Any CT actually proven to be right?

NIMAN

When I was young I would have enjoyed reading a lot of CTs, aliens and JFK being the main ones.

However, as I got older I realised that most were probably ol' nonsense (some are laughable frankly).
Hopefully that won't insult too many of the regulars in here.

I frequent this forum the odd time out of curiosity, and I was just wondering if there has ever been a major CT that was proved to be true?

Torakx

Alot of the big CT's in a historical sense have some decent evidence.
But governments and a world of citizens informed through mass media might not agree with them.

You know the saying "History is written by the victors", i think it applies here a fair bit.

There might be small CT's that can be proven to have been true or exaggerated to the max.
But those are small fish in the CT world and so the stakes arent so high.

With others like the Rothchilds involvement with funding Hitler and the nazi's or the 911 CT's..well the saying above may apply.

Even more so today people will follow the medias rendition of many events without any real critical thinking on their own.
With humans, being popular and fitting into the group has always been an instinctual drive, so i think many people are not so critical in their thinking, especially on whats seen as serious subjects or events.

Its easier to say what you know the majority agrees with and feel accepted, than to speak your mind and risk being secluded.That is brave imo.

So im not sure what it is you want.
There wont be many government CT's that have the govs stamp of approval.
Although watergate might be one off the top of my head?
But im not sure.

With a few NWO and media control CT's, the proof is in the pudding.
But your only going to see it on the news in the light that the gov/mass media wish you to view it,or maybe not at all.
Cant be proven to some people, untill it comes true on tv and through mass consensus.

Mass consensus once told us the world was flat...now im sure other people who had never happened across that idea might have been more likely to think it was round.
So being civilized in some respects to me, can be ignorance of the highest order.

Jonny7

NIMAN wrote: »

When I was young I would have enjoyed reading a lot of CTs, aliens and JFK being the main ones.

However, as I got older I realised that most were probably ol' nonsense (some are laughable frankly).
Hopefully that won't insult too many of the regulars in here.

I frequent this forum the odd time out of curiosity, and I was just wondering if there has ever been a major CT that was proved to be true?

Yup, but they are more along the line of generally accepted conspiracies, political corruption, military spec ops e.g. Watergate, Cold War CIA ops, Enron etc

Here's a random list
http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com/2007/01/list-of-proven-conspiracies-from.html

Lisandro

Torakx wrote: »

Alot of the big CT's in a historical sense have some decent evidence.
But governments and a world of citizens informed through mass media might not agree with them.

You know the saying "History is written by the victors", i think it applies here a fair bit.

There might be small CT's that can be proven to have been true or exaggerated to the max.
But those are small fish in the CT world and so the stakes arent so high.

With others like the Rothchilds involvement with funding Hitler and the nazi's or the 911 CT's..well the saying above may apply.

Even more so today people will follow the medias rendition of many events without any real critical thinking on their own.
With humans, being popular and fitting into the group has always been an instinctual drive, so i think many people are not so critical in their thinking, especially on whats seen as serious subjects or events.

Its easier to say what you know the majority agrees with and feel accepted, than to speak your mind and risk being secluded.That is brave imo.

So im not sure what it is you want.
There wont be many government CT's that have the govs stamp of approval.
Although watergate might be one off the top of my head?
But im not sure.

With a few NWO and media control CT's, the proof is in the pudding.
But your only going to see it on the news in the light that the gov/mass media wish you to view it,or maybe not at all.
Cant be proven to some people, untill it comes true on tv and through mass consensus.

Mass consensus once told us the world was flat...now im sure other people who had never happened across that idea might have been more likely to think it was round.
So being civilized in some respects to me, can be ignorance of the highest order.

Ah yes, the good old "them corporate media are spoonfeeding us, you're all sheep" chestnut. It doesn't get any less morally arrogant (or myopic of the way media and government actually work) with age.

Five ways.

Fistly, governments change. A cover up by the previous government is a perfect opportunity to deliver a hammer blow to your rivals. If the democrats were able to show that the Bush administration planned 9/11, that would be the end of the conservative party as we know it.

