How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

Dave!

Hey folks,

Just saw that Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine) wrote a new article for Scientific American on this subject. I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but some of ye might be interested in it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director

This past September 23 a Canadian 9/11 “truther” confronted me after a talk I gave at the University of Lethbridge. He turned out to be a professor there who had one of his students filming the “confrontation.” By early the next morning the video was online, complete with music, graphics, cutaways and edits apparently intended to make me appear deceptive (search YouTube for “Michael Shermer, Anthony J. Hall”). “You, sir, are not skeptical on that subject—you are gullible,” Hall raged. “We can see that the official conspiracy theory is discredited.... It is very clear that the official story is a disgrace, and people who go along with it like you and who mix it in with this whole Martian/alien thing is discrediting and a shame and a disgrace to the economy and to the university” [sic]. Hall teaches globalization studies and believes that 9/11 is just one in a long line of conspiratorial actions by those in power to suppress liberties and control the world.

Conspiracy theories are a dollar a dozen. While in Calgary on that same trip, I met a politician who told me that he believes the fluoridation of water is the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the public. Others have regaled me for hours with their breathless tales of who really killed JFK, RFK, MLK, Jr., Jimmy Hoffa and Princess Diana, along with the nefarious goings on of the Federal Reserve, the New World Order, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Yale University’s secret society Skull and Bones, the Knights Templar, the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Learned Elders of Zion. It would take Madison Square Garden to hold them all for a world-domination meeting.

Nevertheless, we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.
The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.
The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.
The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.
The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.
The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.
The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.
The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.
The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns.

What do we think? I'll post my own thoughts when I get a chance

Yitzhak Rabin

For anyone who is interested, here is the video that Shermer mentions in that article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJftglWFUBM

mawdz

Just to calrify beacause afer your post im unsure:

This is the Conspiracy Theory Froum?
Conspiracys are basically an widely unaccpeted and debateable expelnation for an occurance, an event, a group etc...?
That when something describe as theory it means that it was neither proven true nor false.(usually not possible to do either or just currently unexplored areas that can prove it either)

Basically you can't have a true of false (good or bad)conspiracy theory because if you do then the name changes from conspiracy theory to FACT! Every conspiracy theory is a theory, some may be wacky, some may be made up, some maybe true but the truth not revealed but untill proven otherwise it remains just a Conpiracy thoery .

I recently heard of a Conspiracy theory that this thread does not exist as it is just a glitch in all human minds which visit boards. Prove me right or wrong?

Brown Bomber

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

A lot of these topics can fit into either forum. I don't think the OP was particularly polemic in his questions.

Also, in the video I posted the author makes a reasonable case that Michael Shermer is dishonest, and at the end implies he could be a paid for CIA agent. There is definitely grounds for a conspiracy discussion with this topic.

firefly08

Shouldn't this be in the Irish Skeptics forum?

I'm not so sure.

Brown Bomber

firefly08 wrote: »

I'm not so sure.

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021377 posts an sceptical article written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of Skeptic magazine) about a lecture he has given to his sceptical audience about how to be a better skeptic.

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

A lot of these topics can fit into either forum. I don't think the OP was particularly polemic in his questions.

Your the boss.

yekahs wrote: »

Also, in the video I posted the author makes a reasonable case that Michael Shermer is dishonest, and at the end implies he could be a paid for CIA agent. There is definitely grounds for a conspiracy discussion with this topic.

I vaguely remember this from a month or two ago. Some Professor with a beard and an younger English sidekick challenged Shermen. Apparently there was some question over Shermens credentials, he was conflating 9-11 "truth" with holocaust denial and apparently he was "debunking" David Ray Griffins books but couldn't actually name any of them. Or something like that.

Whether that Prof. and friend were right or not it takes balls to do what they did. I respect them for that.

Storm in a teacup really imo. It's not as if Shermen is actually important enough to matter what he says beyond his followers of the materialism cult.

ha. above should be Shermer

Dave!

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021377 posts an sceptical article written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of Skeptic magazine) about a lecture he has given to his sceptical audience about how to be a better skeptic.

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

True I'd consider myself a skeptic, but I was posting the article as I was interested in creating a discussion on what might qualify as a 'legitimate' conspiracy theory. Surely even the frequenters of this forum believe that there exists a spectrum on which you might be able to 'grade' conspiracy theories? Michael Shermer puts forth some points by which you might be able to distinguish between them, so I was looking for responses to these.

For a change, I wasn't particularly keen on ridiculing anybody by posting this -- as I said, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet (even though it's short!)

Torakx

I read the part you quoted in the op and didnt get the feeling he was making much sense other than stating some half truths that could apply truly to one situation and not to another of a similar type.

The theorist/skeptic is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups/conspiracy theories, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

I fixed that one for him.Its called human nature.And would also add that a left brain dominant thinker might possibly be more likely to be unable to change their view from what they first learned than a right brain thinker.
I consider most of the hardcore skeptics to be left brain dominant or neurotic and for the other end of the scale on the ct creaters to be right brain dominant for the most part or neurotic.I dont think its 100% of the time.But with the extremes i believe most likely.

The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Didnt Hitler want to dominate the world?
Are we experiencing a political call out for a global government/political system/economy? YES

Some of the stuff there is true also,but it seems to me he decided to add his own pieces to blow it out of proportion or cause more of a rukus than anything else.I didnt read the link, but if its like that quote posted i dont think i need to read further.Especially after seeing his video where he claims cter's for the most part think people were taken out of the 9/11 planes and gassed somewhere else...LOL?
He looks to be rocking the boat for attention.

For what its worth i find the best way for me to judge if a CT is possibly more true than not is to take a large step back and see who is profiting.If something happens and some guy gains from it and there is circumstantial evidence he was involved i would be likely to wonder if something was up.I dont blame anyone for falling on the wrong side of the truth as with any conspiracy its ussually kept underwraps for the most part so hard to confirm.
Stepping back, Israel and america gained quite alot from those two planes crashing into those twin towers.What exaclty did the middle east gain apart from being bombed and leeched dry?Rebuilding contracts? probably not even that.Or am i missing something huge? Honestly not being sarcastic.I gave up on 9/11 research long ago tbh.

AnthonyHall

I am the bearded professor, Anthony J. Hall, who criticized Michael Shermer for his very unscientific and ill-supported presentation, "Why People Believe Weird Things." The You Tube given above in this discussion is not the one to which Shermer refers in his Scientific American hit job. Part one of our two-part coverage is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGXm__kqFzQ

In the You Tube Shermer refers to in SA I describe him as "a disgrace to the academy." Shermer purposely misquotes me to say, I said he is a disgrace to the economy. Disinformation! Check it for yourself. The man is indeed a disgrace to the academy, including my school, the University of Lethbridge, who paid him to perform his anti-skeptical song and dance. Check out his agent, Wolfman Productions.

Here is my report of Michael Shermer's misrepresentation of his credentials. After I saw the fraud perform I concluded this man probably does not work with the framework of peered-reviewed scholarship in universities.

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october282010/scholarship-scams-ah.php

I am attempting to contact Fed Guterl at Scientific American to seek the right of reply. His cell phone in NY is [snip] So far he has not returned my calls.

sponsoredwalk

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP posts an sceptical article (about consiracy theories)
written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of
Skeptic magazine) about a lecturehe has given to his sceptical audience
(focusing on the consiracy theories that followed this lecture) about
how to be a better skeptic (with regard to consiracy theories).

