5 ms·

> Always believing what is written in the History Books sponsored by government oversight does not mean you are being fed the truth. The alternative to this is

by derleth 14y ago

> Always believing what is written in the History Books sponsored by government oversight does not mean you are being fed the truth. The alternative to this is not believing whatever Alex Jones and NaturalNews.com say. In fact, this false dichotomy is amazingly common among Internet conspiracy theory believers: Unless you fall in lockstep with them, you must believe everything Fox News tells you. No middle ground. (Or, of course, they accuse you of being a COINTELPRO Zionist shill, which is really a more extreme version of the same fallacy.) > you should avoid putting ridiculous conspiracy theories next to more believable ones Which theories, out of that list, do you think are believable?

ekianjo 14y ago
I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. And archives being locked until sometimes in the future, who knows when we will finally know about the truth. There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq even though it was used by several governments as a reason to go to war, so there are many cases in History where we are blatantly lied to and we might as well recognize that and learn from it. As for the rest, unless you are sufficiently knowledgeable about a particular subject, just saying "I do not know enough to have an opinion about it" would be more honest than putting every idea in the bag with stinky ones.
- derleth 14y ago
  > I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. Doubts like what? Do you believe foreign government agents killed him? Do you believe domestic government agents killed him? Do you believe he's still alive? Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. > There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. > just saying "I do not know enough to have an opinion about it" Except I can do research, which conspiracy theory believers seem incapable of.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    > Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. That's the evidence I am talking about. And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions, then I wonder which one is really the conspiracy theory in the end? You are not the only one capable of doing research. > This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. It's just that there were too many people who did not believe the lie and did not want to walk into it, and foreign powers involved who did not want to be trapped in another war. But the US and UK governments did try to fool people with false evidence as long as they could. > conspiracy theory believers Classic fallacy. It's not because some believers are morons that all believers are. And the other fallacy is the put all the theories in the same bag no matter how much research is done on them : some are obviously ridiculous, some other deserve more attention. It's too easy to dismiss everything.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. No, it doesn't. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/Oattes--Fatal_shot.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_fi... > And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions Another lie: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm > Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. You're confusing the issue by bringing up an irrelevant matter. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has a definite definition in English and it isn't just a theory that involves a conspiracy. It's a theory about a massive conspiracy involving many people over a long span of time. Words (and a noun phrase is a 'word') have meanings based on usage, not logic.
      - ekianjo 14y ago
        This is clearly becoming out of topic, but there's not only the Zapruder film that attests of the front shot. Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas. Do you mean to say they are all part of conspiracy fools ? And if that was not enough, Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best: he was never known to be good shot in the army, and the rifle he supposedly used could not allow rapid-fire such as shown in the Warren Report. And he would have been firing perfect shots through dense tree leaves. Yeah, the official version make total sense, for sure. Oswald himself said he was a patsy - why is that not considered a possibility ?
- smsm42 14y ago
  >>>> There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq Only question I'd have about that is what Iraq declared to OPCW in 2009? http://www.opcw.org/news/article/status-of-chemical-demilitarisation-as-at-21-april-2009 http://www.opcw.org/news/article/status-of-chemical-demilita... It says "chemical weapons" and I thought chemical weapons are WMDs...
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. And archives being locked until sometimes in the future, who knows when we will finally know about the truth. For most of my life I believed Oswald wasn't the killer. Then I found a web site that was pointing out all the problems with the Oliver Stone film and it completely convinced me that Oswald killed the president and acted completely alone (I'm not going to look for it, but this should be enough info to go on). There are problems with the official story and their are things that were locked up in the archives. But all those problems come from the Kennedys not anywhere else. The reason was that the Kennedys were trying to hide JFK's numerous medical problems (e.g. his horrible case of gonorrhea that a doctor had been unsuccessfully treating for years). Some of which he had openly lied about during his campaign and that info coming out could have wrecked Robert's political future as well. So the family took steps to limit the effectiveness of the autopsy (it was clear how he died anyway, right?) opening the door for all the crazy conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. I saw that elsewhere you mentioned the "back and to the left" thing. This is explained on the site as well. If you watch closely you can see that his wife is holding his suit jacket and his head does jerk forward initially but after hitting resistance (her hand holding his suit) it goes back the other way.
- simonh 14y ago
  The WMD episode actually shows just how utterly crap governments can be at handling real conspiracies. They never came up with any actually persuasive evidence of WMDs before the invasion and never came up with any evidence they'd ever existed after the invasion. The whole thing was a non-starter from start to finish. If the US government had come up with credible evidence of WMDs before, and then showed off WMDs that they had found in Iraq, and then it had been shown that these were all fake, then that would demonstrate that governments are good at this stuff and can manage realistic and persuasive conspiracies. As it is, the WMD incident shows that when the US government does try to stage a real faked conspiracy, they fail at it from start to finish.

