Skeptics

nyarlothothep · 25-02-2009 2:55pm #1

Why do you argue with conspiracy theorists? You're probably not going to change anyone's viewpoint around here. Why do you care so deeply?

mysterious · 25-02-2009 3:06pm

It's because, it TRIGGERS issues in them.

They are unable to find, seek answers themselves, and its pisses the ****s out of them when they see someone get off their arse and find out the out the answers they seek.

You can give them all the evidence to your argument.

You will, still get to a stage where you know and I know from AWARENESS.

it becomes dumb.
For example, it goes like this.

But how, why, and so where is that, why is that, but hmmmm yes your wrong, but why is this like that, and who told it was like that.

The only way to deal with this, is be AWARE, and IGNORE it. They will never change this attitude, they will go throughout their lives behaving like this, because these are the very people who don't have it in them, to try answer the questions they ask themselves.

humanji · 25-02-2009 3:21pm

Well, when someone claims something that seems wildly implauisble, it's interesting to see if there's any truth to it. You'll note that the majority of responses to conspiracy theories are questions concerning proof, evidence or probability, not just assuming the opposite of what you say.

You'll get some who are just taking the piss or just being abusive and dismissive, but that happens from both sides (see Mysterious's post above). If there was proof that any one of these theories was 100% true then you'd quickly see many of the so called paid debunkers up in arms and standing side by side with the CTer's.

In the end, trying to prove to a skeptic that a conspiracy is true without giving any real evidence is like trying to prove to a believer that a conspiracy is not true without giving any real evidence. Lack of proof isn't going to sway anyone.

Time Magazine · 25-02-2009 3:28pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why do you argue with conspiracy theorists?

I have no doubt that serious, extremely damaging conspiracies exist. It's also highly likely that they happen regularly and in positions as high as the US President.

I would think the world would be much better off if people went about uncovering these conspiracies rather than lecturing about monetary economics as if they had a clue what they were talking about.

mysterious · 25-02-2009 3:34pm

humanji wrote: »

You'll get some who are just taking the piss or just being abusive and dismissive, but that happens from both sides (see Mysterious's post above)

I seriously hope your not rediculing me. Or insulting me!
I'm not taking the piss or being abusive.

Logic would tell me, something is triggering you off, to go personal at me on this topic. Interesting. Even comes up in this thread, despite it's the very thing quiestioned.

lol...

tricky D · 25-02-2009 3:41pm

The Economist wrote: »

I would think the world would be much better off if people went about uncovering these conspiracies rather than lecturing about monetary economics as if they had a clue what they were talking about.

You can add structural engineering to that.

Vadrefjorde · 25-02-2009 4:11pm

The Economist wrote: »

I would think the world would be much better off if people went about uncovering these conspiracies rather than lecturing about monetary economics as if they had a clue what they were talking about.

This happens? :eek:

bonkey · 25-02-2009 4:27pm

mysterious is banned for a week, following his comments in post 2 about other posters.

Others take note: This thread asks a valid question. It does not give anyone on either side a license to start making broad swipes at either conspiracy theorists or skeptics.

Bear in mind that any such comments will be seen by me as referring explicitly to the relevant groups of posters on this forum. Couching your language to claim you're not referring to anyone specific won't cut you any slack here.

Respect other posters, and their right to their opinions.

thecommander · 25-02-2009 4:50pm

humanji wrote: »

If there was proof that any one of these theories was 100% true then you'd quickly see many of the so called paid debunkers up in arms and standing side by side with the CTer's.

I would love nothing more for one or two of the wildest conspiracy theories to be true, or some sort of real evidence to come out. Most of the evidence given just doesn't convince me. There are some interesting theories, but as suggested, they are just theories.

Kernel · 25-02-2009 5:08pm

I'm a skeptic, and I don't argue with conspiracy theorists. For a wilder conspiracy, I either don't bother to post or I politely point out why I believe x, y and z. My own theory towards serial pseudo-skeptics constantly barraging users of the forum with thinly veiled mocking and intellectual snobbery is that it is a form of ego-****. Asking for definitive proof of a conspiracy theory usually won't get you an affirmative answer. By definition a theory is unproven, but the theory usually exists due to conjecture and circumstantial evidence (which the pseudo-skeptic will fail to acknowledge or dismiss out of hand).

