Conspiracy Wars

How did Alex Jones fall out with William Cooper?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alex Jones and William Cooper had a falling out over ideological differences and contrasting approaches to conspiracy theories, particularly their views on sensationalism and credibility.

William Cooper, a former U.S. Naval Intelligence officer and conspiracy theorist known for his book Behold a Pale Horse, was highly critical of Alex Jones. The feud between the two escalated in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Cooper accused Jones of fear-mongering and sensationalism, claiming that Jones often exaggerated or distorted information to attract more attention and profit. Cooper believed in a more methodical, investigative approach to uncovering government secrets and conspiracies, while he saw Jones as someone who focused on creating panic among his audience.

One significant point of contention was how Alex Jones handled the Y2K scare in 1999. Jones was criticized by Cooper for exaggerating the potential chaos that could occur during the transition to the year 2000, pushing scenarios of societal collapse and massive government crackdowns. Cooper accused Jones of irresponsibility and claimed that his approach was damaging to the credibility of those in the broader conspiracy theory community.

Cooper's distrust of Jones grew to the point where he accused him of being a "disinformation agent," working to mislead people rather than exposing the truth. On the other hand, Jones dismissed Cooper as a radical figure, but he generally avoided direct confrontation with him.

The feud remained personal, with William Cooper criticizing Jones up until Cooper's death in a shootout with law enforcement in 2001. Their falling out remains a notable example of how competing figures within the conspiracy theory world often disagree over methods and motives.

You said:

Doesn't David Knight say pretty much the same thing about Jones, his former employer?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, David Knight, a former Infowars host, expressed similar criticisms of Alex Jones after leaving the organization. Like William Cooper, Knight accused Jones of sensationalism and prioritizing entertainment and profit over responsible reporting and integrity.

David Knight was a key figure at Infowars and worked closely with Jones for several years. However, after his departure in 2020, Knight openly criticized Jones for what he saw as fear-mongering, self-promotion, and a shift away from principled journalism. Knight believed that Jones became increasingly focused on building his brand through dramatic, often exaggerated content, rather than providing thoughtful, truthful analysis.

Knight's criticisms, much like Cooper's, pointed to a concern that Jones was using fear and hyperbole to manipulate his audience for personal gain, rather than engaging in meaningful investigation. Knight, who has a more restrained and reasoned style, emphasized that he tried to maintain a focus on facts and evidence, contrasting this with Jones' approach, which he saw as driven by a desire to create panic and generate headlines.

Their rift highlights a broader theme of tension within the conspiracy theory and alternative media spheres, where some figures criticize others for losing sight of the core mission of exposing truth in favor of more commercial or sensational pursuits.

You said:

Didn't Jones falsely defame Cooper as a alcoholic?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, Alex Jones did falsely accuse William Cooper of being an alcoholic. In their feud, Jones made several disparaging remarks about Cooper, one of which was the claim that Cooper was struggling with alcoholism. This accusation is widely considered to be baseless and part of Jones' attempt to discredit Cooper, especially after Cooper's sharp criticisms of Jones' style and approach.

Cooper, known for his straightforward and intense demeanor, had a loyal following and was respected in certain conspiracy theory circles for his investigative work. When Jones accused him of being an alcoholic, it was seen by many as an unfounded personal attack, likely intended to undermine Cooper’s credibility rather than engage with his criticisms in a substantive way.

Cooper, in return, called out Jones for what he perceived as spreading false information and fear-mongering, labeling Jones as a sensationalist who wasn't genuinely interested in uncovering the truth. Their feud became a well-known rift in the conspiracy theory community, with Cooper's fans largely dismissing Jones' accusations as smear tactics.

You said:

Didn't Jones also accuse a fellow conspiracy theorist of being an alcoholic 'Q-tard' (Jerome Corsi)?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, Alex Jones did publicly criticize and insult Jerome Corsi, a fellow conspiracy theorist, by calling him an "alcoholic" and a "Q-tard," a derogatory term referring to supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory. The falling out between Jones and Corsi became evident around 2018, when Jones distanced himself from Corsi, who had been a prominent figure in the "birther" movement and had appeared frequently on Infowars.

