|
Post by matrix on Jul 1, 2008 9:00:58 GMT -4
hi - before I go any further I ought to point out that I consider myself a "Conspiracy Theorist" - tho perhaps a "fan of Conspiacy Theories" would be a better description. I
I find them fascinating - how they propogate, why people continue to believe demonstrably false theories (like the Apollo Hoax which has got to be about the most debunked theory in the world), and why people at large automatically label Conspiracy Theorists as idiots and routinely dismiss what they have to say without so much as listening to their arguments.
It seems the media has cultured an opinion that if you believe in any conspiracy theory, you must be a believer that man never went to the moon, that we are all being mind controlled by Reptillian aliens living in underground bases, your favourite fashion accessory is the ubiquitous tin foil hat - and so on...
Seeing as you guys get bombarded frequently with people who can't seem to follow any kind of scientific method and who continue to insist in wild speculations even after they have been conclusively proved false I suppose you are more hardened than perhaps the average man in the street.
Conspiracy theories range from the provable and extremely likely ones (like aspects of JFK) - to the wildy ridiculous ones (like NASA faked Apollo)
When you really thnk about it though there are a number of official stories - widely accepted by people at large - that are in fact Conspiracy Theories themselves. Very few people seem to realise this. The official story of 9/11 is that 19 Arab hijackers, presumably with other Arabs in the background, conspired to fly planes into buildings. The official story of the London 7/7 bombings is that 4 terrorists conspired together to cause explosions.
Both of these stories have not been proved conclusively, or if you accept that they have now been proved conclusively at one time they had not been and so were by definition theories. They both involve conspirators - ergo they are (or at least were once) Conspiracy Theories by definition.
[For the record I don't consider either the 9/11 or the 7/7 official story to be proven, there are a pile of pertinent unanswered questions about both disasters]
I would be interested to hear this boards opinion on Conspiracy Theorists in general, and whether any members think that there are any Conspiracy Theories out there that carry any weight at all.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 1, 2008 10:10:06 GMT -4
why people continue to believe demonstrably false theories (like the Apollo Hoax which has got to be about the most debunked theory in the world), and why people at large automatically label Conspiracy Theorists as idiots and routinely dismiss what they have to say without so much as listening to their arguments. I think the fact that so many CTs continue to believe theories like the Apollo hoax long after they have been debunked explains why they tend to be treated like idiots and are ignored. If they showed a little more ability to separate the stupid theories from the ones that might actually have some merit then maybe more people would listen to them. When someone asks "who filmed Neil Armstrong coming down the ladder?" it is obvious they haven't really put much thought into their theory. It is difficult to give them much credit after that. It is somewhat justified because I have seen a lot of CTs that do seem to believe just about every conspiracy theory, especially if it has the US government as the primary villain. While I don't prohibit 9/11 discussions, I think you'll find that almost everyone here is tired of them. Many find the 9/11 theories offensive, so keep that in mind if you do want to discuss it. Edited for spelling
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 1, 2008 10:36:36 GMT -4
Hi, matrix. Welcome to the board.
I'd generally agree with LO that one reason conspiracy theorists get treated like idiots is that so many of them not only believe idiotic things, but that so many of the act like idiots as well. How many times do we get someone saying "No stars in the Moon photos!" or "No plane hit the Pentagon!", and how many times is this presented in the most juvenile and obnoxious way possible? How many times is a reasoned answer greeted with, "You're a government shill | sheep | <bad word>!" My conservative estimate is: a lot.
I'm not putting you in that category, mind you, but unfortunately, these are the types that are out there representing you. Worse for you, so many of them buy into seemingly every conspiracy, as long as it contradicts the established or "official" version.