As such it makes some people feel intellectually superior and warm and fuzzy.

It's all about psychology chaps.

meglome · 25-02-2009 5:16pm

humanji wrote: »

Well, when someone claims something that seems wildly implauisble, it's interesting to see if there's any truth to it. You'll note that the majority of responses to conspiracy theories are questions concerning proof, evidence or probability, not just assuming the opposite of what you say.

You'll get some who are just taking the piss or just being abusive and dismissive, but that happens from both sides (see Mysterious's post above). If there was proof that any one of these theories was 100% true then you'd quickly see many of the so called paid debunkers up in arms and standing side by side with the CTer's.

In the end, trying to prove to a skeptic that a conspiracy is true without giving any real evidence is like trying to prove to a believer that a conspiracy is not true without giving any real evidence. Lack of proof isn't going to sway anyone.

I agree with this. And also as The Economist says I don't doubt there are conspiracies but the proof supplied for most of what we talk about in here is often highly dubious.

The most ironic thing for me is the real lack of 'truth' on the CT sites. They are riddled with out of context quotes, quotes that there's no evidence the person every said it in the first place, invention of stuff that has never been shown to work or exist in the context and downright fantasy. There are many people in the CT world who make money from promoting their agenda and yet we are supposed to believe what they say as they are not the evil 'mainstream' media. Personally I find people like Alex Jones to be quite unpleasant and short on answers/evidence when tackled directly about his opinions.

Every topic in here we talk about I personally look at the details from all angles I can and then base my opinion on that. I have no set opinion initially if they are true or not. Sure some of the theories are highly implausible to begin with but that doesn't necessarily make them impossible. Though it appears to me that many CT's see conspiracy from the get go and are not interested in listening to information that doesn't suit that view.

meglome · 25-02-2009 5:36pm

Kernel wrote: »

I'm a skeptic, and I don't argue with conspiracy theorists. For a wilder conspiracy, I either don't bother to post or I politely point out why I believe x, y and z. My own theory towards serial pseudo-skeptics constantly barraging users of the forum with thinly veiled mocking and intellectual snobbery is that it is a form of ego-****. Asking for definitive proof of a conspiracy theory usually won't get you an affirmative answer. By definition a theory is unproven, but the theory usually exists due to conjecture and circumstantial evidence (which the pseudo-skeptic will fail to acknowledge or dismiss out of hand).

As such it makes some people feel intellectually superior and warm and fuzzy. It's all about psychology chaps.

I love a good story, I read a lot of books, and as I said above I wouldn't doubt there are conspiracies. But, for example, I can theorise that giant unicorns exist and they knocked down the WTC. Now that theory is highly implausible and I can't back it up with real proof so I will expect people to be very dubious and critical of this theory. I would expect people to show flaws in my logic and evidence. This is where we completely disagree, you call this 'pseudo-skeptic'. I wouldn't have to like someone for taking my argument apart piece by piece but it wouldn't make them wrong. So it all depends on what you're looking here. I'm looking for interesting CT's with evidence to lend it some credibility. Maybe you're looking for a fantasy forum or a place full of fanboys who'll just agree with you, I can't say.

K-9 · 25-02-2009 6:53pm

Yep, there have been conspiracies and cover ups, you just have to look at Northern Ireland.

Some of the stuff posted here can be interesting but some of it is full of inconsistencies. I think it should be appreciated that these are pointed out, not some just ignoring them or not wanting to see them.

espinolman · 25-02-2009 7:26pm

I have always thought that sceptics contribute to the CT forum because they ask questions and look for evidence and when a conspiracy theory is posted in the CT forum and there is no one questioning it , it does'nt really get anywhere , but when a poster questions it and looks for evidence it starts going somewhere and if there were no sceptics i would not be interested in the CT forum to be honest.

kippy · 25-02-2009 7:38pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

I often have to look that page up before I begin to think about a theory which has been posted up in this forum as it keeps my mind focused.

There are some theories which I belive to be plausable or at least have some grain of truth to them, then there are others or major parts of others that I cannot fathom. The parts I cannot fathom are generally in relation to: 1. Why would a group of people do this when their are easier and more effective ways of acheiving the same result? and 2. The amount of people needed to keep this a secret is far to high for it to remain a secret for to long.
I question any theory posted up here based on predominately those two factors.