Secondly, conspiracies are unstable. They only work if everybody is on board, which is why governments and media are unsuitable candidates. As little as one who dissents and the whole thing comes loose. Even small groups are nearly impossible to keep under control (Watergate).

Thirdly, I can't comment for the American media, but European media generally love a good scare. A good conspiracy story means publicity and sales. A paper never refuses ink. It's literally not in their interests to pass up actual conspiracy stories. Even if the broadsheets ignore it (which they don't), the tabloids certainly won't.

Fourthly, conspiracies that aren't found out are the ones that don't leave a trail. If tin-foil hat wearing keyboard warriors from Ohio and Alabama are able to pick up on it, so can pretty much anybody else in the Western world, which is inevitably what does happens when real life conspiracies are found out. If we're in dark about something, it's pretty certain that you are too.

Fifthly, the madness of crowds is driven by rumours. People don't stick their fingers in their ears when they hear something bad, they become afraid. That's why swine flu/any global pandemic causes such drastic public fear. Because they think that they could be next. The way to make them afraid is not with any old conspiracy story. It needs to be a plausible one, otherwise it won't be taken seriously enough to generate fear.

Real conspiracies do exist, but there's a necessity to draw a line between the fantasies people have of conspiracies and the ones that are actually discovered.

Torakx

I dont presume that in american politics for example the left and right side are actually trying to wipe each other out.
That would leave less "choice" and possibly cause a real political party to actually gain power.
God fobid the people should choose their leader!
As apposed to being given a choice of left or right..which isnt much of a choice when both play for the same team.

Brown Bomber

NIMAN wrote: »

When I was young I would have enjoyed reading a lot of CTs, aliens and JFK being the main ones.

However, as I got older I realised that most were probably ol' nonsense (some are laughable frankly).
Hopefully that won't insult too many of the regulars in here.

I frequent this forum the odd time out of curiosity, and I was just wondering if there has ever been a major CT that was proved to be true?

Lots. In recent times and off the top of my head: the financial crash, the swine flu hysteria and the Libyan regime change.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Lots. In recent times and off the top of my head: the financial crash, the swine flu hysteria and the Libyan regime change.

Odd examples. Neither the financial "crash" nor the Libyan conflict have ever been conspiracy theories that were "proven".

I managed to catch swine flu down in France, hysteria yes? but proven conspiracy theory? nope.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Odd examples. Neither the financial "crash" nor the Libyan conflict have ever been conspiracy theories that were "proven".

I managed to catch swine flu down in France, hysteria yes? but proven conspiracy theory? nope.

You caught swine flu and lived to tell the tale!? :eek:

Oh, so there wasn't a regime change in Libya as result of no-fly-zone then?

As a matter of fact the global financial mess was explained and predicted almost exactly on "conspiracy" sites while the mainstream news was playing it down en masse.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

the swine flu hysteria

the only hysteria I remember outside the Daily Mail was all that stuff about how the swine flu was part of the depopulation conspiracy.
Then it was that mutant strain from the Ukraine.
Then it was going to be all the forced vaccines or the death camps we'd be forced into for not taking our vaccines.
Then it was the WHO using it to seize power...
Then it just sorta petered out when the last of the predictions failed like the others.

It's weird you're chalking that up as a win...

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, so there wasn't a regime change in Libya as result of no-fly-zone then?

Jaysus the Libyans must've been very surprised to see the world stepping in when nothing was going on in the country

As a matter of fact the global financial mess was explained and predicted almost exactly on "conspiracy" sites while the mainstream news was playing it down en masse.

And as predicted by the chancellor of the exchequer, and plenty of economists. It's called boom and bust.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

the only hysteria I remember outside the Daily Mail was all that stuff about how the swine flu was part of the depopulation conspiracy.

Might I recommend this then
http://www.roundgames.com/game/Monkey+Dentist

King Mob wrote: »

It's weird you're chalking that up as a win...

It's weird that you think it's a competition when it's not.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Might I recommend this then
http://www.roundgames.com/game/Monkey+Dentist


It's weird that you think it's a competition when it's not.

So insulting dismissal aside, you are still faced with the fact that not one conspiracy presented before the story passed happened and that the conspiracy you are clinging to now (which is not nearly close to right) only came about after all of the ones about deadly vaccines and genetically targeted viruses and deathcamps failed miserably.

