TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Conspiray Theories for Dummy!
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Conspiray Theories for Dummy!

Most conspiracy theories can be divided into three categories. The first consists of those that are merely absurd. For instance, many people believe that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax with the footage of Neil Armstrong landing on lunar soil faked in a Hollywood studio. Some trashy American tabloids made millions by suggesting, for over a decade after his death, that Elvis Presley was still alive. More recently, it has been suggested that the man they executed in Baghdad was Saddam Hussein�s double. The real Saddam is alive and well and living in South America. Similarly, it used to be suggested that the man the South African government released from prison was not really Nelson Mandela. (Which would explain why he looked nothing like the photographs of the young Mandela.)

According to this theory, the real Mandela died in jail and a more accommodating double was asked to play the role.

Then there�s the kind of conspiracy theory that is spread by interested parties or by people with their own axes to grind. The most notable of these theories is the view espoused by many fascists about Hitler�s slaughter of the Jews. According to assorted anti-Semites and neo-Nazis (and these days, Arab extremists) the Holocaust never really happened. The Jews were not killed. The whole story was Jewish propaganda.

Arab fundamentalists have taken this a step further. It is now routine to say, on the Arab main street, that poor Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. It was done by Mossad so that the peace-loving hermits of al-Qaeda would get a bad name. Another version of the theory casts the Americans as villains, eagerly murdering their own people only so that they had an excuse to defame blameless Islamic organisations.

Some of this theorising stems from a guilty conscience. At some level, the fascists must know that Hitler did kill the Jews. Even those who blame Mossad for 9/11 must be aware of the identities of the Arab perpetrators.

The trouble with conspiracy theories that emanate from interested parties is that they are hardly ever based on any solid evidence. For this kind of theorist, motive alone is evidence enough.

But there�s a third category of conspiracy theory and that is the one that is the most problematic.

Whether we like it or not, there are conspiracies, cover-ups, abuses of power by authorities and unexplained assassinations. Just as it is quite wrong to say that everything that happens is caused by a secret conspiracy, it is as foolish to claim that nothing is ever the result of a conspiracy.

Take the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Even though there were many unexplained factors � the exact motive of Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin; the convenient shooting of Oswald in custody; the inconsistencies of the forensic evidence, etc. � those who smelt a conspiracy were denounced and referred to the report of the Warren Commission that concluded that Oswald had acted alone.

We know now that the conspiracy theorists were right to be suspicious. Even those who still believe that Oswald was the killer now concede that they may have been a larger conspiracy behind the assassination.

While on the subject of JFK, what about the mysterious death of Marilyn Monroe? In the 70s, many writers suggested that she was having a clandestine affair with JFK and had to be bumped off. These suggestions were pooh-poohed by know-it-alls. In fact, we now have proof that Monroe was definitely having an affair with JFK. And while the evidence that friends of the Kennedys bumped her off is less than conclusive, there is a certainly a good case to be made.

That�s the problem with dismissing conspiracy theories. Once you say that all such theories are humbug, you effectively deny people the right to be curious, to ask questions and to refuse to believe what they are told by their governments.

The hallmark of an intelligent democracy is skepticism. All politicians lie. It is our duty to constantly question them, to not accept everything we are told and to find out the truth.

Dummy for conspiracy theories

Theories for Dummy Conspiracies.

BTW Kinezi, don't forget to quote your sources - this seems to be a mix-mash of two different sites...

They control it all...even this vid.

Here is where I stand on 9/11 conspiracies. I currently will not say there isn't a conspiracy. But I sure as hell can't say there is. Why? Insufficient evidence. A good analogy would be that of the existence of alien space craft visiting our planet. I can't say there isn't alien space craft visiting our planet. But I can't say there is. Why? Insufficient evidence. I can't examine the supposed alien spacecraft. I can't test it. Grainy videos and eye witness accounts are not enough evidence. The same is true for 9/11. Frankly, all the so-called "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy is grossly insufficient to prove anything. Otherwise, if their case is so conclusive, to the degree nut jobs like trancer x believes them, then the conspirators should have been arrested and tried for mass murder a long long time ago. But when this fact is brought up to these radicals, what is their response? The courts must be in on the conspiracy!

The fact is, 99% of all conspiracy theories are pure and simple bullshit.

yeah, I approach conpiracy theories with alot of skepticism.
when someone has bought into it-theyll just counter with the "ur swallowing what the man tells you type arguments"

some are fucking outright dangerous to society-HIV-doesnt cause aids+thabo Mbeke being a fuckcase for example.

If the Mosaad were involved in anyway at all I beleive it was in a "we know some shit is going down possibly, not exactly where or when, but something large is about to happen"kind of way-thats it, just an awareness that can get spun on them being responsible

I think they are the strongest intelligence out there so I kind of doubt that the entire operation could have gone completely under the radar.