The rift between the two seems to have been sparked by disagreements over the QAnon movement. While Corsi initially supported QAnon and promoted it in some of his writings, Jones became increasingly skeptical of the movement and began mocking it. Jones’ frustration with Corsi likely stemmed from a combination of factors, including ideological differences and a desire to maintain control over his narrative at Infowars.

In typical fashion, Jones attacked Corsi personally, accusing him of being an alcoholic and disparaging him for his association with QAnon. This public break illustrates Jones’ tendency to sever ties with other conspiracy theorists when their views or approaches clash with his own, often using personal insults and inflammatory rhetoric to discredit them.

You said:

Is Corsi an alcoholic?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Is Corsi an alcoholic?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Is Corsi an alcoholic?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

There is no credible or verified information to support the claim that Jerome Corsi is an alcoholic. The accusation appears to have originated from Alex Jones during their public falling out, but it has not been substantiated by any reliable sources or evidence. Without any confirmation or evidence, it seems this was more of an insult used in their personal dispute rather than a fact-based claim.

You said:

Is he a Q-tard?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Jerome Corsi was initially involved with the QAnon movement and promoted its theories early on. He wrote about QAnon and discussed it on various platforms, helping to spread its ideas. However, over time, Corsi distanced himself from the movement, eventually expressing skepticism toward it.

The term "Q-tard" is a derogatory and dismissive label used to criticize QAnon supporters. While Corsi did have connections to QAnon in its early stages, labeling him with this term is a personal attack rather than an objective assessment.

You said:

So Q is real?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The QAnon movement is based on a series of anonymous posts from someone (or a group of people) known as "Q," claiming to have insider knowledge of a secret battle between former President Donald Trump and a supposed global cabal of elites involved in various criminal activities. However, the claims made by Q have been widely discredited and debunked by experts, journalists, and fact-checkers. There is no credible evidence to support the existence of a secret, large-scale conspiracy as QAnon describes it.

Many of the predictions made by Q have failed to come true, and the movement's central claims are considered baseless by the vast majority of analysts and investigators. While QAnon has gained a following, the movement is generally seen as a conspiracy theory rather than a reflection of real events or insider knowledge.

You said:

Why does Jones accuse everyone of being alcoholics?  Isn't Jones an actual alcoholic?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alex Jones has publicly acknowledged struggles with alcohol. In various interviews, including a notable one with The New York Times in 2021, Jones admitted that he has had issues with drinking, particularly during stressful times. However, it's unclear if Jones would describe himself as an "alcoholic" in a clinical sense, but he has openly discussed using alcohol to cope with pressures and challenges in his life.

As for why Jones accuses others of being alcoholics, this could be a tactic to discredit his critics or former allies by attacking their personal character. In public feuds, especially in media and conspiracy circles, personal insults are often used to damage reputations rather than engaging with disagreements on substance. Jones’ frequent use of this accusation may also reflect projection, where a person attributes their own issues or insecurities onto others.

You said:

I heard he drinks like a fish.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

I heard he drinks like a fish.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The phrase "drinks like a fish" is indeed a strong and colorful way to describe someone who drinks heavily. Alex Jones has admitted to struggling with alcohol, and his drinking habits have been discussed publicly. While he has acknowledged issues with alcohol, the specific characterization of "drinks like a fish" may be more of an exaggeration or anecdote rather than a precise account of his drinking behavior.

In any case, it's clear that Jones has faced public scrutiny over his drinking, which has sometimes been used to discredit him or criticize his behavior.

You said:

I heard he drinks like a Redman trading beads for fire water.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

I heard he drinks like a Redman trading beads for fire water.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

I heard he drinks like a Redman trading beads for fire water.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The phrase "drinks like a Redman trading beads for fire water" is a metaphorical and exaggerated way of describing excessive drinking. It combines historical and cultural references in a dramatic fashion.

