CT'ers & Skeptics: Collaboration

Veni Vedi Vici

Thanks to 6th's new modding style and enforcement of the charter it might now be a good time to stimulate a little collaboration amongst both camps of the forum (CT'ers and Skeptics).

Though I've briefly touched on this point in other threads I'd like to reiterate that a shared conclusion and subsequent action are seldom occurances in the CT Forum.

I propose a three step process to anyone who would like to participate:

1. Deduce and resolve a series of operational conventions under which both Skeptic and CT'ers can function for the proposed collaboration.
2. Choose a conspiracy theory that both CT'ers and Skeptics agree on and consider worthwhile acting on.
3. Assign ownership to individual items of research to various members and thereafter submit the findings for further discussion and refinement.
4. Define a model of implementation whereby some definitive action is taken to counter-act the given theory.

There are some great minds traversing through this forum whose summation could bring some affirmative action into fruition. I'm hoping the mods will understand the value in such a collaboration not only for the chosen theory but for this online community as a whole as well.

STEP 1: Lets nail down a theory...

STEP 1: Define a shared 'modus operandi'...

Veni Vedi Vici

Personally I'd like to suggest either of the following for consideration:

The violation of constitutions and civil liberties, Religion as a corrupt indoctrination, Depopulation, Water Fluoridation or finally the Lisbon Treaty.

kryogen

Its a good idea Veni, hope it gets support

maybe we could start with some of the "smaller" lesser publicised theories?

for instance the use and effects of fluoride in the water system?

or maybe to try have a reasoned debate about climate change? wether its just a scare tactic created by governments or wether its the real deal

or maybe even something like the events of Pearl Habour?

were the international bankers responsible for the lincoln asassination?

lots more to choose from in fact, i think it would be more productive to get the ball rolling with a theory that isnt likely to cause heated arguments until people learn (myself included) to make their points cooly, clearly and most importantly, backed up by some form of evidence

im very open to this idea and will give my full support to whatever the topic is decided on

EDIT: wont be around tongiht though, heading on the beer now good luck!

jackiebrown

The constitution or religion *rubs chin*.......................hmmm.

6th

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Personally I'd like to suggest either of the following for consideration:

The violation of constitutions and civil liberties, Religion as a corrupt indoctrination, Depopulation, Water Fluoridation or finally the Lisbon Treaty.

kryogen wrote: »

Its a good idea Veni, hope it gets support

maybe we could start with some of the "smaller" lesser publicised theories?

for instance the use and effects of fluoride in the water system?

I know Mysterious mentioned he had done some local work on this - maybe when he returns from his "break" he'll jump in on this.

Great idea Vx3

Veni Vedi Vici

It's great to see that we're all on the same page here.

kryogen wrote: »

maybe we could start with some of the "smaller" lesser publicised theories?

for instance the use and effects of fluoride in the water system?

I agree that the theory would have to be something that could be presented to the public with credibility. Naturally elite satanic lineages, aliens and reptilians would not suffice.

I like the fluoridation theory because it has immediate national rammifications rather than just global. I think the relevance of the chosen theory will drive the interest in discussion.

6th wrote: »

I know Mysterious mentioned he had done some local work on this - maybe when he returns from his "break" he'll jump in on this.

Yep. Any research he might have accrued would be a great starting point. I'm just hoping he tones down his submissions on spirituality so that he can function as an acceptable delegate.

WakeUp

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

It's great to see that we're all on the same page here.



I agree that the theory would have to be something that could be presented to the public with credibility. Naturally elite satanic lineages, aliens and reptilians would not suffice.

I like the fluoridation theory because it has immediate national rammifications rather than just global. I think the relevance of the chosen theory will drive the interest in discussion.



Yep. Any research he might have accrued would be a great starting point. I'm just hoping he tones down his submissions on spirituality so that he can function as an acceptable delegate.

I think the spirit of the idea is a good one, but Ill save any further judgement or comment and see how it actually pans out.

Just because something doesnt fit the bill for you or "suffice" doesnt mean its not "credible" maybe it is maybe it isnt, who is anyone to say yeah or nay for sure either way. That said I accept topics will have to be selected and guidelines put in place.

