This is a fantastic use of a lot of conspiracy tropes.
First there is the meaningless definition of connections
"Connected to" aka not connected to in any way, but in the area. Wow. Given these rules I am connected to this
Secondly, the fudging of facts to skew the probability.
exact same sparsely-populated region in the middle of nowhere
AKA a world famous tourist spot that gets 400,000 visitors a year, is on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list, and a place where the near bye resort will be happy to set you up to tour the area on one of these
Two problems with this evidence you're giving, KofH. First, the exhibition you cite was in 2013, not 1980. Secondly, if the performance was done on video, it doesn't really prove she was in Ireland not in Australia.
The 2013 exhibition is for the Art Gallery of Ontario not Dublin and what they are exhibiting is the video of a performance that was recorded in Dublin in 1980. Read the part I quoted from the 2013 show.
Performance for Video August 1980, ROSC’80 Dublin
If you read the rest of catalogue it says this explicitly mentions the performance took place in Dublin 1980. She was in Dublin at sometime in August 1980 and she made this video then.
EXHIBITION OVERVIEW
......AGO visitors will also have an opportunity to experience, or discover for the first time, the power of her art — in a remastered video of the performance piece Rest Energy by Abramovic and then-partner Ulay, on view in the Marvin Gelber Gallery starting June 8. The performance, which took place in Dublin in 1980, is an enactment of the extreme levels of trust and vulnerability inherent in any deep relationship.
Okay...I see what you are saying. It's in the caption. Thanks for linking to the ROSC 1980 details. :-)
So the Wikipedia article is wrong:
Rest Energy is a 1980 performance art piece created and performed by then-performance artist duo Marina Abramović and Ulay and recorded in Amsterdam.[1][2][3]
Thanks for digging that up. My previous comment was in error -- I corrected it. Read the links, mixed up the articles with a different post. It sometimes happens when reading every link on every post day in and day out. They blur together.
Any thoughts on the YouTube channel pushing this? Is this sloppiness, wishful thinking, or deliberate disinfo?
Any thoughts on the YouTube channel pushing this? Is this sloppiness, wishful thinking, or deliberate disinfo?
In the end does it matter?
That's one thing I've learned by being on these boards. It doesn't really matter why someone is pushing falsehoods, we are still being lied to. Notice that the Commandment doesn't go into you motivation for bearing false witness, it just prohibits it. It doesn't matter if someone is being deliberate about it or it's someone believing it despite the facts or they have mental issues that make coincidences seem like smoking guns or they are they don't actually examine all the evidence, they are all lying to you in a way and they are not trustworthy. You can make exceptions if they are generally trustworthy but sincerely have their facts wrong or if folks are upfront about their motivations and what they know and don't know or if they hedge their claims or make caveats. Those people can be intellectually honest, if they own up to their mistakes. This video is just batshit and I don't care if this guy is being deliberately dishonest or intellectually dishonest what is pushing is shite.
The truth is this woman didn't kill her baby and she wasn't a "breeder." And Mariana Abramovic had nothing whatsoever to do with this woman. And Marina Abramovich is not a witch or Satanist. Her practices are much more in line with Tibetan Buddhism. You already have believe several deeply dishonest things to even entertain this guy's theory...but anyway.
The truth is it was actually a dingo attack. One of the issues with this case was people at the time didn't believe dingos would attack humans, but since then, it's happened over and over and over again.
I have a family member who is prone to panic attacks. Once she saw me checking my pockets and thought I lost my wallet and I showed her I had my wallet and every thing was fine, I was looking for a pen. Over the next few minutes I could see waves of fear wash over her and get big enough that she almost had a full blown panic attack. Over nothing. Over a problem that didn't exist, the wallet wasn't lost. But the cycle had started, she started with a fear that was big enough to overwhelm her circuitry. The chemicals in her brain starting coming and because she was prone to this, the "gates" that hold back those fears couldn't stop it, she was overwhelmed. She has a cognitive glitch. My sincere belief is that folks who believe in vast, global conspiracies have some of these glitches (we all have them at some level, which is why we are not completely logical beings and common logical fallacies are so convincing unless you really stop to examine them. This is why I call them out so often, if you have the language to name them, it becomes a lot easier to spot them. Connecting random dots and making up stories about the connections between those dots is human nature to such a point we don't even realize we are doing it. Our brains are wired for both pattern recognition and storytelling, both have important evolutionary reasons for being.)