The fact that you are ignoring all of that and still claim that the conspiracy was right betrays a very selective memory.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As a matter of fact the global financial mess was explained and predicted almost exactly on "conspiracy" sites while the mainstream news was playing it down en masse.

Can you support this with references BB - specific ones? I'm genuinely interested. I know there was a lot of chatter, but there always is about everything.

Lisandro

Torakx wrote: »

I dont presume that in american politics for example the left and right side are actually trying to wipe each other out.
That would leave less "choice" and possibly cause a real political party to actually gain power.
God fobid the people should choose their leader!
As apposed to being given a choice of left or right..which isnt much of a choice when both play for the same team.

Left and right are actually the same side shocker!

Any political party looking to take advantage of the wreckage stands at a disadvantage because it has to establish itself over America. Therefore, the best placed party to become the alternative is a second generation conservative party to replace the old one. This party is in turn weighed down by the change in leadership and the nation's anger against the old conservative party, meaning it'll take years to re-establish themselves as more reputable than the democrats.

Results - democrats win.

Torakx

Lisandro wrote: »

Left and right are actually the same side shocker!

Any political party looking to take advantage of the wreckage stands at a disadvantage because it has to establish itself over America. Therefore, the best placed party to become the alternative is a second generation conservative party to replace the old one. This party is in turn weighed down by the change in leadership and the nation's anger against the old conservative party, meaning it'll take years to re-establish themselves as more reputable than the democrats.

Results - democrats win.

Do you not think this is already forseen by the sponsors for each side, if you and me can so easily spot this mechanic?
Besides that may not always be the case.
Elections are won through the media not through good works or anything else.
Obama would/could have won that election no matter what side he was on..based purely on his speaking and the campaign they lead.And partly the opposition was set up to fail.
Mc Cain = step up guy.

Now with irish politics i dont actually follow it that much.Were a smaller country and so there is less coverage for ressearch.
They get alot of their work done in the background.
But if you look at the last few heads of state, you can see they have been stealing money and doing dodgy deals left right and center.

Or does anyone here think Brian Cowen was doing his best for the country and citizens as a whole?

Lisandro

Torakx wrote: »

Do you not think this is already forseen by the sponsors for each side, if you and me can so easily spot this mechanic?
Besides that may not always be the case.
Elections are won through the media not through good works or anything else.
Obama would/could have won that election no matter what side he was on..based purely on his speaking and the campaign they lead.And partly the opposition was set up to fail.
Mc Cain = step up guy.

Now with irish politics i dont actually follow it that much.Were a smaller country and so there is less coverage for ressearch.
They get alot of their work done in the background.
But if you look at the last few heads of state, you can see they have been stealing money and doing dodgy deals left right and center.

Or does anyone here think Brian Cowen was doing his best for the country and citizens as a whole?

To be honest, I've always found US presidential elections really odd. It gets dogmatically partisan in many states and you wonder how many of them are actually open to the possibility of changing their vote. I've never really liked the atmosphere around American politics, both of the big parties are as petty as the other at times.

Obama always knew how to appeal to crowds, but he also had momentum on his side, not having to patch up his party's reputation on the back of the worst US president in recent history. As well as the media, he happened to project himself as a likeable guy.

Even McCain's campaign had a distinct air of defeatism, as if they were merely trying to get a respectable showing in before 2012. Sarah Palin, what? He picked her for his team a matter of weeks after criticising Obama for being inexperienced.

Irish politics is a massive step back. Mind you, say that the two main parties here are pretty much the same and you're not far off!

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you support this with references BB - specific ones? I'm genuinely interested. I know there was a lot of chatter, but there always is about everything.

I used to listen to a British guy, economics and banking expert with an Islamic name. He was an advisor to the Malaysian government who booted the IMF out of their country and they regained their soveriegnity. He was explaining and predicting everything that happened (quantative easing, credit default swaps etc) way before it ever happened and our media and public representatives to a man were telling us it was just a blip.

You'll have to take my word on it (or not).