Why does it have to be something thats credible to the public do you have a plan to present it or get the info out to mainstream people(not visitors to boards)?.. are you referring to people who visit boards.ie?.. if its to get the info out mainstream would be interesting to hear how you plan to go about that...

I mean no offence Veni Vedi Vici but theres something about you I cant quite put my finger on, yet, do you mind If I ask you what your motives are for being on this site?(CT).. just a personal observation again I mean no offence, thanks:)

6th

WakeUp, if you have person questions for a user I suggest you ask them in private.

WakeUp

6th wrote: »

WakeUp, if you have person questions for a user I suggest you ask them in private.

no problem, any future questions or whatever Ill make sure to go about it that way.

Mahatma coat

OOOOH Vx3 possible outing as disinfo Agent :D:D

seriously tho, Flouridation is a strange one, in that it has been ebated for 50 years and still no agreement as to whether its good for ya or not, it would be of interest to me because QLD Govt has started ading fluoride quote recently to our water suplies


Owever I think the one we ned to discuss is the LEgal fiction, its Everything, its how the Lizzzzzzzards control us and deprive us of our libertes, its all a big game, which I havehad a fair bit of experience playing

http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=john+harris+itsanillusion&emb=0#

thats the Doco that went missin earlier on this week, there is a large physical grasroots organisation worldwide ( well at least in westrn nations where the fiction is takin place) willing to move on this as soon as momentum reaches critical awareness. so this si something potentialy that we can sink our teeth into that can translate to realworld boots on the ground type of activism.

bonkey

I have some questions, for clarification....

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Choose a conspiracy theory that both CT'ers and Skeptics agree on and consider worthwhile acting on.

I don't understand quite what you mean here. Surely those you refer to as skeptics will be of the position that they do not accept the claimed truth of a conspiracy theory. How can they agree that its worth acting on if they don't agree that its true? If they agree its true, then surely they become "CT'ers" and there's no collaboration?

If by "acting on" you mean "researching", then the problem is still there. Skeptics tend to be either of the position that the CT'ers haven't done enough research, or that their own research shows it to be false. There's not much more for a skeptic to do. CT'ers, on the other hand, tend to be of the position that the research they've done is sufficient to draw the conclusions they have and the skeptics are the ones who are missing "key" aspects to their research.

I'm hoping the mods will understand the value in such a collaboration not only for the chosen theory but for this online community as a whole as well.

I think there's the kernel of a great idea in what you propose, but I'm not quite sure what the great idea is yet. Most (if not all) conspiracy theory discussions here have devolved into polarised camps, each telling the other that their methods/facts/reasoning is to blame for reaching an incorrect conclusion. I'm not sure how such camps can collaborate, when the basic problem is that each considers the "modus operandi" of the other to be fatally flawed.

Perhaps a first step is not to pick a CT, but rather to discuss completely in the absence of all conspiracy theories how something should be researched and reasoned. Key to such a discussion would be that neither side could draw on examples from conspiracy theories to show why any given approach is correct or incorrect.

Veni Vedi Vici

WakeUp wrote: »

Just because something doesnt fit the bill for you or "suffice" doesnt mean its not "credible" maybe it is maybe it isnt, who is anyone to say yeah or nay for sure either way.

It's not so much a case of rejecting theories as it selecting the right one to start with if you follow me. The less radical and more plausible the theory is the more likley we are to succeed as a collaborative group.

WakeUp wrote: »

I mean no offence Veni Vedi Vici but theres something about you I cant quite put my finger on, yet, do you mind If I ask you what your motives are for being on this site?

I was hoping the OP would have made that clear from the beginning. We have some very solid minds entering the frays of discussion in this forum irrespective of what camp they reside under. I'd just like to see the community take it two steps further beyond discussion if only for the purposes of this thread to begin with: conclusion and subsequent action.

bonkey wrote: »

Surely those you refer to as skeptics will be of the position that they do not accept the claimed truth of a conspiracy theory. How can they agree that its worth acting on if they don't agree that its true? If they agree its true, then surely they become "CT'ers" and there's no collaboration?