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

Think it needed to be done :pac:

I'll just say, anthropologists & sociologists have evidence for their claims
which is accepted in the mainstream while 911 evidence isn't so your
students video equating these 3 examples as if they are on a par is,
wait for it, "Disinformation!".
I think it's really childish for you to say:

AnthonyHall wrote: »

In the You Tube Shermer refers to in SA I describe him as "a disgrace to the academy." Shermer purposely misquotes me to say, I said he is a disgrace to the economy. Disinformation! Check it for yourself. The man is indeed a disgrace to the academy, including my school, the University of Lethbridge, who paid him to perform his anti-skeptical song and dance.

because we can all just listen to the video ourselves to see that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5NRfvAMk2c

You kind of stuttered and moved around 05:06 when you said
economy/academy. Anyone can hear how this could be misheard but
you want to go off spouting "Disinformation!" as if it is purposefully done.
Lets analyse the psychology here, even if Shermer purposely misquoted
that single word, that is barely audible when you actually listen to the way you
said it, no matter what word he picked they both neither act to your
detriment nor better his position seeing as both words convey the same
detrimental message. So I think it's not a good start to see you going
nuts over a single word that could understandably be misquoted.

I've just got to ask because I've seen many videos of people coming from
the 911 movement going up to such people as Michael Moore, Amy
Goodman etc... & scolding them with a diatribe on this topic. You do
realise what you are doing, that you are scolding someone for having
an opinion on a topic that is different that yours? You do realise that
in no other area of life is this behaviour permitted yet when it's 911
primal urges are somehow justified? Whether or not your message
is correct there's no excuse for shouting insults at someone, from the
crowd, who is giving a public lecture. My question is why you think it's
okay to insult Shermer for giving his opinion on people promulgating
theories which he finds disagreeable yet why is it when someone who
believes in flat earth theories gets up & insults a physicist giving a lecture
it's not okay? Note: I've given you the benefit of the doubt in thinking
you'd disagree with this flat earth person screaming at a lecturer, if
you think that is alright then I'll rephraze my example, hopefully you
see the analogy I'm trying to make & it's merely an example of what
I've already written.

As for 911 itself, it is a consiracy theory in that the claim is that there
was a conspiracy on behalf of the government to either attack or allow
the attack on it's own population for it's own motives. The evidence
is not conclusive in any direction & while a serious inquest into
what happened has not been done there is no justification for criticizing
those who are critical of a theory without conclusive evidence.

I chose not to elaborate my own opinion that much of the available
evidence, incomplete and imperfect as it may be at this time, points
towards former Vice-President Richard Cheney as suspect number one
when it comes to the lies and crimes of 9/11.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october282010/scholarship-scams-ah.php

Notice at the end of that link there is a clarification of Shermer's
credentials @ GCU, but I mean what good is evidence of this from
your own Dean of Arts when you can come on here & continue to
claim his credentials are suspect without evidence to support this?

Torakx

I can understand people being vehement even about defending their point of view regarding 9/11 as something like 3k people died and the ones involved many feel haven't been brought to justice be they from the middle east somewhere or the west somewhere.
I guess everyone in the end does have a right to an opinion,but can also be an ass when they are holding that opinion for gain instead of truth.
Its hard to tell who is wearing the sheeps clothing.

AnthonyHall

OK. Thanks for the commentary. I intervened in the question and answer period, not during the body of his presentation. Michael Shermer had a microphone. You'll notice there was no microphone for the audience. You'll notice it was a very big room. And you'll notice Michael Shermer stopped me in mid-sentence by shouting out, "Well then, who did it?" I saw his interruption as a trap, as a diversion from where I was headed with my intervention. I tried not to allow myself to be put off message. I had to speak loudly to be heard without a PA system in the big lecture hall. Was I able to contain the emotion of indignation. Not entirely

My major point had to do with Michael Shermer being advertised as a adjunct professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University. Claremont is the school of Professor David Ray Griffin. Professor Griffin has written 37 books, the last ten of which deal with various aspects of 9/11. Prof. Griffin's Pearl Harbour Revisited was one of the picks of Publisher's Weekly, an important US publication. My point was that Mr. Shermer showed no evidence of having read his colleague's work. He was speaking on subjects without detailed knowledge of the relevant academic literature.

Each of Prof. Griffin's books deal with a variety of subjects relative to 9/11. His texts are meticulously documented. They are written in a manner combing careful scholarship with genuine skepticism. I am not saying that I agree with every point 100% but generally speaking Prof. Griffin's oeuvre does embody the state of the art of 9/11 Studies. Many other academics have addressed various aspects of 9/11 Studies as well. Can one find examples of wild and illogical speculation in the huge mass of literature concerning 9/11? Of course. But that does not discredit the solid scholarship on the subject like that of Prof. Griffin.

In his presentation Shermer did not engage any of the relevant evidence contained in a large body of relevant scholarship. Instead he makes vast generalizations that group together thousands of researchers dealing with a vast array of topics as some invented category he labels as "conspiracy theorists." To be branded with this label is like being branded with the label dummy or idiot or worse.

In amongst the mix of his so-called "conspiracy theories" Shermer throws in the subject of Holocaust Denial. In Shermer's world, therefore, to ask questions about what did or did not happen on 9/11 is the equivalent of denying one of history's most notorious and reprehensible genocidal crimes. That is hugely wrong and offensive. That makes no sense. In my view, Shermer's equation of say Prof. Griffin with Holocaust Denial is a travesty. Shermer trades viciously in a particularly crude genre of hate speech calculated to generate to animosity towards artificially linked categories of people who exist as a group only in Shermer's imagination.

The Scientific American article that began this discussion is another travesty. For me the best way to identify false interpretations of power's workings (what Shermer would refer to as false "conspiracy theories') is to test the evidence, analysis and conclusions with independent research. Check references. Identify the most important primary and secondary sources? Consider the merits of alternative interpretations. What Shermer proposes instead is some kind of lazy man's formula so one doesn't have to go to the trouble of doing actual scholarship, actual research on the nitty grittyy of the subject at hand. That lazy man's approach is Shermer's approach. Check out the web site of his agent Wolfman Productions.

The meme, "conspiracy theorist," has been twisted and abused by the anti-skeptic Shermer to dismiss and demean en masse those with an interest in exploring the darker side of power's workings. Various efforts along these lines might be good, bad or indifferent but they need to be considered on a theorist by theorist, case by case, point by point, footnote by footnote basis. Rather than doing the hard work, with due respect for every individual and every specific argument being considered, Shermer's approach is to paint vast arrays of humanity with the same brush. That is not scholarship. That is hate talk.

This form of generalizing about detailed and complex matters is indeed a disgrace to the academy. Since I have devoted my life and career to work in the academy, I don't take kindly to seeing this important seat of knowledge degraded by Michael Shermer, who has only the most tenuous of claims to be employed by a US university.

As for my work on 9/11, it can be consulted in my new peer-reviewed book, Earth into Property, published by McGill-Queen's University Press. Last week Earth into Property was included among The Independent's (UK) Christmas picks for best books of 2010.
- Show quoted text -

meglome

Just thought I'd scan through the list.

• Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

Rampant in the CT world. Look at any 911 video and see just how many events are mentioned without any information on exactly how they are connected.

• The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

Well seems quite reasonable to believe that people are not superhuman.

• The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Given that governments are poor at running pretty much everything they get involved in why would a large CT be any different.

• Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

In the film Layer Cake, Colm Meaney's characters tells Daniel Craig's character that if you ever kill anyone never tell another living soul (or words to that effect). If one person is told it increases the chance of it being discovered by 100%. When you're looking at hundreds or thousands of people it's incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out.

• The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Powerful people are unlikely to sit around a room and all agree.

• The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Seems reasonable.

• The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

Seems reasonable.

• The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

Again reasonable.

• The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

Governments can be very dishonest but the belief that governments = bad/lying and truthers = good/truthful has always bothered me. Anyone can lie, for many difference reasons.

• The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

Given how selective, dare I say dishonest, CT sites can be it's a fair point.