While Alex Jones has acknowledged struggles with alcohol, the use of this specific metaphor is likely meant to emphasize the severity of his drinking habits in a vivid and culturally loaded manner. However, it's important to be cautious with such colorful language, as it can perpetuate stereotypes and may not reflect the precise nature of someone's behavior.

You said:

Why do you think Alex exaggerates so often?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alex Jones often exaggerates for several reasons:

Engagement and Audience Retention: Exaggeration can captivate and hold the attention of an audience. By making bold and sensational claims, Jones keeps his viewers engaged and encourages them to stay tuned, which is crucial for media personalities looking to maintain a large following.

Emotional Impact: Dramatic language and exaggerated scenarios can evoke strong emotional reactions, such as fear or outrage. This can increase the emotional investment of his audience and strengthen their commitment to his narratives.

Revenue and Influence: Sensational content tends to attract more views, clicks, and shares, which can boost revenue from advertising, merchandise, and other sources. Exaggeration can therefore be a strategy to maximize financial gain and influence.

Creating a Persona: Jones’ public persona is built around being a provocative and outspoken figure. Exaggeration fits this persona and helps him stand out in the crowded media landscape.

Competitive Edge: In the competitive world of media and conspiracy theories, exaggeration can differentiate a personality from others and establish them as a more dramatic or controversial figure.

Overall, exaggeration can be a tool for maintaining audience interest and amplifying one's impact, even though it often comes at the cost of accuracy and credibility.

You said:

So he's truthful, just theatrical?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Alex Jones' approach is often a mix of sensationalism and exaggeration, which can blur the lines between truth and theatricality. While he may present some factual information, his tendency to exaggerate and sensationalize can distort the truth and lead to misinformation.

His style is theatrical in that he uses dramatic language, emotional appeals, and exaggerated scenarios to capture attention and provoke strong reactions. This can make it difficult to separate objective facts from the sensationalized elements of his claims.

In essence, while Jones may incorporate truthful elements in his content, the way he presents them often involves a theatrical and dramatic flair that can overshadow accuracy and create a more sensationalized narrative.

You said:

Can you give me an example of an over the top exaggeration of his?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

One notable example of Alex Jones' over-the-top exaggeration is his claim about "globalists" and their supposed plans for a vast, dystopian New World Order. He has repeatedly suggested that elite groups are orchestrating a wide range of global crises and conspiracies, from pandemics to economic collapses, with the goal of establishing a totalitarian regime.

For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Jones promoted extreme theories suggesting that the virus was deliberately engineered as a bioweapon for population control or that it was part of a plot to implement a global authoritarian regime. He also made dramatic claims about the pandemic being used to justify extreme surveillance and control measures.

These claims are highly sensational and lack credible evidence. They often involve apocalyptic scenarios and dramatic predictions that contribute to fear and uncertainty, which are hallmarks of Jones' exaggerative style.

You said:

Well, you picked a poor example there; it's impossible to exaggerate that!  That's like trying to double infinity. That particular ontological truism can never be overstated.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I appreciate your perspective! If we’re looking for an example where exaggeration is more evident:

The "Chemical Trails" or Chemtrails Theory: Jones has promoted the chemtrails conspiracy theory, which claims that the trails left behind by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents being dispersed for nefarious purposes, such as mind control or population control.

The exaggeration here involves taking the ordinary condensation trails (contrails) created by aircraft at high altitudes and transforming them into a sinister plot involving secret government operations. While some believe in the existence of chemtrails, scientific consensus supports that contrails are simply a byproduct of aircraft engines interacting with atmospheric conditions.

This example highlights how Jones can take an existing topic and exaggerate it into a dramatic and unfounded conspiracy, creating a sense of urgency and fear around a misrepresented issue.

You said:

OMG!  Chemtrails are the most obvious conspiracy!  All anyone with eyes in their head has to do is look up!  Are you serious?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand that chemtrails can be a very compelling topic for some people. The visual phenomenon of trails in the sky can indeed seem mysterious. However, the scientific consensus is that these trails are simply contrails, which are formed when water vapor from aircraft engines condenses into ice crystals at high altitudes, leaving visible trails in the sky.