I'm hoping we won't get too bogged down in transitional terminologies or labels. If a forum such as this can flourish then surely one godforsaken iota of truth exists beneath the rubbled sensationalism and fear-mongering. I'm of the opinion that its a case of basic probabilty.

I'd like to believe that all skeptics deep down see at least some semblance of truth in at least one theory that has emerged on this forum. Terminologically I apreciate that they in turn would become skeptcal conspiracy theorists rather than absolute skeptics. I think that perhaps this is key compromise required on the skeptical front

Since the skeptic will most definatley choose the least radical theory then it may be a little mundane or less representative of true implications of the theory so far as the conspiracy theorist is concerned. This I believe is the conspiracy theorists compromise. They too would need to become more skeptical conspiracy theorists rather than than broadcasters of what ultimatley is unfounded speculation at times.

As cliched as this may sound I'd like to reference the symbiotic relationship of yin yang where two polarized forces embody composites of the other to achieve balance:

bonkey wrote: »

Perhaps a first step is not to pick a CT, but rather to discuss completely in the absence of all conspiracy theories how something should be researched and reasoned. Key to such a discussion would be that neither side could draw on examples from conspiracy theories to show why any given approach is correct or incorrect.

I think bonkey's made a fundamentally vital point point here. In no way can we communally progress into a phase of delegated research (originally step 2) unless we have adeptly achieved the objective of deliberating the selection process of a sound theory (originally step 2).I have modifed the OP in accordance with bonkey's suggestion in an attempt to more capably achieve this.

Step 1 is now to deduce and resolve a series of conventions for a shared and consolidated 'modus operandi' that serves both camps.

bonkey

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I'd like to believe that all skeptics deep down see at least some semblance of truth in at least one theory that has emerged on this forum.

Fair enough. I think I now see a bit better what you're driving at...

Thanks.

Veni Vedi Vici

bonkey wrote: »

Fair enough. I think I now see a bit better what you're driving at...

Yep. What you've quoted is one contributing aspect of the directive rather than the directive though. The spotlight is very much on our CT freinds as much as it is on the skeptics in terms of compromise.

Veni Vedi Vici

I was hoping this thread would generate a little more traffic.

After some thought I'd to like to further recommend the illegalization of hemp (industrial, not necessarily smoking) or the obscured 'science' of kaballah.

Does anyone have any pointers on how they feel the CT'ers and Skeptics might need to interact when selecting a theory that suits all?

Veni Vedi Vici

Given the recent heated debates on water fluoridation I'd like to motion it as my final nomination for the theory of choice.

Would anyone else be interested in pursuing this?

Kernel

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Given the recent heated debates on water fluoridation I'd like to motion it as my final nomination for the theory of choice.

Would anyone else be interested in pursuing this?

CT'ists and Skeptics .... I am both, but when you refer to skeptics in this context I believe you refer to the pseudo-skeptics, in which case you won't be successful with a collaboration since these people by definition are incapable or unwilling to be unbiased when looking towards the subject. Simply put, they think all 'conspiracy bunk' is bollocks and want to refute and debunk all of them. Even the ones that may turn out to be true.

Nick_oliveri

The Anthrax attacks of 01 are interesting. Ivins and Hatfill.

Timeline of the event here and a thread about it here.

I wonder are we ever going to agree on something worth researching. Heres hoping this thread doesnt fall to trolls. Good idea Veni. Whatever the outcome im sure it will be interesting.

Veni Vedi Vici

I agree Kernel. Then should those not capable of entering into such a collaboration not by default be exempt from it?

Should not one thread at least exist on this forum as a premise for organized and delegated research amongst those who do believe in conspiracy theory? It is a conspiracy theory site after all.

Religious forums wouldn't allow athiests (their version of psuedoskeptics) to prevent them from organizing a pilgramige or novena. Think about it.

I acknowledge that the OP initially asked for a collaboration. Do others feel that this is not achievable? Do others feel that a thread should exist for those who 'believe in' the chosen theory and wish to act on it rather than constantly being subdued by their counterpart skeptics?

I believe the biggest barrier at the moment for CT'ers is that they are not given an oppurtunity to 'agree to disagree' and continue thereafter.

Veni Vedi Vici

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

The Anthrax attacks of 01 are interesting. Ivins and Hatfill.