Why would I argue with conspiracy theorists? While this is the conpiracy theory forum, I treat it like any other. Just because something gets posted in it does not mean that that topic is not open to discussion and analysis. I amn't arguing with the theorists in general, just parts of the theory and/or the reasoning behind someone chosing to believe that theory over a more plausable option.

There are a lot of things that happen on this planet "behind" closed doors and at high levels. Not all are done to break the law or cause harm and not all do I really give a toss about.

Kippy

Kernel · 25-02-2009 8:03pm

meglome wrote: »

Now that theory is highly implausible and I can't back it up with real proof so I will expect people to be very dubious and critical of this theory.

You cannot back that up with any proof. 911 being an inside job is a true conspiracy theory however.

meglome wrote: »

I would expect people to show flaws in my logic and evidence. This is where we completely disagree, you call this 'pseudo-skeptic'. I wouldn't have to like someone for taking my argument apart piece by piece but it wouldn't make them wrong.

Of course not, but I think you are misunderstanding the term pseudo-skeptic. It's a term I have always used, rather than skeptic. I have no problem with skeptics. I am one. This is a pseudo-skeptic - of which there are many here:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

From this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

meglome wrote: »

So it all depends on what you're looking here. I'm looking for interesting CT's with evidence to lend it some credibility. Maybe you're looking for a fantasy forum or a place full of fanboys who'll just agree with you, I can't say.

I guess you couldn't resist taking a swipe at me. That final sentence where you say 'I can't say'? Well, you did say. :rolleyes:

bonkey · 25-02-2009 8:42pm

Kernel infracted for not abiding by my instructions.
Meglome given a warning for heading in the same direction.

Insulting others in broad strokes will not be tolerated in this thread.

meglome · 25-02-2009 8:42pm

Kernel wrote: »

You cannot back that up with any proof. 911 being an inside job is a true conspiracy theory however.

But having no proof doesn't seem to make any difference in here. I just picked a highly implausible example of something, I mean the towers fell down, prove it wasn't giant unicorn

Kernel wrote: »

Of course not, but I think you are misunderstanding the term pseudo-skeptic. It's a term I have always used, rather than skeptic. I have no problem with skeptics. I am one. This is a pseudo-skeptic - of which there are many here:From this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi

I'm sorry but I disagree. You say you are a sceptic but I've seen, for example, bonkey go though things with you in great detail and even though you didn't have a counter for many of his points you didn't change your view. I think a sceptic should be open at all times to changing their views. I'm a sceptic, but my scepticism doesn't have a side, it doesn't assume that anyone is either lying to me or telling the truth. I look at things with the possibility that they are not what they seem and I then judge the evidence. I don't think that CT's need to supply more proof. I'd break it down for myself as so: 1. How much/how credible is the evidence? 2. How likely is it that it would remain a secret? Otherwise should I just accept almost anything that isn't utterly implausible could be true?

Kernel wrote: »

I guess you couldn't resist taking a swipe at me. That final sentence where you say 'I can't say'? Well, you did say. :rolleyes:

Well I wasn't really having a go but I was making a point. What do you want? is this a conspiracy theory forum or conspiracy fantasy forum? If it's the former then I think you can expect in-depth discussion and analysis. If it's the latter then the more wild speculation the better. But if I'm not mistaken this is a conspiracy theory forum.

bonkey · 25-02-2009 8:59pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Why do you argue with conspiracy theorists? You're probably not going to change anyone's viewpoint around here.

That depends on who's viewpoint you're talking about.

I am in no way trying to convert the person I'm discussing with to my way of thinking, no more than I see discussions as competetive things which are "won" or "lost".

Rather, I have a different set of priorities and objectives.

I believe that if I understand my position well enough, then I should be able to articulate it and defend it against counter-points. If I learn new information during the course of a discussion, then I gain the opportunity to consider how that information should effect my position. From this perspective, discussion offers me the possibility to confirm, refine or adjust my own beliefs.

In addition, I am of the opinion that those who read threads here (but do not actively participate in them) are better served by getting to hear a discussion where at least two differing positions are offered as counterpoint to each other.

Do I offer a counterpoint so that anyone "lurking" in the thread gets the benefit of a two-sided discussion, where they get to hear both sides presented?

Why do you care so deeply?

Why do those supporting various conspiracy theories care so deeply? Why do you care deeply enough about why people like me care so deeply that you felt its worth a thread?

