The trouble with conspiracy theories

[soljey]

I thought the JFK assination was proved to be by members of Red Dwarf.

 

I thought in that episode it was JFK himself that shot JFK - after persuasion by the Red Dwarf team that it would be better to go out in a blaze of glory.

[ArabiaTerra]

I disagree, it fits the Soviets to a tee. Though if you could find out the time and place and the intended audience of the speech that might be helpful to your case. (I'll admit that it could be about secret societies, but the Soviets were the clear and present danger back then)

[KOYAANISQATSI]

The whole thing

 

Whatever the context, how do entities like the Skull and bones reflect under the same light?

 

Is it only that the reds contemplate such skullduggery and no such thing could ever exist in the land of the free.

 

We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time

Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended

our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost

forty years."

 

"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world

if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.

But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a

world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite

and world bankers is surely preferable to the national

auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

[ArabiaTerra]

The speech seems pretty clear to me. He's talking about the press giving away secrets to the Soviets and saying "Please don't". Reading between the lines, he's saying it's happened but we're not going to legislate to prevent it this time (But don't do it again).

 

I don't get the skull and bones reference.

[ArabiaTerra]

Given that the Rockefeller quote (assuming it's accurate) is dated just after the collapse of communism, it sounds like he's thanking the Press for doing exactly what Kennedy asked in the first speech.

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

That bit just sounds like he's saying the UN and world bank are better than the protectionism and isolationism of the past

 

Sorry, but I just don't see the conspiracy.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I don't get the skull and bones reference.

Sorry, but I just don't see the conspiracy.

 

This is no great surprise and exactly what they hope for from you.

 

Perhaps the opening post should have read:

An excellent article on why grand conspiracy's are unlikely if not downright impossible.

Not of course counting those that are said to come from the other side of the fence

[spencey7]

Sorry, but I just don't see the conspiracy.

Agreed. And as is usually the case, when believers in said "conspiracies" are faced with an opposing viewpoint they opt for the "well...er...you're just dumb 'cause you don't get it!" riposte.

 

On a wider note, I believe that the most popular conspiracy theories (aliens, JFK, 9/11, NWO) stem from a human desire to believe that there must be MORE to stories/life than what exists. ("Can this really be all there is..?") On a base level it comes down to man's inability to deal with his own mortality and fallibility. This is all getting a bit existential...

[KOYAANISQATSI]

when believers in said "conspiracies" are faced with an opposing viewpoint they opt for the "well...er...you're just dumb

 

Are you saying that JFK was just a kook to believe in said conspiracy or is it that there is no opposing viewpoint to it because he was talking about an institution other than the western governments and therefore it can safely be taken as a given truth.

 

On a wider note, I believe that the most popular conspiracy theories (aliens, JFK, 9/11, NWO) stem from a human desire to believe that there must be MORE to stories/life than what exists. ("Can this really be all there is..?")

 

I believe there is always more to find out about stories /life than what is known but not more than what ever has or does actually exist within our total range of possible perceptions.

 

Q - Do you believe that the grand secret society of which JFK was talking of ever existed or do you believe he conspired with his speechwriter to lie to us?

Is it that when presidents talk of conspiracys they are right but when "conspiracy theorists" talk of them, they are wrong?

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I believe that the most popular conspiracy theories - NWO - stem from a human desire to believe that there must be MORE to stories/life than what exists.

 

The most widely discussed application of the phrase "New World Order" of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize.

 

Q - Does the "New World Order" sound bite then translate as a good thing when politicians use it but become a crazy conspiracy theory when others warn of it?

[ArabiaTerra]

I used to be a conspiracy theorist. From my early teens through to my mid twenties I believed them all at one time or another, UFO's, Atlantis, the Knights Tempelar, Masons, JFK, Illuminati, you name it, I believed it.

 

So what changed?

 

I think the first thing was that I noticed that though there were dozens of theories surrounding each alleged conspiracy, none of them agreed with each other. It was like with religion. With Christianity you have the C of E, the Catholics, the Baptists, Evangelicals, Lutheran and dozens of other sects all believing the same core doctrine (conspiracy) but none of them can agree on the details, and they all think that the others have it totally wrong and are going to Hell because they got it wrong. The trouble is, once you disregard all of the sects but one, how do you know you've got the right one. And, more importantly, if you've dropped all of the others how can you justify believing in the one that's left? Isn't it shot through with the same kind of flaws that made you reject all of the others?

 

My point is that all of the conspiracies can't be true but as soon as you reject one you have to reject them all because they all have the same flaws.

 

So, over the years I have come up with some guidelines on how to approach these things:

 

Rule 1: There is no conspiracy. What I mean with this is if you approach a particular event expecting to find a conspiracy, the chances are you will find one. No historical account, eye witness report or official enquiry is perfect. If you dig deep enough you will inevitably come up with inconsistencies, contradictions, coincidences and mistakes in any story and the bigger the story, the more of these you will find. And if you look for a pattern you will find that too. The human brain is designed to find patterns, it's just a natural consequence of the way our brains work.

 

The way around this is to deny the conspiracy. You should only be prepared to countenance a conspiracy in two situations.

 

One. If you have exhaustively eliminated every other possible explanation then you can concede that there might be a conspiracy, and even then you should be prepared to drop the conspiracy like a shot as soon as new evidence appears.

 

And two. You find the smoking gun. Proof of a conspiracy.

Rule 2: Occam's razor If there is a simple explanation, go with it. Don't invent something complicated where a simple explanation will do. For instance:

 

Q: Could the events on Dealey Plaza be explained by the actions of a lone madman in the book depository with a rifle?