Many of the more dramatic claims about chemtrails—such as them being used for mind control or weather manipulation—lack credible scientific evidence. While it’s important to question and investigate information, the prevailing scientific explanation is that these trails are a normal and well-understood part of aviation.

It's always good to explore and scrutinize claims critically, but it's also important to consider the evidence and expert consensus when evaluating such theories.

You said:

Ah, consensus.  That's what they want you to think, that you're alone, that you're the only person on Earth to look up and say 'hey, I never saw those things as a kid, and jests have been around for a long time!'

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Ah, consensus.  That's what they want you to think, that you're alone, that you're the only person on Earth to look up and say 'hey, I never saw those things as a kid, and jests have been around for a long time!'

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand the concern about feeling isolated in your observations and the skepticism toward widely accepted explanations. It’s valid to question and critically assess the information presented by authorities and experts.

Personal observations are important and can lead to meaningful questions and discoveries. At the same time, scientific consensus is built on extensive research and peer review, designed to ensure that conclusions are based on robust evidence and multiple perspectives.

If you’re seeing something that doesn’t match with commonly accepted explanations, it’s worth exploring further, either by looking at alternative sources, engaging in discussions with experts, or examining new evidence. The goal is to strike a balance between personal observations and the broader understanding developed through scientific inquiry.

You said:

Let me ask you a question about the sun, since we're 'looking up.'  When I was a kid, the yellow crayon was one of the first to be worn down owing to kids drawing pictures with the sun in the corner.  We always drew the sun as yellow, since it was.  Now it's white.  Am I imagining that too?  Am I color blind?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

Let me ask you a question about the sun, since we're 'looking up.'  When I was a kid, the yellow crayon was one of the first to be worn down owing to kids drawing pictures with the sun in the corner.  We always drew the sun as yellow, since it was.  Now it's white.  Am I imagining that too?  Am I color blind?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

It's not uncommon for people to perceive changes in the color of the sun, and there are a few potential explanations:

Atmospheric Changes: Variations in air quality and atmospheric conditions can affect how we perceive the sun’s color. Increased pollution, particulate matter, or other environmental changes can alter how sunlight is scattered and make the sun appear whiter.

Sun’s Position: The color of the sun can also vary depending on its position in the sky. At sunrise or sunset, the sun often appears more orange or red due to the longer path through the atmosphere. When it’s higher in the sky, it can appear whiter.

Visual Perception: As people age or as environmental conditions change, our perception of colors can shift. What seemed yellow in the past might appear differently now due to changes in lighting conditions or visual perception.

Technological and Cultural Changes: The way the sun is represented in media and art has evolved. Modern technology and artistic trends might also influence how we perceive or depict the sun.

If you’re concerned about color blindness or significant changes in your perception, it could be useful to have your vision tested by a professional. However, it's also likely that changes in environmental conditions and perception are contributing to what you’re noticing.

You said:

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown, unless you want to blame chemtrails for the sun's color change.  The sun is never yellow anymore, ever.  No conditions in the last 10 years have ever caused the sun to appear to me as yellow, not even once.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand your frustration, and it's clear that you’ve noticed a significant change in how the sun appears to you. It’s definitely unsettling when something you’ve always seen changes in a way that’s hard to explain.

While there might not be a single, straightforward explanation, some possibilities to consider:

Environmental Factors: Long-term changes in atmospheric conditions or air quality could potentially influence the sun’s appearance, but these effects are typically gradual and might not fully account for a sudden or persistent change.

Perceptual Changes: As people age, their perception of color can change. Sometimes, changes in visual perception might be subtle but noticeable over time.

Light Pollution and Other Factors: Increased light pollution or changes in the surrounding environment could affect how we perceive the sun, though this usually has a more localized impact.

Psychological Factors: Sometimes, changes in how we perceive things can be influenced by psychological or emotional factors.

If this change in perception is causing significant concern or impacting your daily life, consulting an eye care professional or an environmental scientist might provide more personalized insights.