Everyone who posts here has a reason for entering the discussion. I see no reason to suggest that motive is somehow connected to the position you hold....that there is implicitly reason for people of one opinion to post, but not for those who disagree.

Personally, I don't really care what other people's reasons are for posting here. They are their reasons.

For the record...as a moderator, I also don't care what someone's reasons for trolling or insulting others are.

Kernel · 25-02-2009 10:55pm

meglome wrote: »

But having no proof doesn't seem to make any difference in here. I just picked a highly implausible example of something, I mean the towers fell down, prove it wasn't giant unicorn

Having no proof of an extraordinary (and calculately ridiculous) claim is different to having a plausible theory based on informed conjecture and circumstantial evidence, as I mentioned. Why don't you try to put forward your theory and see how far it gets? Because you know that it is an absurd extreme which you are using in an attempt to discredit genuine conspiracy theories.

meglome wrote: »

I'm sorry but I disagree. You say you are a sceptic but I've seen, for example, bonkey go though things with you in great detail and even though you didn't have a counter for many of his points you didn't change your view.

Disagree if you wish, but I stand by my assertation that I am a skeptic. I've stood by my views here, and put them out for others. I'm on the fence on the apollo 11 landings, I've gone on record as saying I've no time for outlandish 'theories' (disinfo) such as reptilians etc. If I wasn't a skeptic and purely a 'believer' (in truth there are no such clear distinctions) then surely I would believe all conspiracy theories? I don't, therefore I am a skeptic. There have been occasions when I have conceded and listened to bonkeys points. Bonkey is not infallible either, btw, but I have always been open to changing my views as evidence was reported. If you can refer me to a particular instance I could defend myself a little better?

meglome wrote: »

I think a sceptic should be open at all times to changing their views. I'm a sceptic, but my scepticism doesn't have a side, it doesn't assume that anyone is either lying to me or telling the truth.

Fair play, but there is plenty of evidence that pseudo-skeptics do not follow this process, and I have shown them up in this forum by countering their claims and asking for proof. Of which there has been a deficit.

meglome wrote: »

I look at things with the possibility that they are not what they seem and I then judge the evidence. I don't think that CT's need to supply more proof. I'd break it down for myself as so: 1. How much/how credible is the evidence? 2. How likely is it that it would remain a secret? Otherwise should I just accept almost anything that isn't utterly implausible could be true?

Using those 2 criteria for judging a conspiracy theory's validity is flawed. A good yardstick maybe, but not definitive. Case in point, NWO agenda pushed by elites. Plenty of evidence, pointing back to several key players and groups. Do you believe in this conspiracy, if not then why not?

meglome wrote: »

Well I wasn't really having a go but I was making a point. What do you want? is this a conspiracy theory forum or conspiracy fantasy forum? If it's the former then I think you can expect in-depth discussion and analysis. If it's the latter then the more wild speculation the better. But if I'm not mistaken this is a conspiracy theory forum.

In fairness, you were having a go. I don't want a fantasy world here, or a bunch of fanboys. I don't want or need any fans on the internet. I would like to see more civility here (has improved but will backslide I'm sure), and those who are interested in conspiracy theories to be able to express their opinion without attack and ridicule. How many regular posters on this forum have actually expressed a belief in any conspiracy theory? Think about that, and you see a problem with balance.

bonkey · 26-02-2009 8:42am

Kernel wrote: »

If I wasn't a skeptic and purely a 'believer' (in truth there are no such clear distinctions) then surely I would believe all conspiracy theories? I don't, therefore I am a skeptic.

I'm not sure this follows.

Given that you quoted Truzzi from his wikipedia page, you'll also be no doubt familiar with the position that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.". One may prefer Sagan's version that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

Thus - as you quoted - the skeptic is agnostic. In the absence of extraordinary evidence or proof, the skeptic does not accept a claim as true. Naturally, the definition of "extraordinary evidence" is open to interpretation....which is where the discussion should start.

Believing some positions but not all is only justifiable as a skeptic if you can argue that in those positions the burden of "extraordinary evidence" has been met.

meglome · 26-02-2009 4:50pm

Kernel wrote: »

Having no proof of an extraordinary (and calculately ridiculous) claim is different to having a plausible theory based on informed conjecture and circumstantial evidence, as I mentioned. Why don't you try to put forward your theory and see how far it gets? Because you know that it is an absurd extreme which you are using in an attempt to discredit genuine conspiracy theories.

