to reflect something that happened in 2014.

I've no opinion on the article in question, but it annoys me to see people responding to a thread criticising it, with little or no understanding of the position they're responding to.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 01:40 PM   #31
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You see, this is the CT subforum where CTs get debunked. I presented a CT I found somewhere (that the Russians changed the figure upwards ex post facto) and presented the evidence debunking it.

If you think the CT is incorrect ("I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel") then feel free to argue about it with those promoting it (ie Wikipedia) rather than those debunking it, because I already think that Russians don't have time travel technology, and so you don't have to convince me of that.

And again, if you want to discuss the flight characteristics of the Su-25 then feel free to start a thread in the appropriate subforum.
If your aim is to see the conspiracy theory considered and debunked, then why make antagonistic posts about your standard response being a Russian Time Agent? Why get snarky with those who offer reasons the CT doesn’t stand?

It seems odd to be so opposed to those have different reasons for not accepting the CT, or who discuss rational explanations, while also claiming to be putting the CT under consideration.

Assuming you are not trolling, you might want to reconsider framing your discussion in a way that sounds less trollish.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 01:41 PM   #32
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Cui bono?

Who actually benefits from inaccuracy in the Wikipedia numbers for Su-25 performance?

Who benefits from misrepsenting those numbers?
I've asked myself the same question, and here are my observations so far resulting from analyzing the edit history of the article's talk page (since I found it really odd that comments debunking the CT by actually linking to earlier versions of the article are outright removed from the talk page). I'm not defending any theory about it (yet), just interesting preliminary observations so you don't have to do double work if you decide to go digging too:

- Talk page comments with certain other information also get removed, particularly statements by the Chief Designer of the Su-25.

- If we consider the accounts of users doing those removals, one springs out in particular, Volunteer Marek. Looking at the account doesn't give anything interesting in particular, but Wikipedia account names can be changed, and it used to be Radeksz.

- If we search by Radeksz instead then we do find more interesting things (especially the tactics described in this part are interesting). The account was involved in a secret group of editors with the goal of subverting Wikipedia's content dispute resolution processes to promote far-right[*] conspiracy theories.

* Remember that the Eastern European far-right has "Russians" as one of its main targets.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th March 2018 at 01:43 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 01:50 PM   #33
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
If your aim is to see the conspiracy theory considered and debunked
I'm already seeing it debunked, since that's what I did in the OP.

Quote:
, then why make antagonistic posts about your standard response being a Russian Time Agent? Why get snarky with those who offer reasons the CT doesn’t stand?
Russian Time Agents don't exist, what other reasons do you need for the CT not to stand?

Quote:
It seems odd to be so opposed to those have different reasons for not accepting the CT
Ok then, what is your different reason for not accepting the CT?

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th March 2018 at 01:53 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:05 PM   #34
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm already seeing it debunked, since that's what I did in the OP.



Russian Time Agents don't exist, what other reasons do you need for the CT not to stand?



Ok then, what is your different reason for not accepting the CT?

Erm... Okay, I'm out. I really don't get what you want from this discussion, and I don't get why you are being snarky to those who are trying to discuss it. Russian Time Agents not existing, is not a reason to get snarky at those trying to discuss how and why some people might fool themselves into believing the CT, or the errors of judgement that lead to the CT, or... well... apparently any aspect of the CT you posted an OP about.

If I wasted yours, or anybody else's time, I'm sorry, but I don't get what you want to discuss here, from the responses you make. I'll assume that is down to my reading of your tone more than anything else.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:25 PM   #35
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Erm... Okay, I'm out. I really don't get what you want from this discussion, and I don't get why you are being snarky to those who are trying to discuss it. Russian Time Agents not existing, is not a reason to get snarky at those trying to discuss how and why some people might fool themselves into believing the CT, or the errors of judgement that lead to the CT, or... well... apparently any aspect of the CT you posted an OP about.

If I wasted yours, or anybody else's time, I'm sorry, but I don't get what you want to discuss here, from the responses you make. I'll assume that is down to my reading of your tone more than anything else.
If you want to discuss how and why some people might fool themselves into believing the CT or the errors in judgement that lead up to it, then sure, do so. I don't see how it's going to be anything other than the usual though.

Maybe the question would be more interesting if it was slightly more specific: How and why might the highest level of arbitration on a major information provider fool itself into believing the CT? And how and why would it consider mere disputation or even just failure to accept it on the article's talk page as a sanctionable offense?
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:33 PM   #36
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
No doubt Caveman thinks that too. His issue not that there was an error in the article or that it was edited on this or that date. His issue is that someone with some sort of administrative capacity (or something similar) at Wikipedia has declared that the edit in question was made by someone in Russia or with Russian sympathies in response to the 2014 Malaysians Airline crash in Ukraine.

However, the edit in question happened in 2004, ten years before the event it was supposedly edited in response to.

His comment about Russian time travel is clearly a fatuous remark about how the explanation given after some dispute about the article, could only make sense if the article was edited by someone time travelling back to 2004 in order to make edits to reflect something that happened in 2014.

I've no opinion on the article in question, but it annoys me to see people responding to a thread criticising it, with little or no understanding of the position they're responding to.
It seems to me possible that the original data was in error, and later corrected, and that also the story about the performance of the plane being exaggerated in order to support the assertion that a plane was able to shoot down the airliner was true. If so, then, yes, the Wikipedia admins are either not looking at the evidence correctly, or are just fed up with explaining the latter story.

(It looks to me as though the original figures may have come from the same source as for this, which quotes International Directory of Military Aircraft, 1998-1999 as the source for a service ceiling of g 32,800ft. for the Su25TM. Were those figures based on real data? When did the Su25TM enter service?)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:41 PM   #37
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you think the CT is incorrect ("I consider human error to be more likely than Russian time travel") then feel free to argue about it with those promoting it (ie Wikipedia) rather than those debunking it, because I already think that Russians don't have time travel technology, and so you don't have to convince me of that.

Why don’t you argue with those promoting it on Wikipedia?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:43 PM   #38
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
It seems to me possible that the original data was in error, and later corrected
Got any evidence for that theory?

Would you like to see an Su-25 fly loaded at 8.7km in the Chechen War in 1995 (long before the July 2014 crash)? Here you go. Also, note how the notice "from older Su-25K data" was removed with the same edit that lowered the ceiling from 10km to 7km. In particularly note that all of this was already in the links in the OP.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th March 2018 at 02:46 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:44 PM   #39
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Why don’t you argue with those promoting it on Wikipedia?
Because it is a blockable offense to do so, hence why I sent an email to ArbCom informing them of the situation. I have yet to receive a response.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 02:49 PM   #40
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,667
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Got any evidence for that theory?
No, it was speculation.

Quote:

Would you like to see an Su-25 fly loaded at 8.7km in the Chechen War in 1995 (long before the July 2014 crash)? Here you go. Also, note how the notice "from older Su-25K data" was removed with the same edit that lowered the ceiling from 10km to 7km. In particularly note that all of this was already in the links in the OP.
What was the model that was proposed to have shot down the airliner?



Interestingly, this page has data for the Su-25 and Su-39 (aka Su-25TM), which shows a ceiling of 7000m for Su-25 and 10,000m for Su-39.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.