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I used to listen to a British guy, economics and banking expert with an Islamic name. He was an advisor to the Malaysian government who booted the IMF out of their country and they regained their soveriegnity. He was explaining and predicting everything that happened (quantative easing, credit default swaps etc) way before it ever happened and our media and public representatives to a man were telling us it was just a blip.

You'll have to take my word on it (or not).

I'll certainly take your word for it, but the guy sounds like a plausible expert. Have you ever read Black Swan by Nicholas Naseem Taleb? A very interesting book, a great read - philosophical more than mathematical - and you really get a very good idea of exactly how the geniuses in the banks destroyed so much wealth by applying the wrong models. I highly recommend it.

outtagetme

Generally, once conspiracies are blown open, e.g. Bloody Sunday and its pathetic Widgery Tribunal or Watergate or the Iran-Contra conspiracy or the conspiracy to hush up damning evidence with reference to, for example, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six or the coverup regarding Menenzes, or.....add your conspiracy here.

Once that happens, they are now no longer "conspiracies". They are suddenly rebranded "scandals", or "issues", or "affairs", or "incidents".

The Profumo "AFFAIR"
The Watergate "Scandal"
The Iran-Contra "Affair"


Smacks of a Robert Ludlum book.
The Lincoln "Issue"
The Julius Caesar "Episode"

Let's not forget the Stalker "Affair"......you know....that little conspiracy by the British Government to hush up a shoot-to-kill policy.


So, all in all, the conspiracies that have come to light are no longer conspiracies.....but now "episodes" or "progressions" or "inquiries" or simply "questions".

Ah, yes.....The Palestine/Ireland/Ceylon/Rhodesia/Aden/Burma/yada-yada "question" as the conspiring goes on.

Jonny7

outtagetme wrote: »

Generally, once conspiracies are blown open, e.g. Bloody Sunday and its pathetic Widgery Tribunal or Watergate or the Iran-Contra conspiracy or the conspiracy to hush up damning evidence with reference to, for example, the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six or the coverup regarding Menenzes, or.....add your conspiracy here.

Once that happens, they are now no longer "conspiracies". They are suddenly rebranded "scandals", or "issues", or "affairs", or "incidents".

It's just a wording issue really. Scandals, coverups, corruption, sleaze, etc occur or are brought to light on an almost daily basis across the world.

The term "conspiracy theory" (in this context anyway) has become synonymous with the less day-to-day and much more outlandish theories.

So if, for instance, it turned out there really were reptilian shapeshifters, I very much doubt it would be called the "Reptilian affair", a few heads would roll and the media would move on after a few days - no, it would pretty much change life as we know it, everything we know about from physics to biology to human nature would alter dramatically, the fallout would be immense.

I believe OP is referring to the latter type of conspiracy theory. The more fantastical/extraordinary. Literally stuff that is just on the more implausible end of the scale.

Tzar Chasm

Hey, come back with those goalposts, the OP didn't specify, the OP asked 'ANY CT actually proven to be right'

Jonny7

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Hey, come back with those goalposts, the OP didn't specify, the OP asked 'ANY CT actually proven to be right'

Yup, but he didn't say corruption or political scandal either.

There's a world of difference between the Guildford Four and Roswell, but both could technically be defined as "conspiracy theories" (could have been in the case of Guildford Four).

token101

Torakx wrote: »

I dont presume that in american politics for example the left and right side are actually trying to wipe each other out.
That would leave less "choice" and possibly cause a real political party to actually gain power.
God fobid the people should choose their leader!
As apposed to being given a choice of left or right..which isnt much of a choice when both play for the same team.

No they don't, that's a moronic comment and shows how little you know about American politics. The US has a far greater choice politically because of the extremes that exist. You only need look at the presidential candidates from one party to see that. Their debates were on fundamental issues and they were often massively conflicted on policy, and they are from the same party!

token101

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I used to listen to a British guy, economics and banking expert with an Islamic name. He was an advisor to the Malaysian government who booted the IMF out of their country and they regained their soveriegnity. He was explaining and predicting everything that happened (quantative easing, credit default swaps etc) way before it ever happened and our media and public representatives to a man were telling us it was just a blip.

You'll have to take my word on it (or not).