Sure what I suggested is ridiculous. Yet at the moment in another thread we're expected to believe that Obama, a black man, is saying he's going to wipe out the Native Americans. Can't remember the exact quote that was being used but to get that interpretation from it you'd have to take one hell of a leap. I'm not attempting to discredit anything I'm trying to show some of the absurdity that we see in here day in and day out. In any given situation I can surmise that anything may have happened with any CT but unless I have analysed the evidence and I can explain this to others then it's irrelevant what I think if I expect other people to believe me.

Kernel wrote: »

Disagree if you wish, but I stand by my assertation that I am a skeptic. I've stood by my views here, and put them out for others. I'm on the fence on the apollo 11 landings, I've gone on record as saying I've no time for outlandish 'theories' (disinfo) such as reptilians etc. If I wasn't a skeptic and purely a 'believer' (in truth there are no such clear distinctions) then surely I would believe all conspiracy theories? I don't, therefore I am a skeptic. There have been occasions when I have conceded and listened to bonkeys points. Bonkey is not infallible either, btw, but I have always been open to changing my views as evidence was reported. If you can refer me to a particular instance I could defend myself a little better?

In my opinion you have taken the stance that you do not believe the 'man' or the government etc, I do not assume they are automatically lying, they might be fair enough. I believe you think whatever they say should be treated as a lie. But I regularly see CT's misrepresenting the truth, the sites are full of untruths packaged as the truth. If I were to go fact for fact on the NIST report or any major 'truth' site I'd go with the government report every time. This is an extremely bad reflection on people who are supposedly fighting for truth.

Let's take Apollo 11 then. What I've read in here in very minute detail shows me two things: 1. The vast majority of the established detail can be shown to the true or certainly very consistent with the official story. 2. The few outstanding topics cannot be proven either way. So this leads me to fully believe they went to the moon. Why would you be on the fence? What detail stops you from believing? (start a new thread if more appropriate)

Ah Disinfo... I love that term. How many times has someone been put up as the poster child for the truth movement. Only for them to go too far or say something particularly crazy so that they become an embarrassment to the movement and suddenly they are a disinfo agent. Sorry lads but you can't always have it both ways. There are so many people on the internet who will believe the absolute worst of their government without any proof why would you need to actually spread disinformation? People like Run_to_da_hills are like giant muck spreaders but paid disinfo agents, I think not.

Kernel wrote: »

Fair play, but there is plenty of evidence that pseudo-skeptics do not follow this process, and I have shown them up in this forum by countering their claims and asking for proof. Of which there has been a deficit.

Using those 2 criteria for judging a conspiracy theory's validity is flawed. A good yardstick maybe, but not definitive. Case in point, NWO agenda pushed by elites. Plenty of evidence, pointing back to several key players and groups. Do you believe in this conspiracy, if not then why not?

You see I don't really care why someone supports a CT or doesn't. You can say 'pseudo-skeptic' just as easily as I can say paranoid but we don't know what people's motivations are in reality. Personally I am fascinated by the different personalties involved. But what I want to see is a detailed reason as to why they think the theory is true or false. I come down on the side of the so called debunkers as they most often back up their points with the best evidence and logic. Let's take 911... If there was a conspiracy I think it was the US government covering up the extent of the intelligence they had but failed to share with each other, purely to hide their embarrassment and stupidity. And even this information came into the public domain, so much for keeping secrets.

Kernel wrote: »

In fairness, you were having a go. I don't want a fantasy world here, or a bunch of fanboys. I don't want or need any fans on the internet. I would like to see more civility here (has improved but will backslide I'm sure), and those who are interested in conspiracy theories to be able to express their opinion without attack and ridicule. How many regular posters on this forum have actually expressed a belief in any conspiracy theory? Think about that, and you see a problem with balance.

Thing is I love a good story, I really do. But if someone wants me to accept it as reality then they need to prove it within reason. I'm not expecting use it in court kinda proof but I expect it to be logical and verifiable. Take WTC7, when I go to the CT sites they don't show the pictures and video from the other side of the building showing the damage, the broken windows, the fires and the entire back of the building covered in smoke. Do you not have a problem with this? You don't seem to want to believe the mainstream media yet five minutes on a CT site and anyone can see they are extremely slanted or at worst knowingly not telling the truth.