Personally I don't doubt for a second that there are conspiracy's going on right now. However way too many of the proposed CT's would need literally many hundreds of people to be involved. By default it becomes incredibly unlikely it wouldn't get out. So unlikely it just couldn't have happen that way.

meglome

Torakx wrote: »

I fixed that one for him.Its called human nature.And would also add that a left brain dominant thinker might possibly be more likely to be unable to change their view from what they first learned than a right brain thinker.
I consider most of the hardcore skeptics to be left brain dominant or neurotic and for the other end of the scale on the ct creaters to be right brain dominant for the most part or neurotic.I dont think its 100% of the time.But with the extremes i believe most likely.

I grew up in a working class area of Dublin. In that area it was common for people to make up stories, to slag others off for any reason, to exaggerate. So it gave me a healthy scepticism and a good bullshít filter. If I didn't have those things growing up would have been much less fun. I have been told some awful crap in my life, open-mindedness isn't just swallowing it, it's being able to filter it (see sig). For all of that I'm very happy to change my view, as anyone who knows me will tell you. But as we used to say "Don't píss on me and tell me it's raining".

Torakx wrote: »

Didnt Hitler want to dominate the world?
Are we experiencing a political call out for a global government/political system/economy? YES

Hitler certainly did, but everyone knew he was, it was very blatant. Sure they hid their early intentions but that didn't last long. Even the concentration camps were known about early in the war.
Unfortunately the phrase 'one world government' existed before this current crises and means very different things to politicians and CT'ers.

Torakx wrote: »

Some of the stuff there is true also,but it seems to me he decided to add his own pieces to blow it out of proportion or cause more of a rukus than anything else.I didnt read the link, but if its like that quote posted i dont think i need to read further.Especially after seeing his video where he claims cter's for the most part think people were taken out of the 9/11 planes and gassed somewhere else...LOL?
He looks to be rocking the boat for attention.

Sorry but many people that post in here don't believe some or all of the planes were real. It comes up all the time.

Torakx wrote: »

For what its worth i find the best way for me to judge if a CT is possibly more true than not is to take a large step back and see who is profiting.If something happens and some guy gains from it and there is circumstantial evidence he was involved i would be likely to wonder if something was up.I dont blame anyone for falling on the wrong side of the truth as with any conspiracy its ussually kept underwraps for the most part so hard to confirm.
Stepping back, Israel and america gained quite alot from those two planes crashing into those twin towers.What exaclty did the middle east gain apart from being bombed and leeched dry?Rebuilding contracts? probably not even that.Or am i missing something huge? Honestly not being sarcastic.I gave up on 9/11 research long ago tbh.

In any random situation someone will profit. Even in this global recession some people bet that it would happen and won. There are always winners and always losers. So if you're using that to base the truth of something on I'd think again. Who exactly profited from 911?
What exactly did Israel and American gain from these attacks?

alastair

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The meme, "conspiracy theorist," has been twisted and abused by the anti-skeptic Shermer to dismiss and demean en masse those with an interest in exploring the darker side of power's workings. Various efforts along these lines might be good, bad or indifferent but they need to be considered on a theorist by theorist, case by case, point by point, footnote by footnote basis. Rather than doing the hard work, with due respect for every individual and every specific argument being considered, Shermer's approach is to paint vast arrays of humanity with the same brush. That is not scholarship. That is hate talk.

Nonsense. Cast your eyes over the range of topics thrown up by the self-selecting goup that comprise 'CT'ers' in this forum. The alien and fluoridation obsessives are clear fellow travelers to the 'Truthers'. Shermer is right to point that the clear consensus amongst the various experts in the various fields related to the events of 911 support the 'official' narrative. The lazy avoidance of an over-riding theory to frame piecemeal (supposed) evidential 'anomalies' and single-interest CT groups speaks loudly as to the validity of the 'Truther' movement.

And yes - you've clearly been caught out in your misrepresentations by own video. But that's stock in trade for the Truther game, so no surprise there.

alastair

meglome wrote: »

What exactly did Israel and American gain from these attacks?

Anyone with a dispassionate perspective can see that Israel gained nothing. A few defensive missiles that may or may not work, no obvious advantage in their conflict with Hamas, Hezbollah, or the relationship with the PA. The best you could claim would be a secondary benefit for their indigenous security or technology industries, but no more than any other national player in that game.

The US? Clearly far more losses than gains. The only real American beneficiaries are those military and security contractors who were doing pretty well beforehand in any case. Pretty tepid stuff for a conspiracy.

Torakx

To meglome et al,
Well i speak in generalisations for the most part.Its a habit i just cant shake lol
For example i consider some traits to be associated with a majority of use with one side of the brain or the other.
You might appear to me to be very left brain dominant from your posting style.That doesnt mean you definetly write with your right hand(or its your dominant hand for example) but i think it makes it more likely than not.It just depends on your enviornment and how you choose to think as your brain grows amonst other things.
With that said it doesnt mean either that if you were a "lefty" you would automatically reject all new ideas or a "righty" and automatically are open to all ideas.People use different sides for different things and choose each side i believe based on many things as they mature.
I do agree to be skeptical is healthy, but i believe in being skeptical of everything even my own views and reality.
I might say i believe or feel or think that a CT is the case but i take it as granted that people understand i dont fully accept anything.
When i speak of something i have to immerse myself in it visually in my head and it leads me to write as if i am a part of it sometimes.
I express myself better through art than writng, hence the massive walls of text i am always posting to explain something that should be quite simple to put down in words.
The fact you took it upon yourself to presume i ment you or from your response it sounds like you thought i ment everyone who is left side dominant,which i dont i promise.I realise saying neurotic might get other people offended too but for me it is just as the word means nothing more and i am neurotic in my own ways.
So no offence ment to anyone else its just how i see the world.

I really do think though that a large portion of people who find it easy to get along in life in the west are dominant left thinkers and find it easier in general to accept the reality posed to them.
The opposite goes for right side dominants in general i feel.
Its dependant on many things but when you view politics,the brain,conspiracy theories it appears to me everything is being either naturally or artificially seperated to left and right.Its possible this is just to do with how the brain works or i am seeing patterns

To keep on topic, how to tell the difference between a true ct and a false,with regarding left and right brain dominance aswell.
Maybe first find out which side i am dominant and then work on utilizing the other side for balance.I need to be more analytical and less intuitive i know.But its hard to change our way of thinking and i think this is at the core of ct's and mainstream life.
We grow up with a certain view and it becomes part of us.Its been said that alot of left side dominant thinkers have trouble shifting from an idea once they are settled with it(but that depends on which part of the brain is delaing wth the changing of ideas and wether we utilize that more with the left or right side maybe).And rights are always seeking new ideas or creating new ones.
Of course a right might also be very good at maths and become a great scientist too.A left can be good at art and draw with the right hand or left.
But again i take this as accepted and hope people see the bgger picture of what im saying(which again is a right side trait i think).

The guy addressing the audience as a skeptic on 9/11 ct's is approaching it from as i see it a strong left side view.The others a strong right side view as they will seek the alternative.The balanced and possibly real situation i believe lies down the middle and thats where i aim to go more so these days with everything.
Im not going to think to reply to the rest as i doubt people will want to read this much ive written let alone three times more haha.

Brown Bomber

Dave! wrote: »

True I'd consider myself a skeptic, but I was posting the article as I was interested in creating a discussion on what might qualify as a 'legitimate' conspiracy theory. Surely even the frequenters of this forum believe that there exists a spectrum on which you might be able to 'grade' conspiracy theories? Michael Shermer puts forth some points by which you might be able to distinguish between them, so I was looking for responses to these.

For a change, I wasn't particularly keen on ridiculing anybody by posting this -- as I said, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet (even though it's short!)

Fair enough. I wasn't having a go at you anyway. Skeptic wasn't meant to be taken derogatorily, honest. All I was saying was that it's not in the appropriate forum; and it's not. Which shouldn't be a problem if people didn't use it as a stick to beat others users of the forum which they have done already.

sponsoredwalk

First off I understand you hadn't got a microphone & understand that you
had to speak a bit louder. I also understand that you have every right to
ask questions about Shermers grasp of the literature he is claiming to
have read. I do recognise that you are correct to ask a question & tell
Shermer you think he's wrong for dismissing work on 911. I can even
understand why you insulted him in your question & told him he was a
fool for equating 911 work with holocaust deniers.