I'd imagine you're talking about 'Dr. Doom' Nouriel Roubini? Hardly a conspiracy though. People just didn't really believe him because it was a prediction and people didn't believe him. He's telling us we're ****ed for the foreseeable future. So I hope he's wrong this time. :pac:

Monty Burnz

token101 wrote: »

No they don't, that's a moronic comment and shows how little you know about American politics. The US has a far greater choice politically because of the extremes that exist. You only need look at the presidential candidates from one party to see that. Their debates were on fundamental issues and they were often massively conflicted on policy, and they are from the same party!

Two party system though - it's not a whole lot better than a one party system.

token101

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Two party system though - it's not a whole lot better than a one party system.

You have a choice, isn't that pretty much a fundamental difference? It's the same here or in the UK; there are always dominant parties. And there are more than two parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats are just the biggest and most popular. Nothing stopping anyone running and there are plenty of Independents in the US, Jesse Ventura was governor as one.

Monty Burnz

token101 wrote: »

You have a choice, isn't that pretty much a fundamental difference? It's the same here or in the UK; there are always dominant parties. And there are more than two parties in the US, the Republicans and the Democrats are just the biggest and most popular. Nothing stopping anyone running and there are plenty of Independents in the US, Jesse Ventura was governor as one.

Well a key difference is that you can have coalition governments, giving a much wider spectrum of political representation. Labour - for example - could govern on their own, but they could feasibly be in government with FG (giving you a centrist government), FF (giving you a shambles) or even the ULA (very left wing government).
With the GOP and the Democrats, you don't have that. Sure, nothing stops a third party candidate standing; how many of them are in government? (bearing in mind that the Tea Party is essentially the extreme right of the Republicans)

When did a third party candidate last seriously threaten to become president? Ross Perot - a billionaire - was the most successful third-party presidential candidate in the last 100 years...on 19% of the vote.

Channel Zero

Lisandro wrote: »

It doesn't get any less morally arrogant (or myopic of the way media and government actually work) with age.

We all have our different outlooks i suppose. Some more cynical than others. It's hardly "morally arrogant" to be cynical of corporate media in my opinion. We all have our own strong views.

Fistly, governments change. A cover up by the previous government is a perfect opportunity to deliver a hammer blow to your rivals.

Fair to a point, but obviously doesn't apply for so-called matters of 'national importance'.
What about the long history of covert and classified CIA actions? These superceded any political point-scoring.

Secondly, conspiracies are unstable. They only work if everybody is on board, which is why governments and media are unsuitable candidates.

Plausable deniability applies to many government conspiracies that do surface.

Recent example:
Jack Straw said this on 13/12/2005:
“Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop, because we have not been, and so what on earth a judicial inquiry would start to do I have no idea.”

before it emerged that British intelligence agencies mounted their own rendition operation in collaboration with Gadaffi's security services:

Thirdly, I can't comment for the American media, but European media generally love a good scare. A good conspiracy story means publicity and sales. A paper never refuses ink. It's literally not in their interests to pass up actual conspiracy stories. Even if the broadsheets ignore it (which they don't), the tabloids certainly won't.

Some good newspapers like the Guardian notwithstanding, this is inaccurate in my opinion. Newspapers can only print what their editors tell them to print. Just go back and look at coverage of the Iraq war. The "embedded" media there. Why was Fallujah never adequately reported on?
Or the invasion of East Timor? Or the 'illegal' bombing of Cambodia?

Real conspiracies do exist, but there's a necessity to draw a line between the fantasies people have of conspiracies and the ones that are actually discovered.

Fair enough, but conversely i could say, there's also a necessity to draw a line between fantasies people have that every conspiracy will be sniffed out and exposed by a truthful, watchful corporate media or made public with every change of government and the one's that are not discovered.
I could equally call that myopic.

Jonny7

Channel Zero wrote: »

We all have our different outlooks i suppose. Some more cynical than others. It's hardly "morally arrogant" to be cynical of corporate media in my opinion. We all have our own strong views.