Kernel · 26-02-2009 6:27pm

meglome wrote: »

In my opinion you have taken the stance that you do not believe the 'man' or the government etc, I do not assume they are automatically lying, they might be fair enough. I believe you think whatever they say should be treated as a lie.

I agree that I am extremely distrustful of government and corporate capitalist bodies. But why shouldn't I be? They have been shown to cause the greatest atrocities, lies and injustice throughout history. Do I automatically refuse to believe everything they say? No. I don't. I've already explained that I do not subscribe to the no-planes theory of 911 for example. I believe the government story of Al-Qaeda involvement. I also know, however, that Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden were CIA funded, and I believe for many reasons that 911 was an inside job, based on the circumstantial evidence rolled out here on many occassions. Bottom-line what I'm trying to get across here - governments lie. They have been proven to lie many many times.

meglome wrote: »

But I regularly see CT's misrepresenting the truth, the sites are full of untruths packaged as the truth. If I were to go fact for fact on the NIST report or any major 'truth' site I'd go with the government report every time. This is an extremely bad reflection on people who are supposedly fighting for truth.

Comparing the resources of the government with an individual/small group of conspiracy theorists is a little unfair. Either way, the government reports were commissioned and paid for in order to be believable. They also frequently demonstrate selective evidence. Watergate and the 911 report both were lacking in this respect. Ask any barrister if the truth is always what is most believable or most believed in court. It's not. It's how the available evidence is interpreted and conveyed to the public.

meglome wrote: »

Let's take Apollo 11 then. What I've read in here in very minute detail shows me two things: 1. The vast majority of the established detail can be shown to the true or certainly very consistent with the official story. 2. The few outstanding topics cannot be proven either way. So this leads me to fully believe they went to the moon. Why would you be on the fence? What detail stops you from believing? (start a new thread if more appropriate)

I've answered that very question in the thread in question. I'm still reading books on it in fact, time permitting.

meglome wrote: »

Ah Disinfo... I love that term. How many times has someone been put up as the poster child for the truth movement. Only for them to go too far or say something particularly crazy so that they become an embarrassment to the movement and suddenly they are a disinfo agent. Sorry lads but you can't always have it both ways. There are so many people on the internet who will believe the absolute worst of their government without any proof why would you need to actually spread disinformation? People like Run_to_da_hills are like giant muck spreaders but paid disinfo agents, I think not.

I think that's disrespectful to RTDH, however on the topic of disinformation. Disinfo is real, and is a strategy which is employed in politics/intelligence on a daily basis.

meglome wrote: »

Do you not have a problem with this? You don't seem to want to believe the mainstream media yet five minutes on a CT site and anyone can see they are extremely slanted or at worst knowingly not telling the truth.

Do you not have a problem with the pancake theory, and the fact that it is so improbable that such structures would fall at near freefall into the path of most resistence, ie. the footprint?

meglome · 27-02-2009 12:00pm

Kernel wrote: »

I agree that I am extremely distrustful of government and corporate capitalist bodies. But why shouldn't I be? They have been shown to cause the greatest atrocities, lies and injustice throughout history. Do I automatically refuse to believe everything they say? No. I don't. I've already explained that I do not subscribe to the no-planes theory of 911 for example. I believe the government story of Al-Qaeda involvement. I also know, however, that Al-Qaeda and Bin-Laden were CIA funded, and I believe for many reasons that 911 was an inside job, based on the circumstantial evidence rolled out here on many occassions. Bottom-line what I'm trying to get across here - governments lie. They have been proven to lie many many times.

Look I agree with you that governments lie, as much as they can get away with once it comes to making themselves look good. They hire professional liars (spin doctors) to help them do this. The problem with all of this is governments are still piss poor liars, honestly they leak info like a sieve. So immediately with 911 you have to ask how come they haven't actually been found out? They constantly get caught but with 911 after more than seven years no one has spilled the beans. This is where it gets less and less likely the US government were involved. Not that I personally have seen any evidence to link them directly with it anyway. And just because the CIA funded or trained the fighters in Afghanistan once doesn't necessarily mean they had continued to so after the Soviets left. What was in it for them once the Soviets got a bloody nose? The rise of the Taliban has much to do with the people of Afghanistan being left to their own devices after the Soviets left.