I don't understand why you had to go shouting from the crowd more than
once @ him which is why everyone in the crowd continually turned &
gave you those looks (watch the video). I don't understand why you had
to shout from your seat more than once after you'd asked your question.
If you watch the video you'll see this is the reason why he threatened
to eject you & I think you'll see that were we talking about a flat
earth advocate doing the same thing to a physicist lecturing about
astronomy or something we'd all be justifiably critical.

The problem with what you've done is that it's literally archetypal of the
classic crank attacking people @ their own shows with claims about 911.
I don't mean to suggest you are but your actions at the show, and after,
are just exemplar of this. Lets be serious here, you are insulting &
going after someone who, in their own opinion & their personal research,
has come to a conclusion that is different to yours & holds a different
opinion. This is his crime, having a different opinion based on his own
look at the evidence. Now, it doesn't matter how well his research into
this topic was, going after Shermer & exposing him for a fraud, not saying
he is btw, is going to do nothing for the credibility of 911 claims. All it
shows is that you've wasted a hell of a lot of time focusing on someone
who is telling the world that he doesn't believe in a conspiracy theory
for which no conclusive evidence has been presented. The only honest
way to show Shermer was wrong would be to actually vindicate your
claims about 911 to the world.

Also, lets take another look at the psychology of this situation. When
Shermer asked you who caused 911 you seen it as a trap & didn't take
the bait you assumed he'd set with that question. The reason you
didn't do this, among others, was because you had to go into the
detailed theory, incomplete as it is, that you have regarding this matter.
However, when you & your student set your own bait to catch Shermer
out, both by asking him to name one of those books & by the e-mails
you sent, he also responded with the obvious belief you were trying to
catch him out. In your case it's okay to respond like that to loaded
questions but Shermer is a fraud for employing the same cognitive
abilities for some reason.... I'm sure you'd be a strong advocate of
people looking at the evidence themselves & coming to their own
conclusions yet here we have an example of someone who has done just
that & come to their own conclusions, but it differs from yours so obviously
you're justified in shouting at him from the crowd & going deep into
his personal life to catch him out. This is the craziness people see
when they look at how the main advocates of conspiracy theories
act, honestly it is & is possibly the main reason why so few people
get sucked in, & it's just got to stop. You could have taken the
noble route & continued to accumulate evidence & bring a convincing
case to scientists & others who could do something about this but
as always we see people attacking Shermer, or Moore, or Goodman, or
Chomsky, or Parenti etc... etc... who are the 'gatekeepers of the left'.
All this rhetoric of Shermer being subservient to power is another
example of the confirmation bias of a critic of power. If someone comes
to a conclusion different to yours they are power's servants etc...
It's shameful. We'll put this in grteater perspective, you've accused
Shermer of being deceitful about his employment but got a letter
acknowledging he was in fact employed by these people.
Before you got that letter you implied he was being paid by the
government & implied he was simply their servant at least that's
the feeling I got from the videos & analysis of Shermer you wrote.
The confirmation bias went crazy & once evidence came to show you
were wrong is there an acknowledgement of that? I could be wrong
about this but it's really just how I read the analysis, & certainly how I
perceive the claim that he "probably does not work with the framework
of peered-reviewed scholarship in universities". Is this not a good example
of why people should not jump to conclusions before evidence is
given seeing as there is no evidence he doesn't work within
scholarship?

Finally, the onus is on those who bear the extraordinary claim to
convince those who doubt it through extraordinary evidence. So far
the evidence has not convinced the mainstream & that includes the
people who are skilled to judge the evidence properly. Berating those
who've done their own research is not going to reflect badly on those
who've come to their own conclusions as they can just acknowledge
they were wrong once better evidence comes along that can convince
them. However you are the only one who stands to suffer by sinking to
extreme depths & my advice is to just leave Shermer & the other
people alone until convincing evidence is brought up. If you have
convincing evidence then bring it to the people who can evaluate it
properly. I think the consortium of engineers etc... who doubt this
are the best hope for pushing for a satisfying analysis but that's just
my opinion.

AnthonyHall

The comment above is a perfect example of a lazy man's approach to avoiding research, to engaging the actual evidence. Very Shermeresque. He's not a real professor. He just plays one on TV.

My colleague, Prof. Graeme MacQueen, addresses these same issues below. Really, the term "conspiracy theory" and the pseudo-skeptics associated with Shermer use it, has lost all meaning.

MacQueen to Hall, 4 December, 2010

Thanks, Tony. Excellent. My reply to colleagues who quoted Shermer (and some people do take this guy seriously!) was along the same lines as yours, though not as well put. Evidence, evidence, evidence. Ever since I began debating colleagues on this subject I’ve been awe-stricken to find that there are quite a few university profs out there who do not understand what evidence is and why it is important! They are desperate for thought-stoppers like Shermer’s little list (“read my list and you won’t have entertain disturbing thoughts”). Again and again I’ve challenge them to discuss the evidence with me. They won’t. They tried to dismiss all the evidence I gave of explosions.

Finally, I just sent them a link to a firefighter being interviewed. He’s covered head to toe in grey dust. “The whole ****in’ lobby just blew up” he says, or words to that effect. That had an interesting silencing effect on my opponents.

Graeme

sponsoredwalk

That's quite a thoughtful response demolishing my argument, good job.
So there's no contradiction between you trying to catch Shermer out
& him 'trying to catch you out' by asking you to respond to a question
that you first brought up. Once again we see the level of cogency
when discussing 911 :rolleyes:

AnthonyHall

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

sponsoredwalk

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

Apologies, your response said "above me" & I'm above you & was afraid of
this discussion degrading into something nasty but I'm wrong so apologies

AnthonyHall

Nice to receive something gentle and humane in this milieu of attack and ridicule and such. Rather than criticizing my mannerisms or my resort to a custom that characterizes question period in the British parliamentary tradition, why not engage in some real research on what did or did not happen on 9/11? Why not read Professor Griffin's Pearl Harbor Revisited or Chapter 13 of my Earth into Property. Of course that requires more of you than Shermer's six easy steps.

The Shermeresque resort to the phrase "conspiracy theory," as if this combination of words identifies something sensible and real, must be transcended.

Theorist by theorist. Argument by argument. Publication by publication. Chapter by chapter. Footnote by footnote. Citation by citation. There is no shortcut formula to differentiating truth from falsehood when it comes to exploring and evaluating the dark side of power's workings.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

I was responding to Meglome and his comments on the silly list Shermer proposes as replacement for actual engagement with the evidence.

They are two different things though. One is a set of observations about conspiracy's generally. The other is specific evidence for each conspiracy. There's nothing wrong with his observations, and the evidence would seem to back them up.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Finally, I just sent them a link to a firefighter being interviewed. He’s covered head to toe in grey dust. “The whole ****in’ lobby just blew up” he says, or words to that effect. That had an interesting silencing effect on my opponents.

Fair enough let's look at that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7ehAI9cUkM

meglome wrote: »

...Did you actually look at the footage? So there appears to be a handful of broken windows. The broken glass is lying directly outside the windows, not all the glass is even knocked out. Worse than that a lot of the glass is lying directly inside the building. Otherwise the lobby looks perfect, the plant pots aren't even moved or the plants damaged. I have no idea what broke those windows but it doesn't look like an explosion of any kind. (Though if i had to guess I'd say the plane impact caused these very big windows to shatter). Unless I'm supposed to believe an explosion broke heavy plate glass windows, lightly dropped the glass both inside and outside the building, didn't knock leaves off the plants or do any other damage whatsoever in the lobby. Magic explosives again obviously.