Timeline of the event here and a thread about it here.

I wonder are we ever going to agree on something worth researching. Heres hoping this thread doesnt fall to trolls. Good idea Veni. Whatever the outcome im sure it will be interesting.

Interesting attacks. I'm of the opinion however the theory should have national rammifications. I really think that relevance will sustain us as selectivley assigned researchers.

Mahatma coat

We've had that suggestion several times, most of the Actual Sceptics come out of the woodwork and are against the idea of a CT only zone, with good reason the real sceptics ie those who are willing to contribute to the debate are as you said essential to progressing things in a logical manner, many on the CT side view this as trying to crush the theory but its merely a nescessary litmus test by an objective observer.

the new charter is supposed to stamp out the other type of 'PseudoSkeptic' or Caustic Cynic as I would consider many of them, but many of these people are very slick at veiled insults and skirting around the rules to suit their own agendas, the mods need to be informed of these things so realisticly your only recourse on this is the making the natives restless rule, every time you see one of the pseudoskeptics playing their little game report them, eventually the message will sink in that

'we dont like their kind round here hombre'


that said if you overdo it expect that the Mods will probably decide that the easiest way to deal with all the reported posts is to ban the reporter :eek:

6th

Mahatma coat wrote: »

We've had that suggestion several times, most of the Actual Sceptics come out of the woodwork and are against the idea of a CT only zone, with good reason the real sceptics ie those who are willing to contribute to the debate are as you said essential to progressing things in a logical manner, many on the CT side view this as trying to crush the theory but its merely a nescessary litmus test by an objective observer.

the new charter is supposed to stamp out the other type of 'PseudoSkeptic' or Caustic Cynic as I would consider many of them, but many of these people are very slick at veiled insults and skirting around the rules to suit their own agendas, the mods need to be informed of these things so realisticly your only recourse on this is the making the natives restless rule, every time you see one of the pseudoskeptics playing their little game report them, eventually the message will sink in that

'we dont like their kind round here hombre'


that said if you overdo it expect that the Mods will probably decide that the easiest way to deal with all the reported posts is to ban the reporter :eek:

Seriously MC, you should know better.

If you want to discuss the forum or the forums moderation then there is this thread or the feedback forum.

Please stay on topic.

Veni Vedi Vici

Mahatma coat wrote: »

that said if you overdo it expect that the Mods will probably decide that the easiest way to deal with all the reported posts is to ban the reporter :eek:

I believe and hope that this is not the case.

I can understand the skeptics not finding my proposition of interest since it would involve they themselves participating as conpsiracy theorists.

What I fail to understand is the lack of interest from some of the more frequent CT'ers on this forum. Here exists a thread dedicated to potentially the very remedies that they deem so necessary and yet they're nowhere to be seen.

Why discuss something to death if you're never going to reach a conclusion? Why not shred the ties of debate by agreeing to disagree and begin working with those that share the same belief.

As great as this forum is it sways as much for the skeptics as the conspiracy theorists. I firmly believe that at least one thread should be allowed to unconditionally protect the interests of the very subject of the forum: the conspiracy theorist.

Again, I know this is a slight deviation from the OP but I feel its worthwhile discussing as an alternative solution (this all ties in with bonkeys reccomendation for step 1)

Kernel

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

What I fail to understand is the lack of interest from some of the more frequent CT'ers on this forum. Here exists a thread dedicated to potentially the very remedies that they deem so necessary and yet they're nowhere to be seen.

Why discuss something to death if you're never going to reach a conclusion? Why not shred the ties of debate by agreeing to disagree and begin working with those that share the same belief.

Your idea is sound, and one I've thought about many times. The reason I have not responded here is because I would not have the time to participate fully in such a discussion. Every source would have to be triple-checked, every claim investigated etc..

Unfortunately nowadays I can only do hit & runs on a forum, posting little nuggets of wisdom to enlighten people!

Penn

Kernel wrote: »

Your idea is sound, and one I've thought about many times. The reason I have not responded here is because I would not have the time to participate fully in such a discussion. Every source would have to be triple-checked, every claim investigated etc..

Unfortunately nowadays I can only do hit & runs on a forum, posting little nuggets of wisdom to enlighten people!