 

A: Yes.

 

Case closed.

 

Rule 3: Never suspect a conspiracy where events can be explained by simple human incompetence. People f*ck up, and then sometimes they lie to cover up the fact that they f*cked up, it's just human nature.

 

Rule 4: Governments and other large organisations are lousy at keeping secrets. The chances of a secret leaking rise exponentially with the number of people involved. If 9/11 was an inside job, how many people would have had to be in on it? Thousands. In almost every department of the American government. Do you really think that such a secret could have been kept for this long?

 

Rule 5: Why are the whistle-blowers still alive? This rule regards in particular the so-called New World Order conspiracy. If this is such a huge over arching, world dominating conspiracy, then surely they have the power to bump off the guy's who are writing books and creating web sites about it, but they aren't. Why? Because there is no such conspiracy.

 

So that's my guide for dealing with conspiracy theories. Try applying them to your own pet theory. If it stands up to them..... Panic!

 

(Only kidding)

[EM]

My point is that all of the conspiracies can't be true but as soon as you reject one you have to reject them all because they all have the same flaws.

I completely fail to follow your logic here. The barminess of one interpretation of the available evidence in no way means that another interpretation is also invalid.

 

I find the zealousness and obsessive "follow the true path" manner of many "activists" pathetic. Given the amount of faked information created by multiple sides, it seems to me to be all but impossible to discern what the likeliest scenarios are for the various debated conspiracies. With some, however, I remain convinced that whatever the truth really is, it is very different to what is presented as fact by the mainstream authorities.

[ArabiaTerra]

My point is that all of the conspiracies can't be true but as soon as you reject one you have to reject them all because they all have the same flaws.

I completely fail to follow your logic here. The barminess of one interpretation of the available evidence in no way means that another interpretation is also invalid.

 

I find the zealousness and obsessive "follow the true path" manner of many "activists" pathetic. Given the amount of faked information created by multiple sides, it seems to me to be all but impossible to discern what the likeliest scenarios are for the various debated conspiracies. With some, however, I remain convinced that whatever the truth really is, it is very different to what is presented as fact by the mainstream authorities.

But that doesn't necessarily mean there is a conspiracy (See Rule 1).

 

I see your point though. I was thinking more about the older historical conspiracy theories such as the Lost Civilisation/Atlantis theory or the stuff espoused by books such as "The Hiram Key" and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". When you apply that statement to the more modern, political conspiracies it doesn't necessarily hold up.

 

What I was trying to say was that you have to use the same rules of evidence across the board. An example of this is when holocaust deniers rule eye witness testimony from survivors inadmissible due to alleged bias then turn around and use eye witness testimony to support their allegation that the commandant of Auschwitz was tortured to get a confession.

 

I realize I could have worded it better.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

My point is that all of the conspiracies can't be true but as soon as you reject one you have to reject them all because they all have the same flaws.

 

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

 

Rule 1: There is no conspiracy. What I mean with this is if you approach a particular event expecting to find a conspiracy, the chances are you will find one.

 

I don't see how this follows, it seems more like you're superimposing you're own interpretations of the methods others may use in Deductive reasoning.

 

One. If you have exhaustively eliminated every other possible explanation then you can concede that there might be a conspiracy, and even then you should be prepared to drop the conspiracy like a shot as soon as new evidence appears.

 

No matter what you have exhausted the minute you state "conspiracy" the slides in some mainsteamers minds show David Icke on the Wogan show again, a good laugh is had and the shutters go up.

 

And two. You find the smoking gun. Proof of a conspiracy.

 

Again no matter what is presented, those who support the general consensus will take whatever nonsense they are given as truth

 

Rule 2: Occam's razor If there is a simple explanation, go with it.

 

Sometimes the simple explanation starts to stink.

 

Rule 3: Never suspect a conspiracy where events can be explained by simple human incompetence.

 

Do you really think they went into iraq on dodgy info about WMDs?

 

Rule 4: Governments and other large organisations are lousy at keeping secrets. The chances of a secret leaking rise exponentially with the number of people involved. If 9/11 was an inside job, how many people would have had to be in on it? Thousands. In almost every department of the American government. Do you really think that such a secret could have been kept for this long?

 

It's a need to know business and you dont need thousands.

 

Rule 5: Why are the whistle-blowers still alive?

 

Deborah Palfrey?

 

You're getting high on the downlow

A victim of Cointelpro

You're wrong and will probably never know

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I'll just leave this here:

 

 

If you start at 14 minutes in, you get to the gist of what's here but you may find it worth your time sitting through the lot.

 

Of course, there will be those who can not and will not ever entertain evidence that in any way goes against what they have been taught; because as Mr Dodd says... "It's a very rough experience to encounter proof of these kinds" but some of you may find what he has to say rather interesting.

 

Weigh it up as you see fit.

[Malachy]

It's funny how we can look now at Joseph McCarthy, thinking everyone with a beard or a guitar is a dangerous Commie and anti-American, and consider him as a paranoid, nasty buffoon. And yet here's a video of one of McCarthy's followers, and simply because he's less well known his words are being held up as somehow believable. At that time there were an awful lot of people in political circles in the US who believed (or purported to believe) that communism, socialism, internationalism, whatever, were infiltrating America and threatening to destroy the American way of life, or some such thing. But history rather proved them wrong, didn't it? People like him stayed rich, and the poor stayed poor. That's what they wanted, that's what they got. If these foundations were conspiring to lay the foundations of socialism into American life, they must have been rubbish at it.