The case against "corporate media" is weak and vague because it isn't a single entity nor a single source. For example, Sky News is in direct competition with BBC news, they don't "collaborate" nor "conspire". This is the same for the thousands of outlets, papers, stations, etc which can be broadly swept under the umbrella term "corporate media". Some are left leaning, some are right leaning, most with varying levels of integrity (some terrible), standards of reporting, scale of operations, scope, variety of analysis/political opinion

Actually, the Iraq war is an especially bad example as the "European" media was oft slated by those who supported the war in Iraq as being too critical of Bush and Blair and the war effort.

A better argument of the general media's complicity with "Western" propaganda would have been the Gulf War.

Fair to a point, but obviously doesn't apply for so-called matters of 'national importance'.
What about the long history of covert and classified CIA actions? These superceded any political point-scoring.

The past of the CIA is used for political point-scoring in order to attack the US on issues. I've never once heard anything about the KGB despite the fact they were just as active during the Cold War.

Plausable deniability applies to many government conspiracies that do surface.

Recent example:
Jack Straw said this on 13/12/2005:
“Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop, because we have not been, and so what on earth a judicial inquiry would start to do I have no idea.”

before it emerged that British intelligence agencies mounted their own rendition operation in collaboration with Gadaffi's security services:

Components of the Bush and Blair government lied. As have components of almost every government on earth since, well, governments have been around. Some to a greater degree, some to a lesser degree.

Some good newspapers like the Guardian notwithstanding, this is inaccurate in my opinion. Newspapers can only print what their editors tell them to print. Just go back and look at coverage of the Iraq war. The "embedded" media there. Why was Fallujah never adequately reported on?
Or the invasion of East Timor? Or the 'illegal' bombing of Cambodia?

I disagree, this is a gross over-simplification. Editors of newspapers may be left or right leaning, and in some cases biased, but they are not uniformly "controlled".

For instance, what you've just said about Fallujah is simply not true at all.

There were two incursions in Fallujah, the latter was less reported on because the US military went in much harder with more firepower and proactively stopped reporters as much as possible. Even so, I saw reports that interviewed the Jihad fighters preparing for Fallujah in the days before, interviews with religious students who had never held a gun but made their way there to fight. Also reports and interviews with soldiers, spokesmen and commanders for the US, as well as residents cordoned off outside and those making their way out before the deadline.

Due to the extreme fight that followed it would have been far too dangerous for reporters to be "embedded" with the insurgency/Fallujah resistance. However there was still constant footage of the fighting, which was prime-time news and featured heavily in the analysis and debate programmes for several days.

Many reports did surface, including atrocities. Ambulances had been fired on, the US had been using a strange type of gas bomb (which was filmed), allegations of white phosphorus use. There was actual footage of the attacks. Huge wall-to-wall media coverage of the controversy of a US soldier killing an insurgent who had apparently surrendered.

These reports, articles, opinion pieces (for and against) were all carried in everything from Time magazine to Channel 4 - the "Corporate Media".

Border-Rat

NIMAN wrote: »

When I was young I would have enjoyed reading a lot of CTs, aliens and JFK being the main ones.

However, as I got older I realised that most were probably ol' nonsense (some are laughable frankly).
Hopefully that won't insult too many of the regulars in here.

I frequent this forum the odd time out of curiosity, and I was just wondering if there has ever been a major CT that was proved to be true?

What is your definition of 'proven'? Sadly it seems vindication for you is the word of the state.

Channel Zero

Jonny7 wrote: »

The case against "corporate media" is weak and vague because it isn't a single entity nor a single source.

Not to split hairs, but i don't think anyone is really claiming that it's a single entity or source in the strictest sense.
More a case that as an entity, it can be observed (not vaguely or weakly i would say) to pander to establishment and corporate interests.

Actually, the Iraq war is an especially bad example as the "European" media was oft slated by those who supported the war in Iraq as being too critical of Bush and Blair and the war effort.

Would disagree that it's an especially bad example. Agree with you that the war advocate's slated some sections of media for daring to question the invasion.
For the most part though, channel 4 debates etc aside, i think the corporate media in general definitely supported and de facto legitimised the invasion.

Corporate media was used to produce public consent. That was a conspiracy.
Then, after the invasion started, images and reporting were highly controlled. That was a conspiracy.

I've never once heard anything about the KGB despite the fact they were just as active during the Cold War.