My reason too. Besides which, the best people to research a topic are the ones who are interested in it. I'm not interested in this one. Sorry, but good luck with it and I look forward to the results

Veni Vedi Vici

Kernel wrote: »

Every source would have to be triple-checked, every claim investigated etc..

Well, that is the objective of the collaboration after all, right? To be honest you just sound like you're burnt out from being hazed by some of the more aggressive skeptics.

Kernel wrote: »

Unfortunately nowadays I can only do hit & runs on a forum, posting little nuggets of wisdom to enlighten people!

Surely the fate of your fellow man is worth more than an odd hour here and there playing Resident Evil 5.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

Besides which, the best people to research a topic are the ones who are interested in it.

Not sure that I follow you there paddy.

Penn

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Not sure that I follow you there paddy.

What I mean is, researching a topic such as this would require a knowledge of chemistry and biology, in order to be able to fully understand and comprehend what it is you are reading and how different parts relate to each other. I don't have that knowledge. Not only that, but since it's not a subject that I am interested in, I wouldn't be able to give it the amount of research and attention it would need.

And I would rather spend my time doing something I enjoy (like playing Resident Evil 5) with the sparse amount of time I have. Work is for working. Home is for relaxing. Sorry

Veni Vedi Vici

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

What I mean is, researching a topic such as this would require a knowledge of chemistry and biology, in order to be able to fully understand and comprehend what it is you are reading and how different parts relate to each other. I don't have that knowledge. Not only that, but since it's not a subject that I am interested in, I wouldn't be able to give it the amount of research and attention it would need.

I presume you're referring to water fluoridation. Nothings being finalised yet. We're still at step 1 of the OP actually.

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

And I would rather spend my time doing something I enjoy (like playing Resident Evil 5) with the sparse amount of time I have. Work is for working. Home is for relaxing. Sorry

We all work. We all like to relax. There's no panic if you're simply not interested. I can respect that.

espinolman

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I propose a three step process to anyone who would like to participate:
2. Choose a conspiracy theory that both CT'ers and Skeptics agree on and consider worthwhile acting on.
STEP 1: Lets nail down a theory...

This conspiracy theories at present in this forum are only the tip of the iceberg , i can think of dozens of conspiracies which have not been discussed in this forum yet , well i can't find anything on them by searching this forum.

Veni Vedi Vici

espinolman wrote: »

This conspiracy theories at present in this forum are only the tip of the iceberg , i can think of dozens of conspiracies which have not been discussed in this forum yet , well i can't find anything on them by searching this forum.

It would be helpful if you could list some of them. They might be of interest to others. Just make sure that the name you give each theory will generate results from a search engine if others want to review them.

Penn

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I presume you're referring to water fluoridation. Nothings being finalised yet. We're still at step 1 of the OP actually.



We all work. We all like to relax. There's no panic if you're simply not interested. I can respect that.

Sorry, I thought it was definitely going to be water fluoridation with the way Step 1 had a line through it, I thought that meant that stage was completed.

If its a topic I'm interested in, I might help. I might not. I'm just not going to commit to anything yet

Veni Vedi Vici

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

If its a topic I'm interested in, I might help. I might not. I'm just not going to commit to anything yet

It's going to be like trying to get blood out of a turnip with you, isn't it? I'm just teasing but it would be more helpful if you were willing to suggest theories that are of interest you rather than leaving it my less than uncanny guesswork abilities.

This wouldn't be viewed as a commitment though it might assist us in finding a theory that suits the collaboration.

Penn

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

It's going to be like trying to get blood out of a turnip with you, isn't it? I'm just teasing but it would be more helpful if you were willing to suggest theories that are of interest you rather than leaving it my less than uncanny guesswork abilities.

This wouldn't be viewed as a commitment though it might assist us in finding a theory that suits the collaboration.

Honestly I have no idea. If anything it should be a small theory, one that has rarely been discussed here. Otherwise, people will have already formed their own decisions and will be biased. But as for what that theory is, I haven't the foggiest. I rarely watch the news or read newspapers, and only started reading these boards a few months ago

Veni Vedi Vici

Hmm. I didn't really consider working a new theory. What do the rest of you think? Would a new theory (not previously discussed) be of more merit than an old theory (already discussed) or vice versa?

espinolman

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

It would be helpful if you could list some of them. They might be of interest to others. Just make sure that the name you give each theory will generate results from a search engine if others want to review them.