That's an older post of mine. But you know I discovered something in the meantime completely by accident. I was looking at the Naudet bothers documentary the one which was narrated by Robert De Niro. In part two (two or three anyway) there's some shots of the firemen arriving at the WTC. In the shot they appear to be breaking the windows with their axes to get access the lobby in numbers. So using the evidence I can surmise that these huge plate glass windows were broken by the plane impact and/or the fire-fighters gaining access.

AnthonyHall

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. Can you explain conspiracy theories generally? Is it a conspiracy theory to posit that companies get together to set prices and limit competition? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe that in war, experts are hired to manage public opinion? Is it a conspiracy theory to notice in Wikipedia that the founder of the company that recently purchased Scientific American was a Nazi whose specialty was getting collaborators for the National Socialist Party within the universities? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe companies hire experts to help sell their products? Define "conspiracy theory."

To observe Shermer the TV performer who pretends to be a professor, rich and powerful Americans never conspire to advance their class interests. Does Shermer serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism?

AnthonyHall

Meglome. Check out this excerpt explaining some of Professor MacQueen's research, which involves reading the 13,000 pages of testimony given by NYC fire fighters recording their experiences and observations of 9/11.

What made you think Professor MacQueen was referring to the You Tube you saw. There are dozens of clips from 9/11 where all sorts of witnesses describe various explosions, or we actually see and hear the explosions going off. Also check out the testimony of WTC janitor William Rodriguez who is adamant that explosions went off in the basement of the place where he worked for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The plural of conspiracy is conspiracies, not conspiracy's. Can you explain conspiracy theories generally? Is it a conspiracy theory to posit that companies get together to set prices and limit competition? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe that in war, experts are hired to manage public opinion? Is it a conspiracy theory to notice in Wikipedia that the founder of the company that recently purchased Scientific American was a Nazi whose specialty was getting collaborators for the National Socialist Party within the universities? Is it a conspiracy theory to believe companies hire experts to help sell their products? Define "conspiracy theory."

Well more a grammar issue. Being self taught will always have it's flaws. Is there a point to all this otherwise?

And sorry stating that Germans who were alive from the 1930's to 1945 were National Socialists is like suggesting that it's weird that Irish people are Catholic. Pretty much everyone was a National Socialist in Germany then.

AnthonyHall wrote: »

To observe Shermer the TV performer who pretends to be a professor, rich and powerful Americans never conspire to advance their class interests. Does Shermer serve the interests of power by teaching anti-skepticism to divert attention away from the machinations of the plutocrat class in monopoly capitalism?

It's interesting I don't know either Shermer or you but I dislike your tactics and attitude. And it's only taken a handful of posts for you to shine through.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Meglome. Check out this excerpt explaining some of Professor MacQueen's research, which involves reading the 13,000 pages of testimony given by NYC fire fighters recording their experiences and observations of 9/11.

What made you think Professor MacQueen was referring to the You Tube you saw. There are dozens of clips from 9/11 where all sorts of witnesses describe various explosions, or we actually see and hear the explosions going off. Also check out the testimony of WTC janitor William Rodriguez who is adamant that explosions went off in the basement of the place where he worked for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

You mentioned a fire-fighter and the lobby, which I replied to. I haven't the slightest problem believing there were sounds of explosions. In a situation like this it would be fairly amazing if there wasn't. The problem is linking explosion with explosive when clearly they mean different things.

Capt'n Midnight

suppose it might be an opportunity to post this

People believe that the government can manage elaborate conspiracy's for decades when they can't even manage the day to day business without cocking up, frequently

Torakx

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

suppose it might be an opportunity to post this

People believe that the government can manage elaborate conspiracy's for decades when they can't even manage the day to day business without cocking up, frequently

Ah but that statement relies on the fact that they cocked up in the first place. How do you know stuff that appears to be unforseen wasnt forseen by the people involved or someone else entirely?
So day to day bussiness is not quite the same as day to day plane crashing into a building type of bussiness but both could be seen as a cockup from someone and yet both could have been well planned.Although the planes into a building i admit may need some cooperation because of airspace and security etc etc

Also if im making a big project and i break a few pencils along the way im not going to worry about those pencils as i would the bigger stuff.So it stands to bare that it might be more likely the bigger issues are forseen and planned by someone in a few cases than focusiing on the little things that might just be a mistake along the way.With that reasoning the frequent cockups are expected as they work towards bigger ones that might be planned or might just be a massive accident..

Capt'n Midnight

so you are saying that FF planed to to trash the Irish economy yet again ?
that Maggie's plan was to hand power to Labour for a generation

People that capable could find better things to do with their time.



Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity / incompetence..

Torakx

Or greed.

meglome

Torakx wrote: »

Or greed.

But what they've done is putting a stop to their gravy train. So I'm guessing incompetence.

Brown Bomber

I just wanted to say Professor that I admire your courage and integrity in going against the grain to speak out for what you believe in. Especially considering you have much to lose professionally and in terms of reputation.

For anyone who doesn't know University of Illinois law school professor Francis Boyle in this interview explains quite clearly the pressure of conforming in academia in the US.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5wtE9wd1uU

The first I'd heard of you (or Shermer) was after you had done a very interesting radio interview with Kevin Barrett maybe a couple of months ago. So I looked into it a little and it became apparent to me that Shermer is a sleazy shill for the status-quo and you deserve credit for exposing this.

AnthonyHall

Thanks Brown Bomber. I shall alert Kevin Barrett to this discussion that suddenly takes on more depth for me now that we have established some common points of historical reference.

The more I got to know about the Shermer file the more shocking it became to me how many big and seeming reputable companies and schools have hosted this performer, who really has nothing but the most skimpy of claims to be employed at a US university.. ie TED, McGill, Charlie Rose.

Now Shermer has turned his big guns against me from his bully pulpit at Scienticfic American. Shermer responds to my exposure of his own misrepresentation of credentials at Claremont Graduate University by doing classic disinformation on me. I asserted at the University of Lethbridge and I assert now that Michael Shermer is a disgrace to the academy. In the column that began this discussion, however, Shermer would have me assert that he, Shermer, is a disgrace to the economy.

Being a disgrace to the economy, whatever that means, or a disgrace to the academy are two very different things. Shermer purposely misquotes my intervention, caught plainly on tape, in a way that strips my criticism of him of its most potent meaning. Shermer is not merely mistaken. I allege that he has knowingly committed fraud in Scientific American in his effort to demean and discredit me and to draw attention away from what I discovered about his false claim that he is adjunct professor of economics at Claremont.

Obviously I seek to set the record straight. Moreover Shermer's quote of me in Scientific American eliminates my core contention that the author of "Why People Believe Weird Things" has not reckoned with the prolific publications on 9/11 by Prof. David Ray Griffin. The contrast between the authentic and widely respected Professor Griffin and the fraud Michael Shermer could not be more telling. Michael Shermer is not tenured. He is a part-timer who occasionally team teaches a course at Claremont with Paul Zak, voodoo Professor of oxytocin, love, trust, and capitalist con jobs in a scam of a field known as Neuroeconomics.

Of course it is damaging to me professionally to have Shermer's effort to discredit disseminated so widely in what used to be the esteemed Scientific American. What is going on with this publication that it would lower itself to replicate Shermeresque disinformation?

I have been attempting to contact Fred Guterl, Executive Editor of Scientific American and the person ultimately responsible for Shermer's hit job. I have also been attempting to contact Scientific American's PR department at <SNIP> The only proper remedy is for me to get comparable space in Scientific American to respond to Shermer's mischaracterization of my work.

As I keep indicating, much of that work is now widely accessible for the consideration of colleagues and the general public in the peer-reviewed volume, Earth into Property. From all that I can see so far, it appears to me that Shermer operates generally outside the framework of peer-reviewed scholarship. Unlike Professor Griffin and I, Michael Shermer has never lived and worked within the system of scholarly peer review or the regular reporting necessary to obtain tenure and promotion up the academic ranks.