I think folks prone to conspiracy often get a bigger "hit" of chemicals in their brain when a pattern is found. Most folks would hear, "Did you know that Marina Abramovic was travelling in the Australian outback during the summer when the dingo ate my baby case happened" and say, Really? Weird. And then they would move on with their day. Others would see this completely random event (And it is completely random) as some significant truth. (big hit of happy brain chemicals) and look for more connections (more happy brain chemicals.) and even weave them into a story. I didn't even look at the video before this comment because I knew it was bullshit. The leap from Marina Abramovic was in the area to Marina Abramovic was involved is just massive. It's like saying if I walk five steps my sixth step will be on Pluto. This is why I commented on the "tropes" or techniques of conspiracy building. And I as watch the video I can see him using these tropes and being at the very least intellectually dishonest.
What this intellectually dishonest video is doing is arguing by closing off other possibilities so that you get this new information shoved into a very narrow framework.
Dishonestly setting the scene.
He starts by claiming this happened in the middle of nowhere, with no other people around, and he does this by showing a photo (one single instant of time) with no one in the background. (He doesn't seem to realize this actually argues against some European artist meeting up with them.) The facts are five other families were also in this camp. But why would he look up the facts when the would most likely ruin his conspiracy video.
He also lies about what they recovered, claiming that they recovered nothing. The very wikipedia page he has up in his video talks about how much the child's clothing was discussed at trial and how the eyewitness believed Chamberlain was telling the truth?
Wait, how could their be eyewitness? He just told us no one was around. I think this indicates active dishonest.
Falsely claiming something is impossible.
1:40 He claims, it's impossible for a human baby to be eaten by dingos and not leave any bones. This is exactly what I mean when I claim he is narrowing the options, slanting how he presents the evidence. For one thing, he knows nothing about dingos. For two, what if they just couldn't find what was left over? He doesn't seem to even consider this. What if the dingos took the baby to some hidden place and ate the baby there.
Since the wikipedia article mentions her clothing was found year's later near a dingo's lair, I took two minutes to see what they might look like. Well they can live in caves like this one. A body being taking to a cave could easily explain why you don't find the body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIgP3be5Ew
This false claim that something is impossible is a fallacy known as argument from incredulity or argument from lack of imagination. It's a type of argument from ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
False Claim "They were there" and Bad probability.
At 2 minutes he starts on Abarmovic and claiming they were there. I don't know if there's a name for this, but I think of this of fooling yourself by looking at a map.
He equates. "They were in the Australian Outback" with "They were there." I'm sure our Australian friends find this his most ridiculous claim. For others
The Outback covers most of Australia. It neither has a specific size, nor a specific location. Outback is a term that is used for any sparsely populated regions of Australia.
Australia's population is very much concentrated in and around a few cities on the eastern, southern and south-western coast. All of inland Australia and most of north and north-west Australia is generally known as Outback Australia. The Northern Territory, where Ayer's Rock is 548,640 square miles by itself.
He cites a New York Times piece that says they took a year long trip in the outback and they camped near Ayer's rock.......can we see through his claims now?..... He jumps from this to equal. They spent the entire year near Ayer's Rock. Which they didn't and remember, there were eyewitnesses, you don't think funny accented artists wouldn't have been remembered?
He then asks "What are the odds?, not knowing what is exactly what is asking what are the odds about? If you ask me what are the odds of a specific person, Marina Abramovic, being at or near a specific crime in another country, the odds would be astronomical. But that is not the real question. The real question is of all the world events that happened on that day, what are the odds a famous crime would happen and a person nearby went on the become famous.....or even what are odds two events that happened that day might seem significant 30 year later because someone nearby became famous? This are vastly lower probabilities. This is more like What are the odds I may take in step in New Hampshire one day, not what are the odds I may take a step on Pluto.
When you start asking the question correctly, you start getting closer to actually understanding the real probability. We humans are really terrible at probability. There's probably like a trillion human events every single hour on this planet, surely ever day. The idea that two of them match up in a way that makes us say Huh, Weird should not be unexpected.
OMG. He then claims the art piece is about them killing the baby? @Vindicator did you see this part? Of course this guy is lying. Not even a question.
Listen this part. Y'all should be able to detect how he is manipulating the facts on the argument by now.
view the rest of the comments →
KnightsofHubris ago
This is a fantastic use of a lot of conspiracy tropes.
First there is the meaningless definition of connections "Connected to" aka not connected to in any way, but in the area. Wow. Given these rules I am connected to this
http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/petit.jpg
and to this
https://joewilcox.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lennon-dead.png
Secondly, the fudging of facts to skew the probability.