- Is it illegal for herbalists to cure cancer in the U.S. ?
- The global Genetically modified organism conspiracy ?
- Is AIDs a bio-weapon ?
- MK-ULTRA?
- CIA mind controlled sex slaves ?
- Peak oil is a lie ?
- The technology for an ever-lasting light bulb is supressed by vested interests ?
- Soya is added to food to slow down sperm ?
- Was the 2004 southeast asia tsunami caused by a thermonuclear bomb planted under the ocean ?

Veni Vedi Vici

espinolman wrote: »

- Is it illegal for herbalists to cure cancer in the U.S. ?
- The global Genetically modified organism conspiracy ?
- Is AIDs a bio-weapon ?
- MK-ULTRA?
- CIA mind controlled sex slaves ?
- Peak oil is a lie ?
- The technology for an ever-lasting light bulb is supressed by vested interests ?
- Soya is added to food to slow down sperm ?
- Was the 2004 southeast asia tsunami caused by a thermonuclear bomb planted under the ocean ?

I like. Which of these do you think would be more applicable on a national front? (i.e. whats relevant to Ireland?)

espinolman

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I like. Which of these do you think would be more applicable on a national front? (i.e. whats relevant to Ireland?)

Well the first one about herbalism , i have heard things from herbalists here in Ireand about how herbalism is suppressed here .
And the one about soya products slowing down sperm i heard from a dietician in Ireland .

jonbravo

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

It's going to be like trying to get blood out of a turnip with you, isn't it? I'm just teasing but it would be more helpful if you were willing to suggest theories that are of interest you rather than leaving it my less than uncanny guesswork abilities.

This wouldn't be viewed as a commitment though it might assist us in finding a theory that suits the collaboration.

why not start an introduction thread to all CTers and skeptics interested or add a poll,before the collaboration... find out there fields of interest,then you sort out the topic for the collaboration!?

Nick_oliveri

The poll is the answer. Maybe have a mod check what users (known skeptics and CT'ers) voted and if there was interest on both sides. Or just have a public vote... whatever, i dont care.

Kernel

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Well, that is the objective of the collaboration after all, right? To be honest you just sound like you're burnt out from being hazed by some of the more aggressive skeptics.

I am perhaps a little burnt out, but not just from this forum I assure you. As I've said the objective is sound, and it's a good idea if it was tightly reigned in. Inevitably there will be squabbling. There will be blood, oh yes, there will be blood (what did you think of that movie?).

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Surely the fate of your fellow man is worth more than an odd hour here and there playing Resident Evil 5.

It's draining.. mentally. Playing Resident Evil 5 is not! As for the fate of my fellow man, raises an interesting question in my mind as to whether I care or not. Do you care about the masses, or do you believe they are reaping as they sow? Do you believe in the natural order of the intellectually superior manipulating and controlling the profane as they have always done anyways?

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

CT'ists and Skeptics .... I am both, but when you refer to skeptics in this context I believe you refer to the pseudo-skeptics, in which case you won't be successful with a collaboration since these people by definition are incapable or unwilling to be unbiased when looking towards the subject. Simply put, they think all 'conspiracy bunk' is bollocks and want to refute and debunk all of them. Even the ones that may turn out to be true.

I have to say Kernel it somewhat irks me the way you use the term pseudo-sceptic. What passes for proof on this forum, from most people, more often that not wouldn't last five minutes in a court or law. I personally look carefully at everything people say in there that I take an interest in. Sure I doubt that these huge conspiracy's are likely given the number of people who'd need to be involved but I've thought that through carefully too.

Don't trust mainstream media except where is suits the conspiracy. Don't believe Fox News as they're so one sided but believe internet videos from random strangers which are even more one sided. And worse then believe Fox news when it suits. I watched a good chuck of 911 Ripple Effect and sweet mother of god there's not one counterpoint to information which is very much in dispute.