Thse comments began with Brown Bomber's comments about hearing me be interviewed by Dr. Kevin Barrett. A PhD. in Arab Studies, Kevin Barrett's employment at the University of Wisconsin was terminated for his teaching of how 9/11 has affected the treatment and perceptions of Arab and Muslim peoples around the world. This example is a small illustration that the supporters of the unsupported and unsupportable government account of what happened on 9/11 are sometimes ruthless in their defense of the myth that perpetuates the Global War on Terror. Shermer disinformation about 9/11 contributes in major ways to this pattern of demonizing all Arab and Muslim peoples.

It makes no sense that those who ask questions about 9/11 and who try to investigate the relevant information are compared to, say, Holocaust Deniers or those who study the possibility that outer space critters visit Earth. It is like comparing apples and oranges, daggers and paper clips. With the power of his rhetoric, however, Shermer connects the unconnected, assembling with a few turns of phrase disparate arrays of theories into one great big package of undifferentiated "conspiracy theories." He thereby commits the most grave form of disinformation and smear, a phrase that I learned when studying Cold War tactics of psychological warfare.

The irony is Shermer does this smear and disinformation in the name of skepticism. But he is no skeptic. Quite the contrary. The overriding thrust of his performance art is to divert real skeptical inquiry away from investigating and analysing the sometimes dark dealings sometimes deployed by the powerful to retain and expand their positions of privilege without accountability. A real skeptic whose commitment to uncover the truth is worthy of great respect is Professor David Ray Griffin, but especially when it comes to the Claremont sage's untiring investigations of the vast array of topics relevant to 9/11 Studies.

Yitzhak Rabin

AnthonyHall, please do not include emails in your posts. They get picked up by spambots and said email will be inundated with ads for viagra and kind offers to donate millions from Nigerian princes.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

And sorry stating that Germans who were alive from the 1930's to 1945 were National Socialists is like suggesting that it's weird that Irish people are Catholic. Pretty much everyone was a National Socialist in Germany then.

That's not true at all though is it?

Hitler got 30% of the vote in the Presidential elections which were won by Paul Von Hindenberg. In subsequent elections for the Reichstag the Nationalist Socialist Party never recieved more than 37% of the vote.

A minority not a majority.

Hitler only became Fuhrer after President Hindenberg had died and the Nazi false-flag attack of the Reichstag fire (9-11) put him in a position to pass the enabling act (Patriot Act) reducing civil liberties, detain people without due process (rendition) and allowed him to launch his war on communism (War on terror) to keep the population pliable and in a constant state of fear (as today).

von Holtzinbrinck founder of the parent company of Scientific American was a Nazi, who apparently used his magazines for spreading facist propoganda. Is it beyond comprehension that Holtzinbrinck today could be publishing facist propoganda?

It stands to reason that if 9-11 was a intelligence operation that the plans for the coverup were in place before the event. Shermer dishonestly conflatiing 9-11 truth with neo-nazi holocaust deniers, bigfoot trackers and alien abductees seems to me at least to be suspiciously trying to cover something up. If he is a true skeptic then he should doubt the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 due to the total absence of hard evidence and the mountain of anamolies that suggest otherwise; at least enough to doubt. He doesn't however, this "skeptic" follows the official media and politician collective standpoint of the official conspiracy theory. A true skeptic would have doubts on some aspects of the official story at least and true skeptics would differ on certain points but that is not what we see.

Brown Bomber

Here is an example of Holtzinbrinck censorship.

StudiVZ is a social networking platform for students (in particular for college and university students in Europe), based in Berlin, Germany. The name is an abbreviation of the German expression Studentenverzeichnis, which means students' directory.
The service is largely comparable to other social networking sites. StudiVZ claims to be one of the biggest social networks in Europe, with (reportedly) over 15,000,000 members as of September 2009,[1] mostly in the German-speaking countries of Germany, Switzerland, and Austria.


(...)


In January 2007, StudiVZ was sold to one of its investors, Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, a German group which owns publishing companies worldwide, without any official figures given. Speculations vary from 20 to "over 100 million euros

The Zeitgeist movement is not one that I have any great time for however they were active on Holtzbrinc's StudiVZ.

"Were" being the operative word because all their groups were banned from the site, one with as many as 10,000 members.

This is the reason given to a member

Hello,

we deleted your group "ZG-revolution.de". So called ZG groups are no longer accepted in studiVZ. Anyhow, we want to give you the reason for our action. It is not our intension to supress alternative opinions or news, but we see with worries the developement of new theories that have been pushed, for example by the ZG movies.
The idea of gray eminences, elites or secret societies that control politics from behind the curtain is not new. The ZG movies extend these ideas to the economic system. And here the circle of the history of conspiracy theories closes: latent anti-Semitism, which shines through many of the formulated theories. For example the idea of the bad, grupping capital, which is responsible for the financial crisis and also patronage and similar means to take influence into world politic to control and guide them in their interest.
We will not explain or discuss this antisemitism, because we expect the group founders to be aware of the problematic content of their group themes. We urge you to not found any new groups with this topic or you account and profil will be deleted.

thanks for you attention, the VZ team.
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=236&id=140754&limit=10&limitstart=10

I don't know much about the Zeitgest movement but I know for a fact it is a social movement and is in now way anti-semitic. It seems as if Shermer himself wrote that response.

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's not true at all though is it?

Hitler got 30% of the vote in the Presidential elections which were won by Paul Von Hindenberg. In subsequent elections for the Reichstag the Nationalist Socialist Party never recieved more than 37% of the vote.

A minority not a majority.

I never said anything about elections. I'm saying that the majority were, at least, supporters of the National Socialists. There were maybe 9 million members of the party alone.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hitler only became Fuhrer after President Hindenberg had died and the Nazi false-flag attack of the Reichstag fire (9-11) put him in a position to pass the enabling act (Patriot Act) reducing civil liberties, detain people without due process (rendition) and allowed him to launch his war on communism (War on terror) to keep the population pliable and in a constant state of fear (as today).

Okay sure. And not a bit of this was secret or hidden. Other than in the very early stages.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

von Holtzinbrinck founder of the parent company of Scientific American was a Nazi, who apparently used his magazines for spreading facist propoganda. Is it beyond comprehension that Holtzinbrinck today could be publishing facist propoganda?

Apparently? Either he did this or he didn't. Again not that I'd be surprised given what Germany was like at the time. I assume that the people making the claims about him publishing fascist propaganda can back it up? I'll wait for the proof will I? Especially if he's publishing it now, should be very easy to prove.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It stands to reason that if 9-11 was a intelligence operation that the plans for the coverup were in place before the event. Shermer dishonestly conflatiing 9-11 truth with neo-nazi holocaust deniers, bigfoot trackers and alien abductees seems to me at least to be suspiciously trying to cover something up. If he is a true skeptic then he should doubt the official conspiracy theory of 9-11 due to the total absence of hard evidence and the mountain of anamolies that suggest otherwise; at least enough to doubt. He doesn't however, this "skeptic" follows the official media and politician collective standpoint of the official conspiracy theory. A true skeptic would have doubts on some aspects of the official story at least and true skeptics would differ on certain points but that is not what we see.

What I see here is rather than tackle what Shermer has said they are going after his character or credentials. Now I don't know the man and most of what I've seen of him has been posted in this thread. So far no one has been able to show the points he made as being illogical or incorrect. Might be better to drop the character assassination and deal with what he says.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is an example of Holtzinbrinck censorship.

The Zeitgeist movement is not one that I have any great time for however they were active on Holtzbrinc's StudiVZ.

"Were" being the operative word because all their groups were banned from the site, one with as many as 10,000 members.

This is the reason given to a member

I don't know much about the Zeitgest movement but I know for a fact it is a social movement and is in now way anti-semitic.

I see lot's of people on boards.ie crying about being banned and every time I've seen it, it has been for breaking the rules. Conspiracy groups on-line are full of anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. I'm confused though on one hand the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is supposedly fascist or Nazi but on the other hand is banning people for being anti-Semitic. So which are they exactly?