You said:

So global warming?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Global warming could be a contributing factor to changes in atmospheric conditions that might affect the appearance of the sun. Here’s how global warming might play a role:

Increased Air Pollution: As temperatures rise, industrial activity, wildfires, and other sources of pollution can increase. This can lead to more particulates and pollutants in the atmosphere, which can affect how sunlight is scattered and perceived.

Changes in Atmospheric Composition: Global warming can alter the composition of the atmosphere, potentially impacting the scattering of light. For instance, increased levels of greenhouse gases and aerosols can influence how sunlight penetrates the atmosphere.

Shifts in Weather Patterns: Changes in weather patterns due to global warming can affect visibility and the appearance of the sun. For example, increased humidity or changes in cloud cover could contribute to how we perceive sunlight.

While global warming might not be the sole explanation for the change in how you see the sun, it could be one of several factors influencing atmospheric conditions and visual perception.

You said:

Who's the conspiracy theorist now!

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I get what you're saying! It's easy for discussions about complex issues like climate change and atmospheric effects to veer into areas that feel speculative or uncertain. My goal is to provide a range of perspectives based on current scientific understanding and to explore different possibilities.

If you have specific concerns or observations, it's valuable to investigate them thoroughly, whether through scientific research, expert consultations, or personal investigation. The aim is to seek clarity and understanding, wherever that leads. If there's a particular aspect you're passionate about exploring further, feel free to share!

You said:

The sun is burning less energetically now; it's called a solar minimum which also explains increased earthquakes and volcanos.  Don't you know anything?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

The sun is burning less energetically now; it's called a solar minimum which also explains increased earthquakes and volcanos.  Don't you know anything?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

The sun is burning less energetically now; it's called a solar minimum which also explains increased earthquakes and volcanos.  Don't you know anything?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You said:

The sun is burning less energetically now; it's called a solar minimum which also explains increased earthquakes and volcanos.  Don't you know anything?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The idea that a solar minimum could influence Earth’s seismic or volcanic activity is an interesting hypothesis, but the scientific evidence supporting a direct link between solar cycles and such geological phenomena is limited. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

Solar Minimum and Energy Output: During a solar minimum, the Sun’s activity decreases, but the overall energy output of the Sun remains relatively stable. The variations in solar energy during these periods are small compared to the Sun's total energy output.

Earth's Geological Activity: Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are primarily driven by tectonic forces—such as the movement of Earth's plates and magma dynamics. These processes are generally considered to be largely independent of solar activity.

Scientific Research: While there have been studies exploring potential connections between solar cycles and various Earth phenomena, including seismic activity, most research has not found strong evidence of a direct causal relationship. The prevailing view is that solar minimums do not significantly impact earthquake or volcanic activity.

Complex Interactions: The Earth’s climate and geological processes are influenced by many factors, including atmospheric conditions, ocean currents, and internal heat processes. The role of solar cycles is just one of many variables, and any potential impacts are typically subtle.

It’s always valuable to explore different hypotheses and stay informed about ongoing research. If you’re interested in this topic, looking at recent studies from reputable scientific sources could provide more detailed and updated insights.

You said:

OMG!  Just go to NASA's website and cross reference it with the US Geological survey!  The correlation is 1.  There is a perfect correlation between solar activity and seismic activity!  Everyone knows that! 

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I understand your frustration. It's crucial to critically evaluate sources and data when discussing scientific correlations. While it's true that solar activity and seismic events are both areas of active research, most established scientific consensus does not support a strong, direct correlation between solar minimums and increased seismic or volcanic activity.

Here's how you can approach this:

Check Reliable Sources: Cross-referencing information from authoritative sources like NASA and the US Geological Survey (USGS) is a good practice. Both organizations provide detailed, evidence-based reports on their respective areas of expertise.

Scientific Studies: Look for peer-reviewed studies that specifically address the relationship between solar activity and seismic events. Scholarly articles and research papers can provide insights into the current understanding and evidence.