AKA a world famous tourist spot that gets 400,000 visitors a year, is on the UNESCO World Heritage Site list, and a place where the near bye resort will be happy to set you up to tour the area on one of these
https://adventuresallaround.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/IMG_9806.jpg
or this
https://www.everythingaustralia.com/resources/cache/958x478/1/items~large/uluru_camels_1.jpg
or this
https://www.ayersrockresort.com.au/-/media/Images/Experiences/Uluru-Segway-Tours/Uluru-Segway-18-Tours-480x480.jpg
Wait! You say the ground is too mundane for you? How about this?
http://www.amazingvacations.in/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/109701aa95544832d45f1b5b1f84331b-balloon-flights-national-parks-blogfeasture.jpg
or maybe one of these?
https://www.ayersrockresort.com.au/-/media/Images/Experiences/PHS/experiences-phs-uluru-480x480.jpg
and the kicker of course is this false claim
Nope. Provably False. Not the same Time.
The trip that inspired the performance written about in the times began months after the death of Azaria Chamberlain.
In August of 1980 Ambramovic was performing these pieces in Europe, Dublin I believe
https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/marina-abramovic-et-ulay-web.jpg http://media.li-ma.nl/view/121062.jpg
Vindicator ago
In August of 1980 Ambramovic was performing these pieces in Dublin
https://artblart.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/marina-abramovic-et-ulay-web.jpg
Two problems with this evidence you're giving, KofH. First, the exhibition you cite was in 2013, not 1980. Secondly, if the performance was done on video, it doesn't really prove she was in Ireland not in Australia.
@think- @ben_matlock
KnightsofHubris ago
No. You need to read that again.
The 2013 exhibition is for the Art Gallery of Ontario not Dublin and what they are exhibiting is the video of a performance that was recorded in Dublin in 1980. Read the part I quoted from the 2013 show.
Performance for Video August 1980, ROSC’80 Dublin
If you read the rest of catalogue it says this explicitly mentions the performance took place in Dublin 1980. She was in Dublin at sometime in August 1980 and she made this video then.
Vindicator ago
Okay...I see what you are saying. It's in the caption. Thanks for linking to the ROSC 1980 details. :-)
So the Wikipedia article is wrong:
Are_we_sure ago
Where does it say that? I'm not seeing that.
I think I found out what is going on.
These are both individual works and part of a larger suite of pieces called That Self.
That Self was shown as a film in Amsterdam, also in August 1980 and it included short videos of larger performances.
The four pieces are Point of Contact (1980), Rest Energy (1980), Nature of Mind (1980) and Timeless Point of View (1980)
Here's how the catalog of her Career Retrospective at MOMA describes them. I would consider this researched and definitive.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nhm2Gyak3-YC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130#v=onepage&q=rosc&f=false
Point of Contact
Performed twice in January/August 1980
A one hour performance and a 6 minute performance for video.
Both in Amsterdam it seems.
Rest Energy
August 1980 Performance, 4 min ROSC '80 Dublin
Nature of Mind
Performed for film, 9 minutes 1980 Marken, Netherlands
Timeless Point of View
performed for film 10 minutes Ijsselmeer, Netherlands
Vindicator ago
Thanks for digging that up. My previous comment was in error -- I corrected it. Read the links, mixed up the articles with a different post. It sometimes happens when reading every link on every post day in and day out. They blur together.
Any thoughts on the YouTube channel pushing this? Is this sloppiness, wishful thinking, or deliberate disinfo?
KnightsofHubris ago
In the end does it matter?
That's one thing I've learned by being on these boards. It doesn't really matter why someone is pushing falsehoods, we are still being lied to. Notice that the Commandment doesn't go into you motivation for bearing false witness, it just prohibits it. It doesn't matter if someone is being deliberate about it or it's someone believing it despite the facts or they have mental issues that make coincidences seem like smoking guns or they are they don't actually examine all the evidence, they are all lying to you in a way and they are not trustworthy. You can make exceptions if they are generally trustworthy but sincerely have their facts wrong or if folks are upfront about their motivations and what they know and don't know or if they hedge their claims or make caveats. Those people can be intellectually honest, if they own up to their mistakes. This video is just batshit and I don't care if this guy is being deliberately dishonest or intellectually dishonest what is pushing is shite.
The truth is this woman didn't kill her baby and she wasn't a "breeder." And Mariana Abramovic had nothing whatsoever to do with this woman. And Marina Abramovich is not a witch or Satanist. Her practices are much more in line with Tibetan Buddhism. You already have believe several deeply dishonest things to even entertain this guy's theory...but anyway.
The truth is it was actually a dingo attack. One of the issues with this case was people at the time didn't believe dingos would attack humans, but since then, it's happened over and over and over again.