It's not great when someone makes any of us look foolish online by using logic and evidence to show in detail we're wrong, it a crap feeling, it really is. But that doesn't change the fact we were wrong. Really I see so many people in here believing what they want to believe before they've seen anything approaching evidence. I mean Alex Jones said it so it must be true, he never lies... yeah right.

There's so much talk about governments and corporations being 'evil' and doing 'evil' things. But these governments and corporations are made up of individual people. many many individual people. There's no way you can keep that many people from spilling the beans. Look how many times governments and corporations have been ratted out by their own, the list is long. But for example in 911 we're expected to believe after more than seven years no one has spilled the beans, in the mass murder of their own people. Really how low an opinion of individual people do you have to have to accept this?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

I have to say Kernel it somewhat irks me the way you use the term pseudo-sceptic. What passes for proof on this forum, from most people, more often that not wouldn't last five minutes in a court or law. I personally look carefully at everything people say in there that I take an interest in. Sure I doubt that these huge conspiracy's are likely given the number of people who'd need to be involved but I've thought that through carefully too.

There's no intention to annoy anyone by using the term. I draw a distinction between a skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic. Yeah, I know that there are bad arguments and lack of proof (and wild claims) abounding here, but not always. However, the pseudo-skeptic is someone who believes that all conspiracy theories are bunk. That's what irks me.

meglome wrote: »

Don't trust mainstream media except where is suits the conspiracy. Don't believe Fox News as they're so one sided but believe internet videos from random strangers which are even more one sided. And worse then believe Fox news when it suits. I watched a good chuck of 911 Ripple Effect and sweet mother of god there's not one counterpoint to information which is very much in dispute.

We're all guilty of bias. Some don't trust mainstream media, some only trust mainstream media. To me, it's important to question the NIST report or the Warren Commission, to others, those reports are gospel. I think it's healthier to question, personally. Propoganda is a powerful and subtle tool, insidious by nature. By questioning at least we force a more complex form of it.

meglome wrote: »

It's not great when someone makes any of us look foolish online by using logic and evidence to show in detail we're wrong, it a crap feeling, it really is. But that doesn't change the fact we were wrong. Really I see so many people in here believing what they want to believe before they've seen anything approaching evidence. I mean Alex Jones said it so it must be true, he never lies... yeah right.

When Alex Jones, or any theorist puts forward a claim, it usually has a grain of truth in it, or it may be impossible to disprove. That's how the meme lives and spreads. Outlandish theories which have been disproven outright seldom live very long. An example of me being close to being proved wrong would have been on the thimerosol debate relating to vaccinations. In the face of the evidence presented, and follow-up research, I couldn't prove or disprove the theory one way or the other - although it did lean towards the probability that the theory was incorrect. In the end it came down to belief. Believe the government backed studies? What held more weight for me were the more independent studies carried out in countries which didn't use the preservative. Ultimately, I'm still undecided, although the exercise helped me learn a lot more about the subject.

meglome wrote: »

There's so much talk about governments and corporations being 'evil' and doing 'evil' things. But these governments and corporations are made up of individual people. many many individual people. There's no way you can keep that many people from spilling the beans. Look how many times governments and corporations have been ratted out by their own, the list is long. But for example in 911 we're expected to believe after more than seven years no one has spilled the beans, in the mass murder of their own people. Really how low an opinion of individual people do you have to have to accept this?

Complex systems can be put in place to ensure the covert operations will never come to light. You need to accept that the truth does not always come out in the end (unfortunately). Even when people make deathbed confessions or spill the beans, such as with JFK or Roswell, people still disregard the information - or disinformation systems are brought to bear in order to discredit and dismantle the value/damage of the leak. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that due to compartmentalisation and sophisticated covert operations only a handful of people knew about it. Those handful of people will never speak of it, since it would result in their imprisonment or even execution. To kill 2,000 is nothing, when men have killed millions to further their ideology.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

There's no intention to annoy anyone by using the term. I draw a distinction between a skeptic and a pseudo-skeptic. Yeah, I know that there are bad arguments and lack of proof (and wild claims) abounding here, but not always. However, the pseudo-skeptic is someone who believes that all conspiracy theories are bunk. That's what irks me.