99 percent of conspiracy theories not true...maybe so, maybe not, but I cant get help into the "what if" mode after Mi6 Kgb and Cia all said to colin powell that there were WMDs in Iraq. technically back then if u claimed the information presented was neocon bullshit perhaps ud be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. Now i sincerely cant say whether the info was off because of fuckups or because of alterior motives

and does some of Noam Chomsky's thought count as conspiracy or is that only dissidence...?particularly his theories on the media-like he claimed watergate was blown out of proportion to take the heat of something he claimed was much more significant-i cant remember exactly what it was though, and youtube hasnt been working in the Uae for a while now so i cant post a link.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The fact is, 99% of all conspiracy theories are pure and simple bullshit.

I'm willing to bet that you don't have sufficient evidence for this claim.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The fact is, 99% of all conspiracy theories are pure and simple bullshit.

63.971% of all statistics are made up.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby 63.971% of all statistics are made up.

Source?

Thought not. Fucking conspiracy theorist! Ack!

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik Source? Thought not. Fucking conspiracy theorist! Ack!

I charge you with conspiracy theorizing the accusation that I'm a conspiracy theorist. :OP

quote:

Originally posted by Aortik I'm willing to bet that you don't have sufficient evidence for this claim.

WHo do you work for?

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Here is where I stand on 9/11 conspiracies. I currently will not say there isn't a conspiracy.

you're kidding right?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you're kidding right?

Be my guest and prove a negative.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Be my guest and prove a negative.

It's a double negative. You said "I currently will say there's a conspiracy."

Trancer, you forgot to log out Krypton.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It's a double negative. You said "I currently will say there's a conspiracy." Trancer, you forgot to log out Krypton.

No, let's rehash. I said..."I will not say, 'There is not a conspiracy.'"

What's not being said is, "There is not a conspiracy." So Lebez, since you've stepped up to the plate, want to prove there is not a conspiracy......While you're at it, prove there is not a god, or prove there are not tooth fairies. Prove whatever negative you want.

Burden of proof is on you, Broseph.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Burden of proof is on you, Broseph.

Apparently, you've assumed that my statement, "I cannot say is is not a conspiracy," equates to a belief there is a conspiracy. If you read the 9/11 conspiracy thread, you'de see page after page of me debunking wild claims about 9/11, and even having Trancer accuse me of being paid to be on this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Be my guest and prove a negative.

its called the 911 commission report + building 7 report. they proved definitively that there was no government conspiracy.

you can be as sure about there being no conspiracy as much as you can be sure about anything. there is no debate.

quote:

The trouble with conspiracy theories that emanate from interested parties is that they are hardly ever based on any solid evidence. For this kind of theorist, motive alone is evidence enough.

I'm inclined to say there's no other kind of conspiracy theorist. Basically, the reason why conspiracy theorists are often harshly criticised is not because they're daring sceptics, with potential to become the next Galileo Galilei, but because they're usually clueless pseudosceptics that resemble a Franz Joseph Gall with poor debating skills. Granted, the line between the two is all too thin, but the usual inability to engage in a meaningful debate is the reason why I decided to limit the scope of discussion here.

I kinda feel that's the reason why this was posted, by the way. If I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me, and I will adjust my reply to a more adequate context.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I'm inclined to say there's no other kind of conspiracy theorist. Basically, the reason why conspiracy theorists are often harshly criticised is not because they're daring sceptics, with potential to become the next Galileo Galilei, but because they're usually clueless pseudosceptics that resemble a Franz Joseph Gall with poor debating skills. Granted, the line between the two is all too thin, but the usual inability to engage in a meaningful debate is the reason why I decided to limit the scope of discussion here. I kinda feel that's the reason why this was posted, by the way. If I'm mistaken, feel free to correct me, and I will adjust my reply to a more adequate context.

Galileo was a "conspiracy theorist" and so was Copernicus. So were the members of the White Rose resistance in Nazi Germany who apparently didn't stand much of a chance against the brainwashed masses of the day.

quote:

Originally posted by gallantrybot Galileo was a "conspiracy theorist" and so was Copernicus. So were the members of the White Rose resistance in Nazi Germany who apparently didn't stand much of a chance against the brainwashed masses of the day.

wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by gallantrybot Galileo was a "conspiracy theorist" and so was Copernicus.

If you read just a little about the history of science, you would know this makes no sense whatsoever.

(Don't try to turn the Heliocentric Model into some sort of conspiracy theory against the religious "Geocentric Myth", that would be just excruciating)

Galileo and Copernicus were counter to the accepted norm, but they brought evidence to back their shit up, which is why they eventually became the new accepted norm.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Galileo and Copernicus were counter to the accepted norm, but they brought evidence to back their shit up, which is why they eventually became the new accepted norm.

That fact seems to elude so many on this board.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Galileo and Copernicus were counter to the accepted norm, but they brought evidence to back their shit up, which is why they eventually became the new accepted norm.

And, perhaps more importantly, the Geocentric model wasn't ditched right away because it did lead to many accurate predictions, otherwise it wouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone in the first place (specially by figures like Aristotle and Ptolemy).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.