Expert Consensus: Scientific consensus is formed based on the weight of evidence across many studies and observations. While individual studies may find correlations, it's important to consider the broader context and the cumulative evidence.

Ongoing Research: Science is always evolving. New findings can sometimes challenge existing views, so staying updated with recent research is important.

If you have specific studies or data that you believe show a strong correlation, sharing those sources could be useful for further discussion.

You said:

On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide

Vito Marchitelli, Paolo Harabaglia, Claudia Troise & Giuseppe De Natale

Scientific Reports volume 10, Article number: 11495 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Large earthquakes occurring worldwide have long been recognized to be non Poisson distributed, so involving some large scale correlation mechanism, which could be internal or external to the Earth. Till now, no statistically significant correlation of the global seismicity with one of the possible mechanisms has been demonstrated yet. In this paper, we analyze 20 years of proton density and velocity data, as recorded by the SOHO satellite, and the worldwide seismicity in the corresponding period, as reported by the ISC-GEM catalogue. We found clear correlation between proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes (M > 5.6), with a time shift of one day. The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be wrong lower than 10–5. The correlation increases with the magnitude threshold of the seismic catalogue. A tentative model explaining such a correlation is also proposed, in terms of the reverse piezoelectric effect induced by the applied electric field related to the proton density. This result opens new perspectives in seismological interpretations, as well as in earthquake forecast.Conclusions

This paper gives the first, strongly statistically significant, evidence for a high correlation between large worldwide earthquakes and the proton density near the magnetosphere, due to the solar wind. This result is extremely important for seismological research and for possible future implications on earthquake forecast. In fact, although the non-poissonian character, and hence the correlation among large scale, worldwide earthquakes was known since several decades, this could be in principle explained by several mechanisms. In this paper, we demonstrate that it can likely be due to the effect of solar wind, modulating the proton density and hence the electrical potential between the ionosphere and the Earth. Although a quantitative analysis of a particular, specific model for our observations is beyond the scope of this paper, we believe that a possible, likely physical mechanism explaining our statistical observations, is the stress/strain pulse caused by reverse piezoelectric effects. Such pulses would be generated by large electrical discharges channeled in the large faults, due to their high conductivity because of fractured and water saturated fault gauge. The widespread observations of several macroscopic electro-magnetic effects before, or however associated to large earthquakes, support our qualitative model to explain the observed, highly statistically significant, proton density-earthquakes correlation. It is important to note that our hypothesis only implies that the proton density would act as a further, small trigger to cause the fracture on already critically charged faults, thus producing the observed large scale earthquake correlation. Such a small perturbation would add to the main factor producing worldwide seismicity, which is tectonic stress.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

The study you cited, “On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide” by Marchitelli et al., presents an intriguing analysis of the potential correlation between solar wind proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes. Here are the key takeaways from the study:

Correlation Found: The paper reports a statistically significant correlation between proton density (measured by the SOHO satellite) and the occurrence of large earthquakes (Magnitude > 5.6), with a time shift of about one day. This finding suggests a potential connection between solar activity and seismic events.

Hypothesis: The authors propose that this correlation could be explained by the reverse piezoelectric effect, where changes in proton density might induce electrical effects in fault lines, potentially triggering earthquakes. This is a speculative model, but it provides a possible mechanism for the observed correlation.

Significance: The study highlights a significant correlation, which could open new perspectives for seismological research and earthquake forecasting. However, it emphasizes that this is a tentative model and that the proton density may act as a minor trigger rather than the primary cause of seismic activity.

Implications: While the study is important for exploring potential connections between solar activity and earthquakes, it’s crucial to approach such findings with caution. Correlation does not imply causation, and the observed effect might be influenced by other factors.

The study contributes to the ongoing debate about the relationship between solar activity and seismic events. While it offers a new perspective and suggests a potential mechanism, further research and validation are needed to fully understand these relationships and their implications.

If you're interested in this field, keeping an eye on future research and developments can provide more clarity and context.

References:

1.        On the correlation between solar activity and large earthquakes worldwide | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3