I have a family member who is prone to panic attacks. Once she saw me checking my pockets and thought I lost my wallet and I showed her I had my wallet and every thing was fine, I was looking for a pen. Over the next few minutes I could see waves of fear wash over her and get big enough that she almost had a full blown panic attack. Over nothing. Over a problem that didn't exist, the wallet wasn't lost. But the cycle had started, she started with a fear that was big enough to overwhelm her circuitry. The chemicals in her brain starting coming and because she was prone to this, the "gates" that hold back those fears couldn't stop it, she was overwhelmed. She has a cognitive glitch. My sincere belief is that folks who believe in vast, global conspiracies have some of these glitches (we all have them at some level, which is why we are not completely logical beings and common logical fallacies are so convincing unless you really stop to examine them. This is why I call them out so often, if you have the language to name them, it becomes a lot easier to spot them. Connecting random dots and making up stories about the connections between those dots is human nature to such a point we don't even realize we are doing it. Our brains are wired for both pattern recognition and storytelling, both have important evolutionary reasons for being.)
I think folks prone to conspiracy often get a bigger "hit" of chemicals in their brain when a pattern is found. Most folks would hear, "Did you know that Marina Abramovic was travelling in the Australian outback during the summer when the dingo ate my baby case happened" and say, Really? Weird. And then they would move on with their day. Others would see this completely random event (And it is completely random) as some significant truth. (big hit of happy brain chemicals) and look for more connections (more happy brain chemicals.) and even weave them into a story. I didn't even look at the video before this comment because I knew it was bullshit. The leap from Marina Abramovic was in the area to Marina Abramovic was involved is just massive. It's like saying if I walk five steps my sixth step will be on Pluto. This is why I commented on the "tropes" or techniques of conspiracy building. And I as watch the video I can see him using these tropes and being at the very least intellectually dishonest.
What this intellectually dishonest video is doing is arguing by closing off other possibilities so that you get this new information shoved into a very narrow framework.
Dishonestly setting the scene.
He starts by claiming this happened in the middle of nowhere, with no other people around, and he does this by showing a photo (one single instant of time) with no one in the background. (He doesn't seem to realize this actually argues against some European artist meeting up with them.) The facts are five other families were also in this camp. But why would he look up the facts when the would most likely ruin his conspiracy video.
https://justice.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/205377/azaria-chantel-chamberlain.pdf
Lying about the evidence.
He also lies about what they recovered, claiming that they recovered nothing. The very wikipedia page he has up in his video talks about how much the child's clothing was discussed at trial and how the eyewitness believed Chamberlain was telling the truth? Wait, how could their be eyewitness? He just told us no one was around. I think this indicates active dishonest.
Falsely claiming something is impossible.
1:40 He claims, it's impossible for a human baby to be eaten by dingos and not leave any bones. This is exactly what I mean when I claim he is narrowing the options, slanting how he presents the evidence. For one thing, he knows nothing about dingos. For two, what if they just couldn't find what was left over? He doesn't seem to even consider this. What if the dingos took the baby to some hidden place and ate the baby there.
Since the wikipedia article mentions her clothing was found year's later near a dingo's lair, I took two minutes to see what they might look like. Well they can live in caves like this one. A body being taking to a cave could easily explain why you don't find the body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysIgP3be5Ew
This false claim that something is impossible is a fallacy known as argument from incredulity or argument from lack of imagination. It's a type of argument from ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
False Claim "They were there" and Bad probability.
At 2 minutes he starts on Abarmovic and claiming they were there. I don't know if there's a name for this, but I think of this of fooling yourself by looking at a map.
He equates. "They were in the Australian Outback" with "They were there." I'm sure our Australian friends find this his most ridiculous claim. For others
He cites a New York Times piece that says they took a year long trip in the outback and they camped near Ayer's rock.......can we see through his claims now?..... He jumps from this to equal. They spent the entire year near Ayer's Rock. Which they didn't and remember, there were eyewitnesses, you don't think funny accented artists wouldn't have been remembered?
He then asks "What are the odds?, not knowing what is exactly what is asking what are the odds about? If you ask me what are the odds of a specific person, Marina Abramovic, being at or near a specific crime in another country, the odds would be astronomical. But that is not the real question. The real question is of all the world events that happened on that day, what are the odds a famous crime would happen and a person nearby went on the become famous.....or even what are odds two events that happened that day might seem significant 30 year later because someone nearby became famous? This are vastly lower probabilities. This is more like What are the odds I may take in step in New Hampshire one day, not what are the odds I may take a step on Pluto.
When you start asking the question correctly, you start getting closer to actually understanding the real probability. We humans are really terrible at probability. There's probably like a trillion human events every single hour on this planet, surely ever day. The idea that two of them match up in a way that makes us say Huh, Weird should not be unexpected.
OMG. He then claims the art piece is about them killing the baby? @Vindicator did you see this part? Of course this guy is lying. Not even a question.
Listen this part. Y'all should be able to detect how he is manipulating the facts on the argument by now.