Kernel wrote: »

Comparing the resources of the government with an individual/small group of conspiracy theorists is a little unfair. Either way, the government reports were commissioned and paid for in order to be believable. They also frequently demonstrate selective evidence. Watergate and the 911 report both were lacking in this respect. Ask any barrister if the truth is always what is most believable or most believed in court. It's not. It's how the available evidence is interpreted and conveyed to the public.

I'm sorry I compare like with like. Either people are telling the truth or they are not. The NIST reports on 911 may not be perfect but they fit nearly all the available evidence very well. But with CT sites they tend to leave a lot of details out, the very details the go against the agenda they are pushing. This is dishonest. And I see quite a number of people making money from these conspiracy theories so not only can I see they are not giving me all the facts but they have something to gain directly. You see as a sceptic I'm not going to trust a snake oil salesman whether that be a politician at election time or someone trying to flog a book or video.

Kernel wrote: »

I've answered that very question in the thread in question. I'm still reading books on it in fact, time permitting.

Fair enough. Personally I took the major points from the conspiracy sites and went through them one by one looking at the opinions on them. I originally thought that maybe NASA had tweaked the pictures somewhat. But after some careful reading there would seem to be very logical reasons for the photo anomalies.

Kernel wrote: »

I think that's disrespectful to RTDH, however on the topic of disinformation. Disinfo is real, and is a strategy which is employed in politics/intelligence on a daily basis.

It's not meant to be disrespectful at all but I really do think that's what he does. I have read a number of this threads claiming a, b and c. But when I read the content they don't show what he claims at all. He makes the most tenuous of claims all the time. I call that the splatter effect.

I'm not convinced by Disinfo at all. The 'truth' movement has been shown time and time again to be well capable of coming out with the most outlandish stuff all by themselves. If I was a no good government I'd just give them plenty of rope.

Kernel wrote: »

Do you not have a problem with the pancake theory, and the fact that it is so improbable that such structures would fall at near freefall into the path of most resistence, ie. the footprint?

The problem with this statement is that most 'debunkers' don't think this is what even happened. There's no doubt the WTC buildings collapsed in a manner which might look something like controlled demolition, leaving aside the obvious differences such as the lack of the sounds of timed explosions. I don't have any issue with how the buildings collapsed, if the structure fails catastrophically then the massive weight i.e. the buildings themselves are going to fall pretty much straight down and nothing is going to stop them. The bottom line is they didn't fall into their own footprint and no one except the CT's seem to say this. The pictures show the rubble isn't the neat pile the CT's say. There is video of one of the collapses that shows a spur of superstructure still standing for a moment after the main collapse. At the end of the day these buildings were designed to take a massive load but not anywhere close to the forces that were unleashed when, for example, a ten story section of the building fell. I've said it before but to suit the CT new methods of demolition have had to be invented that have never been shown to work or exist and that's a huge problem in my book.

fictionaire · 09-04-2009 10:24pm

I was chatting to my fiancee earlier about having babies and vaccinations. I told her about what I had read (in summary, my opinion is they do more harm than good) about them and she called me a skeptic.

Others, I assume, would call me a Conspiracy head. That gave me the thought, that aren't most CT'ers skeptics in a manner?

Why are skeptics not skeptical of their reality which would lead them to question officialdom in a manner similar to CT'ers?

Bottom-line what I'm trying to get across here - governments lie

So true. So it begs the question, why do we collectively keep on making the same mistake of maintaining this system of corruption? Is that not pathological?

Veni Vedi Vici · 09-04-2009 10:42pm

fictionaire wrote: »

Is that not pathological?

It is. I ask myself the same question everyday.

meglome · 09-04-2009 10:55pm

fictionaire wrote: »

I was chatting to my fiancee earlier about having babies and vaccinations. I told her about what I had read (in summary, my opinion is they do more harm than good) about them and she called me a skeptic.

The problem with your opinion in this instance is the vast majority of scientific evidence doesn't agree with you, quite the opposite in fact. I'm not an expert but why do you give more credence to the contested minority research over the majority accepted findings? I personally don't know enough about this area but given the balance of probabilities, i.e. what diseases your child could get if not vaccinated over some very tiny possibility that there might be side effects I think I'd have to go with the vaccination.

fictionaire wrote: »

I
Others, I assume, would call me a Conspiracy head. That gave me the thought, that aren't most CT'ers skeptics in a manner?