And while we're on the subject Georg von Holtzbrinck doesn't run the company and hasn't since 1980, he must be over 90 now. But easier to go after the guy who ran the company 30 years ago than deal with the issues.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It seems as if Shermer himself wrote that response.

But what would Shermer have to do with these nazis? Or are they Zionists? I'm still confused.

meglome

AnthonyHall wrote: »

The more I got to know about the Shermer file the more shocking it became to me how many big and seeming reputable companies and schools have hosted this performer, who really has nothing but the most skimpy of claims to be employed at a US university.. ie TED, McGill, Charlie Rose.

Now Shermer has turned his big guns against me from his bully pulpit at Scienticfic American. Shermer responds to my exposure of his own misrepresentation of credentials at Claremont Graduate University by doing classic disinformation on me. I asserted at the University of Lethbridge and I assert now that Michael Shermer is a disgrace to the academy. In the column that began this discussion, however, Shermer would have me assert that he, Shermer, is a disgrace to the economy.

[...SNIP...]

It's odd isn't that all these people you mention are against you. It's all a big conspiracy. The video you bring up with Shermer and you looks like an honest mistake on his part and not some intentional misrepresentation. You on the other hand choose to believe he's out to get you. You try to assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees with you as far as I can see. You even had a stab at my spelling, but hardly a word about what I actually said. You and your ilk really irk me, the world isn't against you, maybe just maybe you're wrong.

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

I never said anything about elections. I'm saying that the majority were, at least, supporters of the National Socialists. There were maybe 9 million members of the party alone. .

It seems you've pulled that 9 million figure out of your hat. Regardless I'd suspect your guess falls short of the membership numbers, that is after Hitler became Fuhrer for the simple reason that doing so would keep you off the radar of the Gestapo ala being a good party member in 1984. The situation with von Holtzinbrink is quite different however. He joined the Nazi Party in 1931 - before Hitler became Fuhrer.

In any case your "9 million members" disproves your own claim. Unless you think Germany had a population of less than 18 million???

Not that this is neccessary to prove you wrong as the Presidential and Reichstag elections prove in no uncertain terms that the majority of Germans never supported Hitler or the Nazi Party. If they did Hitler would've been President not Hindenberg and the Nationalist Socialists would have held a majority in the Reichstag. Neither happened.

[QUOTE=meglome;69406209Okay sure. And not a bit of this was secret or hidden. Other than in the very early stages. [/QUOTE]

What are you talking about??

You think Hitler and Goebells went on Nazi FM and said to the German people "OK we got this blind Dutch Communist to set fire to the Reichstag. Now we are going to blame the Commies and eliminate our political rivals and establish a dictatorship. You have no rights any more. Heil Hitler!"

meglome wrote: »

Apparently? Either he did this or he didn't. Again not that I'd be surprised given what Germany was like at the time. I assume that the people making the claims about him publishing fascist propaganda can back it up? I'll wait for the proof will I? Especially if he's publishing it now, should be very easy to prove.

Yes apparently. I've never seen the propoganda. Do you expect me to take the word unquestionably of a newspaper article?

meglome wrote: »

What I see here is rather than tackle what Shermer has said they are going after his character or credentials. Now I don't know the man and most of what I've seen of him has been posted in this thread. So far no one has been able to show the points he made as being illogical or incorrect. Might be better to drop the character assassination and deal with what he says.

Ironic since the basis of Shermer's lecture seems to be based on character assassination, straw men and generalisations.

meglome wrote: »

II see lot's of people on boards.ie crying about being banned and every time I've seen it, it has been for breaking the rules. Conspiracy groups on-line are full of anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. I'm confused though on one hand the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group is supposedly fascist or Nazi but on the other hand is banning people for being anti-Semitic. So which are they exactly? .

That's funny.

Your accusing a whole group of people whose members number in the 10

And while we're on the subject Georg von Holtzbrinck doesn't run the company and hasn't since 1980, he must be over 90 now. But easier to go after the guy who ran the company 30 years ago than deal with the issues.



But what would Shermer have to do with these nazis? Or are they Zionists? I'm still confused.[/QUOTE]

meglome

I'll tell you what, if you or your pal Anthony actually bother to prove that publishing company is fascist or nazi in some way now then the rest of the nazi discussion might be relevant. I'll wait for the proof will I?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What are you talking about??

You think Hitler and Goebells went on Nazi FM and said to the German people "OK we got this blind Dutch Communist to set fire to the Reichstag. Now we are going to blame the Commies and eliminate our political rivals and establish a dictatorship. You have no rights any more. Heil Hitler!"

Of course not. But enough people in the Nazi party knew about it at the time. After the war everyone knew about it. Still since no one has proven that there is any nazi connection here the whole point is irrelevant.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes apparently. I've never seen the propoganda. Do you expect me to take the word unquestionably of a newspaper article?

I don't expect anyone to take anything unquestionably. Which is why I'm clearly saying if someone believes some sort of nazi connection then they should prove it. Georg von Holtzbrinck hasn't been running that company since 1980, 30 years ago, so I won't hold my breath for the proof.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ironic since the basis of Shermer's lecture seems to be based on character assassination, straw men and generalisations.

What character assassination is that exactly? He mishears one thing, an honest mistake as far as I can tell. There is a list of his views on CT generally so why don't you tackle them directly.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's funny.

Your accusing a whole group of people whose members number in the 10

Not sure what this means. But I hope you're not going to try and say the CT world isn't rife with anti-Semitics and anti-Semitic statements. Because that would just be nonsense.

Anyway back to the point... If Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing is facist or nazi why are they banning people for being anti-Semitic. Aren't those two stances polar opposites of each other?

AnthonyHall

Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

German newspaper Die Zeit in newsstand



Issue of Scientific American


Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck is a Stuttgart-based publishing holding company which owns publishing companies worldwide. Holtzbrinck has published everything from Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses to classics by Agatha Christie, Jean-Paul Sartre, Ernest Hemingway and John Updike. Amongst its well known international publications are Nature and Scientific American.
URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georg_von_Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group&action=edit&section=1"]edit[/URL History

Established by Georg von Holtzbrinck (He joined the National Socialist German Students' League in 1931.[1])

Heh Meglome.

All I said was that the holding company of Scientific American was founded by a Nazi with a special interest in identifying and cultivating Nazi collaborators in the academy. You could have checked it yourself.

You indicate you are self taught. Fine. Excellent. But please consider the fact that its quite obvious you haven't read nearly as much as Brown Bomber and you don't seem motivated to go far beyond flag waving for Michael Shermer, who is the aggressor here. You aren't being attacked and misquoted in Scientific American. Your scholarly interests aren't being equated with those of Holocaust Deniers or theorists preoccupied with fake moon landings. You aren't being held up to public ridicule in a major magazine in ways whose effect is to negate the fruits of three decades of hard work and steady progress in academic teaching as well as research and publication.

If you had actually read the results of my investigation of Shermer's misrepresentation of his credentials, which you obviously have not, then your comments would have more clout behind them.

These comments may seem harsh, but you asked for proof and I am showing you proof from the most obvious place to look. Are you in the habit of using the Google search engine? I didn't make a big deal about Holtzbrinck's Nazi past. My purpose was simply to ask if mentioning this known known would qualify one to be cast into the pot of wicked and wacko Shermeresque "conspiracy theorists," a term that Shermer is clearly trying to medicalize with columns categorized as "mind and brain."

I want to be respectful and even appreciative of your interest in this subject and of the availability of this venue. Please accept my observations as constructive criticism. I am sure your intentions are good and its better to be directing attention to this kind of exchange than to the hypnotic distractions of television, Shermer's real home medium.