But feel free to start a thread on any particular conspiracy claim you'd like, though personally I try to lay off 9/11 stuff.
|
|
|
Post by matrix on Jul 1, 2008 10:42:43 GMT -4
While I don't prohibit 9/11 discussions, I think you'll find that almost everyone hear is tired of them. Many find the 9/11 theories offensive, so keep that in mind if you do want to discuss it. Thanks for your reply. I do not intend on discussing 9/11(or any other theory) in this thread, although if people are interested I am quite happy to discuss any of my thoughts and questions on any theory in an appropriate thread in the correct area of your forums here. I certainly don't want to offend people - I am interested in rational, scientific method type discussion, particularly about Conspiracy Theories in general. I guess that makes me unusual. If I believe a thing and am shown evidence to the contrary I tend to change my mind and believe whatever the available evidence most strongly suggests/proves.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 1, 2008 11:26:43 GMT -4
If I believe a thing and am shown evidence to the contrary I tend to change my mind and believe whatever the available evidence most strongly suggests/proves. You'll never be a real conspiracy theorist if you take that attitude. The correct thing to do with contrary evidence is to discredit the source, preferably by showing that it came from the US Government. If it came from elsewhere, attempt to provide some reason why the source would be either in the pay of the US Government or trying to keep in their good books. For example, if someone brings up Russian tracking of Apollo, claim that the Russians were bribed with wheat.
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Jul 1, 2008 11:56:02 GMT -4
Nothing new but from a personal perspective. I have discovered that many a CT relies on refusing to acknowledge that someone has actually done some research on a subject. Their own research relies on cherry picked info to fit the bill that that particular person desires to believe. This information (the valid stuff) is discredited often on a whim and with no information to back it up. Van Allen belt case in point. Then several like minded imps get on the same train and the subject becomes credible to those that choose not to seek or understand. Which is strange in a way seeing many a ct claims to be seeking the truth.
I think the term that fits goes along the lines of "if you sling enough () at a wall some will stick". () Word missing there but I think it fits. youtube is full of it, ct stuff that is. Not knocking youtube other content.
Should I care? Most certainly. Should they be challenged? Most definitely.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 1, 2008 12:15:36 GMT -4
I have to say, Matrix, the fact that you still consider the 19 terrorist explanation/the lone gunman explanation to be full of "unanswered questions" means that you are an average conspiracy theorist--ie, one who has not examined enough evidence. I'm perfectly happy to discuss JFK on another thread, but I don't feel I have anything to contribute to 9/11 threads. What I do suggest is a search on past ones.
I also suggest the who/how/why examination of your own beliefs. Who did it? How did they do it? Why did they do it? I have found that no conspiracy theorist has a satisfactory, believable answer to any of those questions that actually fits the evidence at hand. They have to come up with such ridiculous ideas as stolen bodies and holographic planes. All the evidence is faked, because that means the conspiracy theorist doesn't have to be responsible for any of it.
However, I do hope you can give us a good discussion about something; it's been too quiet around here lately.
|
|
|
Post by matrix on Jul 1, 2008 13:44:38 GMT -4
I have to say, Matrix, the fact that you still consider the 19 terrorist explanation/the lone gunman explanation to be full of "unanswered questions" means that you are an average conspiracy theorist--ie, one who has not examined enough evidence. thanks for your thoughts. Believe me in the approximately 3 or so years I have been researching 9/11 part time I think I have looked at plenty of evidence. It rarely seems to answer much and often poses more questions than it answers. There is much "proof" of certain things that is locked away by the Govt. and very little evidence that is in the public domain even all this time later actually proves much. I'll spend an hour or two soon reading up on your 9/11 threads here and may start another next week or so if I think I have uncovered something that isn't brought up here. I do find 9/11 difficult to deal with. Whoever was responsible it is certainly the most despicable violent event I have ever witnessed. I have also spent considerable time reading and cross referencing my research with the excellent resource at 911myths.com - I don't believe in all that no planes nonsense. If I do bring any questions up they won't have already been answered at sites like 911myths. that sounds like a challenge. - I do like a challenge I will post up my "proof" about JFK being killed by a conspiracy a little later. Though I can only prove there was a conspiracy - not who did it or why (I think there is enough public domain evidence to suggest a hypothesis on the who but not enough to prove it) Things like who and why are always very very difficult things to answer. One of the favorite questions I see CTs asking is "who benefits?" - they then seem to hang the blame on whoever that is. I find that a bit simplistic as it's perfectly possible to benefit from something happening, but have absolutely nothing at all to do with the cause. All who benefits tells us is what people might have had a motive to do something.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 1, 2008 15:34:14 GMT -4
There are some real conspiracies out there, after all a conspiracy is just a secret plan of action by group of individuals. One that I've often wondered about is the connection between the big oil producers and automobile manufacturers. Is technology purposely not implemented that would allow cars to get more mileage out of a gallon of oil? Another big one for me is the placement of baked goods and dairy product in opposite ends of the back of grocery stores to force us to travel down aisles containing more product to pass by on the way, thus increasing the likelihood that we will buy more than we planned too. Too me, this is insidious and evil. ;D Something should be done about it...is there a petition somewhere? I'm sure that any grocery chain owner would deny that a store designed this way inconveniences a customer. But they are all in cohoots in this matter. It's evil I tell you!