Why are skeptics not skeptical of their reality which would lead them to question officialdom in a manner similar to CT'ers?

Well IMO a sceptic should question all sides. The reason I might call some in here CT'ers is that they seem to only really question officialdom. And at that they assume that officialdom is up to no good while also, for example, assuming the 'truth' movement isn't. A true sceptic would see the bad and good in both.

fictionaire wrote: »

So true. So it begs the question, why do we collectively keep on making the same mistake of maintaining this system of corruption? Is that not pathological?

Is it pathological to assume that one group in society is always out to get us or up to no good? Governments are often inept, incompetent and stupid but let's not mistake that or general arse covering for vast conspiracy.

fictionaire · 09-04-2009 11:17pm

meglome wrote: »

Is it pathological to assume that one group in society is always out to get us or up to no good? Governments are often inept, incompetent and stupid but let's not mistake that or general arse covering for vast conspiracy.

Arse covering or not, it is just as pathological to maintain an inept system of governance.

I completely agree with your point that a true skeptic should see both sides. But I would add that s/he should not go with the crowd and ignore the minority - that could be dangerous - history shows millions died as a result of this. It takes an awful lot of planning (sometimes covert) to exterminate that amount of people.

meglome · 10-04-2009 12:26am

fictionaire wrote: »

Arse covering or not, it is just as pathological to maintain an inept system of governance.

Well I'd agree with you that our system of government isn't perfect. But as the old quote goes "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". Funnily this recent crises is improving and will improve things, as we've been caught with our pants right down. People often say in here that if money was gotten rid of then the world would be a better place, completely ignoring history which doesn't show that at all. I personally don't know what the answer is but I think we all have to believe that things can be changed and more than that we have to try and change them. Too many people in here seem to believe that things don't change but they can and they do.

fictionaire wrote: »

I completely agree with your point that a true skeptic should see both sides. But I would add that s/he should not go with the crowd and ignore the minority - that could be dangerous - history shows millions died as a result of this. It takes an awful lot of planning (sometimes covert) to exterminate that amount of people.

I'm not suggesting we ignore the minority view at all. Some of the greatest scientific breakthroughs were originally minority views. But ultimately these great breakthroughs were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true. So we need to keep the same high standard of proof whether it's the government or the CT'ers or whoever.

You mention extermination, so how many times in modern history did we not find out who has behind these killing or that they took place in the first place? The truth has a way of getting out, always has always will. Because governments are made up of thousands of ordinary people and not some faceless machines.

bonkey · 10-04-2009 8:37am

fictionaire wrote: »

I told her about what I had read (in summary, my opinion is they do more harm than good) about them and she called me a skeptic.

Others, I assume, would call me a Conspiracy head. That gave me the thought, that aren't most CT'ers skeptics in a manner?

You'll find that most CT'ers claim that they are the skeptics, and that those who argue with them fall into other categories.

Many people who argue with CT'ers would consider themselves skeptics, and argue that teh CTers fall into other categories.

Me...I've little time for trying to read meaning behind labels. I've tried and failed to come up with a consistent set of terms for the mostly-polarised posters here, because sooner or later its either a case that one or other of the terms is seen as insulting, or is taken to be more than just a label.

Why are skeptics not skeptical of their reality which would lead them to question officialdom in a manner similar to CT'ers?

Who says they're not? I'm sure those you are referring to would argue along the lines that they do question officialdom, that the distinction is more in the initial position they take, and the manner in which they assess reasoning and evidence.

For example...you tend to believe that vaccinations do more harm then good. I respect your right to that opinion, but feel you are badly mistaken.*

Does this mean that I'm not a skeptic?
Does it mean I haven't questioned the merits of vaccinations?
Does the fact that my position matches that of the establishment mean that I somehow don't question them at all?

In truth, all I have given is my position. A skeptic should be defined in terms of how they reach their position, not in terms of the position they take.

* Note - I am not starting a discussion on this theme in this thread.

6th · 10-04-2009 10:03am

bonkey wrote: »

You'll find that most CT'ers claim that they are the skeptics, and that those who argue with them fall into other categories.

Many people who argue with CT'ers would consider themselves skeptics, and argue that teh CTers fall into other categories.

Its actually funny how true this is.

Skeptics

Comments