by derleth 14y ago

ekianjo 14y ago

I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. And archives being locked until sometimes in the future, who knows when we will finally know about the truth. There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq even though it was used by several governments as a reason to go to war, so there are many cases in History where we are blatantly lied to and we might as well recognize that and learn from it. As for the rest, unless you are sufficiently knowledgeable about a particular subject, just saying "I do not know enough to have an opinion about it" would be more honest than putting every idea in the bag with stinky ones.

derleth 14y ago
> I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. Doubts like what? Do you believe foreign government agents killed him? Do you believe domestic government agents killed him? Do you believe he's still alive? Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. > There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. > just saying "I do not know enough to have an opinion about it" Except I can do research, which conspiracy theory believers seem incapable of.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  > Just saying you have questions doesn't cast doubt on any theories. Evidence casts doubt on theories. The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. That's the evidence I am talking about. And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions, then I wonder which one is really the conspiracy theory in the end? You are not the only one capable of doing research. > This doesn't qualify as a conspiracy theory because the cat was essentially out of the bag from the beginning. Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. It's just that there were too many people who did not believe the lie and did not want to walk into it, and foreign powers involved who did not want to be trapped in another war. But the US and UK governments did try to fool people with false evidence as long as they could. > conspiracy theory believers Classic fallacy. It's not because some believers are morons that all believers are. And the other fallacy is the put all the theories in the same bag no matter how much research is done on them : some are obviously ridiculous, some other deserve more attention. It's too easy to dismiss everything.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > The Zapruder film clearly shows Kennedy being hit from the front when approaching the grassy knoll. No, it doesn't. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_film/Oattes--Fatal_shot.html http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/issues_and_evidence/zapruder_fi... > And when the official government story has a single magic bullet making 7 injuries by going in all crazy directions Another lie: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm > Well it was a conspiracy theory that become true, actually. You're confusing the issue by bringing up an irrelevant matter. The phrase 'conspiracy theory' has a definite definition in English and it isn't just a theory that involves a conspiracy. It's a theory about a massive conspiracy involving many people over a long span of time. Words (and a noun phrase is a 'word') have meanings based on usage, not logic.
    - ekianjo 14y ago
      This is clearly becoming out of topic, but there's not only the Zapruder film that attests of the front shot. Numerous witnesses saw gunfire coming from behind the fence and heard shots coming from different areas. Do you mean to say they are all part of conspiracy fools ? And if that was not enough, Oswald being able to do such a shot was not very likely at best: he was never known to be good shot in the army, and the rifle he supposedly used could not allow rapid-fire such as shown in the Warren Report. And he would have been firing perfect shots through dense tree leaves. Yeah, the official version make total sense, for sure. Oswald himself said he was a patsy - why is that not considered a possibility ?
smsm42 14y ago
>>>> There were obviously no WMDs in Iraq Only question I'd have about that is what Iraq declared to OPCW in 2009? http://www.opcw.org/news/article/status-of-chemical-demilitarisation-as-at-21-april-2009 http://www.opcw.org/news/article/status-of-chemical-demilita... It says "chemical weapons" and I thought chemical weapons are WMDs...
flyinRyan 14y ago
>I do not believe JFK was killed by Oswald, for example, and I believe there are ample doubts about the official story of what happened in Dallas. And archives being locked until sometimes in the future, who knows when we will finally know about the truth. For most of my life I believed Oswald wasn't the killer. Then I found a web site that was pointing out all the problems with the Oliver Stone film and it completely convinced me that Oswald killed the president and acted completely alone (I'm not going to look for it, but this should be enough info to go on). There are problems with the official story and their are things that were locked up in the archives. But all those problems come from the Kennedys not anywhere else. The reason was that the Kennedys were trying to hide JFK's numerous medical problems (e.g. his horrible case of gonorrhea that a doctor had been unsuccessfully treating for years). Some of which he had openly lied about during his campaign and that info coming out could have wrecked Robert's political future as well. So the family took steps to limit the effectiveness of the autopsy (it was clear how he died anyway, right?) opening the door for all the crazy conspiracy theories surrounding the assassination. I saw that elsewhere you mentioned the "back and to the left" thing. This is explained on the site as well. If you watch closely you can see that his wife is holding his suit jacket and his head does jerk forward initially but after hitting resistance (her hand holding his suit) it goes back the other way.
simonh 14y ago
The WMD episode actually shows just how utterly crap governments can be at handling real conspiracies. They never came up with any actually persuasive evidence of WMDs before the invasion and never came up with any evidence they'd ever existed after the invasion. The whole thing was a non-starter from start to finish. If the US government had come up with credible evidence of WMDs before, and then showed off WMDs that they had found in Iraq, and then it had been shown that these were all fake, then that would demonstrate that governments are good at this stuff and can manage realistic and persuasive conspiracies. As it is, the WMD incident shows that when the US government does try to stage a real faked conspiracy, they fail at it from start to finish.