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 1, 2008 17:14:24 GMT -4
9/11 really was a conspiracy - a conspiracy masterminded and executed by Al Qaeda members.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 1, 2008 17:24:25 GMT -4
One conspiracy theory that I consider a real possibility is that the employees of companies that produce anti-virus software are the ones who created some of the viruses in the first place.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Jul 2, 2008 3:00:35 GMT -4
Thinking about the time I was an HB, I can attest to the power and draw of conspiracy theories. They are really alluring in that they present a new, often exciting view of major events and by knowing of them you in turn feel empowered and wisened. Since these theories usually include secret advanced technology, they open you up to a new world where science fiction becomes a reality and the impossible becomes possible. CTs are often extremely convincing because of their perceivably superior knowledge of the event in question and their confidence in presenting it to you.
When I first heard about the Apollo hoax, I knew virtually nothing about the landings, and I was suddenly introduced to all of these facets of Apollo that I didn't even know existed. I was immediately convinced of the hoax and if I hadn't been curious enough to really follow up on the theories I probably would still believe Apollo had been faked. CTs really prey on the naivete of the common people, which is ironic because it takes a certain naivete for them to believe so ardently in the hoaxes in the first place (unless their motives are more insidious in which case it may range from greed to egotism).
Most conspiracy theories are ignored because they of course are ludicrous. Nobody is going to believe that the WTC towers were holograms on 9/11, just as nobody is going to buy that reptile aliens are controlling our government (except for the kooks that come up with this nonsense). However, the Apollo hoax, JFK conspiracy, and 9/11 inside job theories are different because they can appear to be pretty plausible to the layman under certain conditions. Unless you just flat out don't believe them, it usually takes a bit of research and considerable knowledge of the subjects to figure out that the conspiracy theories aren't plausible at all.
Conspiracy theories are endlessly interesting to me, not because of the subject matter (the events themselves can be pretty interesting but the theories are usually the same), but because of the people that believe in them. In this forum we have come across some of the strangest, irrational and disagreeable people I could possibly imagine. Their inability to comprehend, understand or accept empirical evidence is legendary.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 2, 2008 6:15:13 GMT -4
G'day Matrix, and welcome to ApolloHoax
If you're interested in discussing 9/11, I can highly recommend the bulletin board on James Randi's web-site (www.randi.org). There's a guy there by the handle of Gravy who's assembled a most impressive pile of material relating to 9/11 conspiracies. I'm sure Gravy would appreciate being challenged by someone who's not your average conspiraloon.
Like Gillianren and Jason I'm satisfied that 19 people from Al Qaeda were responsible for the events of the day, and that at best the contribution of aspects of the American government was a result of confusion and incompetence rather than malice. But if you can produce some questions that Gravy can't adequately answer, I'm all ears.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 2, 2008 10:39:41 GMT -4
Actually, Gravy quit participating in the 9/11 threads over there. Probably because he'd been round and round on every single 9/11 topic a thousand times.
Some of us AH and BAUT regulars do participate, although I try to limit my time there, despite a recent burst of posting. (I amused myself by engaging someone who was flogging the notion that the WTC buildings were actually vaporized by directed-energy weapons.)
|
|
|
Post by ineluki on Jul 2, 2008 10:53:08 GMT -4
It seems the media has cultured an opinion that if you believe in any conspiracy theory, you must be a believer that man never went to the moon, that we are all being mind controlled by Reptillian aliens living in underground bases, your favourite fashion accessory is the ubiquitous tin foil hat - and so on... It may not apply to the casual believers, but it appears to be more common for the serious (as opposed to the Trolls) Hoax Proponents. They have to explain away so much science and logic, that sooner or later they need some big worldwide conspiracy or their worldview would collapse.
|
|