Shermer is not a genuine academic. I am. Professor Griffin is. Shermer is a TV performer with only the most ephemeral connections to the academy. He presents entertainment disguised as information. But the content of this entertainment is not neutral. It is toxic to human consciousness because it is woven around tapestries of lies and half truths. As I see him, Shermer is a troubling embodiment of the move away from even modest respect for reason and reality in the mainstream media in order to serve the perception management objectives of the war machine.

Brown Bomber is obviously in a position to understand the distinction between genuine academics, whether good, bad, or indifferent, and crass TV performers like Shermer. To reiterate, its just obvious that Brown Bomber has read a lot more in this area than you have, Meglome. And unlike the fraud Shermer, Brown Bomber has the intuitions of a real skeptic, one with the courage to peel back the layers that veil the sometimes corrupt workings of power. Shermer serves and messages power. His interpretations naturally ingratiate him to elites who have a major interest in maintaining the obfuscations on which their ability to exercise power depends.

Why refer to Brown Bomber as my "pal?" We're all strangers to one another except for our shared involvement in this medium and this blog.

Yitzhak Rabin

Prof. Hall,

Do you not see the hypocrisy of being completely incensed at the thought of someone attacking your character rather than the substance of your argument in one breath, and then in another spend your entire time attacking Shermer's character and qualifications rather than the substance of his article.

Also, in the video which I posted, your student rather cynically implies that Shermer is a paid for CIA disinformation agent. He does so, by adding a question at the end of the video, but the intention is obvious.

Why don't you take his points on how to tell a true conspiracy from a false one and then dissect each one in turn?

Also, you are disgusted at being compared to a holocaust denier. Presumably you do not deny that the holocaust occurred, but from my experience holocaust denier academics (And there are some) adopt a a similar stance to you in that they cry suppression and censorship louder than they spend actually putting forward their views.

For what it is worth, I am undecided on what the truth of what happened on 9/11 is. I am thoroughly unconvinced by the majority of the alternative theories put forward by the 9/11 truth movement. They can vary from the mildly plausible to the patently absurd. I think that given the scale of the conspiracy, orchestrating it would be an impossibility. It is therefore more likely, that if the US government had a hand in it, it was more than likely to ignore the warning signals. I am undecided if they ignored them through incompetence or malice.

For transparency could you say what you believe is the truth with the attacks on 9/11, and which particular theory you subscribe to?

Torakx

the thread topic and content is misleading imo.
We are discussing how to tell the difference between a true and false CT.
But using 9/11 as the main example is probably gong to end up another 9/11 thread especially if that last question is answered lol.
Really its a non topic because you cant really tell for sure without it not being a theory.But im enjoying it so just keep that in mind i guess as we discuss.
9/11 sounds a good well known topic, but how do you use that to show how to tell if a ct is true or false?

Maybe we should be comparing an old ct that has already been proven true instead? And an old one that is definetly popular as the true one but turned out to be surely false.

Yitzhak Rabin

Torakx wrote: »

the thread topic and content is misleading imo.
We are discussing how to tell the difference between a true and false CT.
But using 9/11 as the main example is probably gong to end up another 9/11 thread especially if that last question is answered lol.

You're probably right, but seeing as we Prof. Hall is the subject of the article and is kindly here discussing it with us, it was always going to end up going down the 9/11 route.

Maybe we should be comparing an old ct that has already been proven true instead? And an old one that is definetly popular as the true one but turned out to be surely false.

Thats a good idea.

I think a classic example of a CT that was true is the Watergate scandal. If we look at that in the context of Shermer's 'how to tell a true one' it holds up well enough.

Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

This wasn't the case. The CT focussed on the one event.


The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

Clearly no extraordinary power was needed for it to succeed.


The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Doesn't fulfil this criteria


Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

Watergate illustrated this point well. It involved only a very small amount of people and even they couldn't keep quiet about it. Thats one of the major reasons I don't believe that the controlled demolition theory could possibly be true, based on the huge number of people that would need to be involved.


The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

Again, watergate wasn't about geo-political domination.


The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

Watergate stayed small.

The last few points are irrelevant and imo, not particularly useful.

An example of an equally popular theory that didn't come to fruition... well there are lots, but the goalposts often move when the date go by, or no date is applied.

Examples would be that the UN was created to form a one world government, or, I remember when barcode technology was introduced lots of people claimed the NWO would use it to tattoo them onto children when they were born. The goalposts on that one changed, now its that RFID, or smart cards will be used instead.

AnthonyHall

Here are the results of my investigation of Michael Shermer's credentials. I have made extensive inquiries at Claremont and you can see I am not making unfounded allegations but rather drawing on actual research. I am not taking wild pot shots like Shermer does in his effort to smear me in Scientific American piece but rather I am presenting the evidence of my research which I have published for all the world to see and evaluate on the Internet at

http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=50397

A version also appears in antifascist encyclopedia and Salem News, which first published the article. In the article you will see that Shermer raised the whole issue of the CIA. I merely quoted what he had to say on the subject as a prelude to asking about his funding sources.

OK. You can say I am criticizing Shermer and Shermer is criticizing me so what's the big deal. The fact is that Shermer is criticizing me in Scientific American and I am criticizing him in this venue with maybe one-millionth of the reach of Scientific American and none of the prestige that SA has built up over more than a century.

When I began the intervention at Boards.ie my main objective was to develop the case that I should have the right of reply in Scientific American. Should I be extended that right by Fred Guterl, who is the Executive Editor of the magazine? Who would support me in my assertion that Mr. Guterl should extend me equal space and with equal prominence to answer Michael Shermer's effort to maim me professionally. The fact is that I seriously outrank this adjunct professor of something or other. But he had the microphone and the podium on September 23. And he has access to Scientific American, an access that balance and equity demands should also be extended to me on at least a one-time basis to allow me to defend my professional reputation and to set the record straight according to my lights.

It is my contention that Shermer purposely misquoted me-- ie a disgrace to the "economy" rather than a disgrace to the "academy"-- to divert attention away from my very serious allegation from which, you might notice, I am not backing way. When the phrase, "disgrace to the academy," first came from my mouth I knew much less than I now know about Shermer's ephemeral relationship with Claremont. I knew nothing of his relationship with the psy ops lab of Professor Paul Zak. To see the outcome of my post-Sept. 23 research on Shermer's relationship to the academy, see the article linked to above.

In my view I have not led the discussion off topic. In fact I am the lead topic of Shermer's article. I have tried in this discussion to point out the absurdity of treating so-called conspiracy theories as Shermer does. No one has yet addressed in a serious way my allegation that his six point plan for detection of false conspiracy theories is indicative of the deep flaws in the whole framework of Shermeresque analysis.

I allege that Shermer's real agenda, whether or not he realizes it himself, is aimed at directing the tools of real skepticism away from the sometimes dark workings of power. This anti-skepticism or pseudo-skepicism dressed up as real skepticism, is, in my view, the underlying reason why Michael Shermer is given such prominence in mainstream media venues, including the once-venerable Scientific American. Mainstream media venues are often owned by the same cartels that are integral to workings of the military-industrial complex. Mainstream media cartels are losing credibility in the eyes of millions because they so often evade the truth to protect and advance the interests their rich and powerful owners-- intersts that often benefit most from the activities of the machine. Those who benefit most from the activities of the permanent war economy in the United States must renew and elaborate the public mythology on which tax payers' willingness to support the 9/11 Wars depend.

Is it likely that Shermer would join in this discussion to engage in real, evidence-based debate as I have been attempting to do in this venue? I have tried to respond to criticisms of me in a respectful manner even if I have sometimes met criticism with criticism.

Please show yourself Michael Shermer. Debate me on your conception of true or false "conspiracy theories." What are you afraid of? Please acknowledge my right of reply Fred Guterl. With so many real professors to choose from, why have you selected an individual who misrepresents his academic credentials as a regular columnist in Scientific American? What is the your philosophy in putting together the magazine? How does the publication of Shermeresque pseudo-science express that philosophy?