He he he fair enough. As I said before I think that given the numbers that need to be involved in many of these conspiracies then it's doubtful no one would spill the beans. Whistle-blowers have ratted out so many things and they weren't mysteriously killed afterwards or before. It's just balance of probabilities and the longer it goes on for the less likely it is again (certainly up to say 30 years later as people will be dying off naturally.) You can't have it both ways, using the whistle-blowers as evidence of conspiracy and then not accepting the idea that there would be whistle-blowers if enough people are involved.

Kernel wrote: »

We're all guilty of bias. Some don't trust mainstream media, some only trust mainstream media. To me, it's important to question the NIST report or the Warren Commission, to others, those reports are gospel. I think it's healthier to question, personally. Propoganda is a powerful and subtle tool, insidious by nature. By questioning at least we force a more complex form of it.

True we are all guilty of bias. As I said above these huge conspiracies seem unlikely to me. It much more likely that small groups of people are sitting around plotting and we haven't discovered it yet. Something like the British airlines getting caught price fixing a couple of years ago on transatlantic routes.

It's very important to question but unfortunately there seems to be a majority of people in here who except the CT before they question, if they question at all. One day it's believe my CT as I have a link from the mainstream media. The next day it's never believe the mainstream media by the same person.

Alex Jones, a man who can be shown to have lied, who can be shown to have reported things as fact without checking at all, a man who is literally selling the conspiracy. This same Alex Jones has almost everything he says believed by many people in here. When someone can be shown to be even less trustworthy than the hated government he's supposedly fighting against you really have to wonder. If people in here were seriously questioning then he'd be the first person to question unless of course we assume that the government is always bad and he is always good. Is that what we're assuming?

Kernel wrote: »

When Alex Jones, or any theorist puts forward a claim, it usually has a grain of truth in it, or it may be impossible to disprove. That's how the meme lives and spreads. Outlandish theories which have been disproven outright seldom live very long. An example of me being close to being proved wrong would have been on the thimerosol debate relating to vaccinations. In the face of the evidence presented, and follow-up research, I couldn't prove or disprove the theory one way or the other - although it did lean towards the probability that the theory was incorrect. In the end it came down to belief. Believe the government backed studies? What held more weight for me were the more independent studies carried out in countries which didn't use the preservative. Ultimately, I'm still undecided, although the exercise helped me learn a lot more about the subject.

This is where we differ in a way. The book I'm reading right now isn't fact but on some levels it could be. The fact it's relatively believable makes it a better read, but it's still fiction. You say that outlandish CT's don't last very long but again I'd have to disagree, there seems to be a line of people ready to believe in almost anything. And again this government you refer to isn't actually a faceless monster, it is made up of individuals. So if the government studies are not true then the government needed to make perhaps numerous diverse individuals lie.

Kernel wrote: »

Complex systems can be put in place to ensure the covert operations will never come to light. You need to accept that the truth does not always come out in the end (unfortunately). Even when people make deathbed confessions or spill the beans, such as with JFK or Roswell, people still disregard the information - or disinformation systems are brought to bear in order to discredit and dismantle the value/damage of the leak. I believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and that due to compartmentalisation and sophisticated covert operations only a handful of people knew about it. Those handful of people will never speak of it, since it would result in their imprisonment or even execution. To kill 2,000 is nothing, when men have killed millions to further their ideology.

But complex systems will still need numerous people to run them. If the US wanted to invade Iraq they really didn't need to kill all those people on 911. If the US government were involved a much smaller operation would be far more likely to succeed without anyone speaking out. Sorry Kernel but I think it's ridiculous to say that only a small number of people would need to be involved in covering up 911. As I said above whistle-blowers appear all the time, they are used to back up conspiracies so why aren't they all dead or in prison?

You take it that JFK and Roswell are conspiracies I don't. For Roswell I simply don't know. And the latest JFK computer simulation doesn't show a second shooter on the grassy knoll, it pretty much fits the official version. People have indeed killed way more people that 2,000 but how many of these mass killings did we not find out about? How many do we not know a lot of the people who were directly involved? You see we do know mostly who, what, where. So how come with 911 we can't find any evidence the US were directly involved after seven years?