Ok.., well, i don't want to be painted as anti-U.S. by default for not mentioning the KGB in my post, but seeing as you brought it up, here's a very interesting article comparing media coverage of Fallujah and Grozny.

http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2813

Components of the Bush and Blair government lied. As have components of almost every government on earth since, well, governments have been around. Some to a greater degree, some to a lesser degree.

Are these lies published in the manner that they should be in a supposedly free media? Another poster commented that a newspaper never refuses ink. I would beg to differ.

For instance, what you've just said about Fallujah is simply not true at all..

More Fallujah related here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100907_beyond_hiroshima_the.php
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/050517_bbc_silent_on_fallujah.php

Anyway jonny, quibbling about this aside, from your previous posts i know we're both on the same page about the war in general.

Monty Burnz

Channel Zero wrote: »

Would disagree that it's an especially bad example. Agree with you that the war advocate's slated some sections of media for daring to question the invasion.
For the most part though, channel 4 debates etc aside, i think the corporate media in general definitely supported and de facto legitimised the invasion.

I seem to remember that the news media was broadly against the war, and if you claim that it was creating a consensus for war, it does not seem to have been very successful.

Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets of London to voice their opposition to military action against Iraq.
Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part, although organisers put the figure closer to two million.

There were also anti-war gatherings in Glasgow and Belfast - all part of a worldwide weekend of protest with hundreds of rallies and marches in up to 60 countries.

They came as UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, in a speech warning of "bloody consequences" if Iraq was not confronted, directly addressed those marching.

He did not "seek unpopularity as a badge of honour", he said, "but sometimes it is the price of leadership and the cost of conviction".

Shortly after he spoke, at around midday GMT, a tide of banner-waving protesters began surging through central London.

And this report was carried by the BBC, the media outlet the government arguably has the most control over...

Channel Zero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I seem to remember that the news media was broadly against the war, and if you claim that it was creating a consensus for war, it does not seem to have been very successful.


And this report was carried by the BBC, the media outlet the government arguably has the most control over...

With respect, nobody is claiming that the BBC have abilities to brainwash a complete populace.:)

Power to the people!;)

Monty Burnz

Channel Zero wrote: »

With respect, nobody is claiming that the BBC have abilities to brainwash a complete populace.:)

Power to the people!;)

The point is that you are claiming there was a massive media conspiracy to create a consensus for the war, but oddly enough we still saw the biggest protest in British history opposing the war.

Either:

1. It's not possible to create a consensus through the media

or

2. It is, but they didn't try.

I remember most of the news media being clearly either against the war or extremely sceptical about it. I don't remember any of the media in favour.

Am I misremembering?

Channel Zero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The point is that you are claiming there was a massive media conspiracy to create a consensus for the war, but oddly enough we still saw the biggest protest in British history opposing the war.

Semantic use of words like "massive" aside, yes i am claiming that there was a definite agenda to create consensus for the war. Because there was.
Hope that doesn't seem arrogant.
I can back this up with references given time. Hope you got to read the links in the post above.

I remember most of the news media being clearly either against the war or extremely sceptical about it. I don't remember any of the media in favour.

That differs to my memory. The only outlets i would possibly except from that are Channel 4 and the Guardian.

Monty Burnz

Channel Zero wrote: »

Semantic use of words like "massive" aside, yes i am claiming that there was a definite agenda to create consensus for the war. Because there was.
Hope that doesn't seem arrogant.

Not at all. Sorry if I put words in your mouth there.

Channel Zero wrote: »

I can back this up with references given time. Hope you got to read the links in the post above.

I'll look into the links if I get a chance.

Channel Zero wrote: »

That differs to my memory. The only outlets i would possibly except from that are Channel 4 and the Guardian.

I'd certainly add BBC to the list of those who were at the very least, cynical about the invasion. Of course, memory is very subjective, but I was - as I suspect you were - opposed to the war when it was being planned.

Edit: I've had a look at this link - http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2813 - and I'd like to point out that they are comparing apples and oranges WRT the BBC coverage. They are comparing opinion pieces (things written by named journalists giving an opinion) with straight news reporting (no named journalist - just the facts, ma'am). Have a look at the 'contrasting' articles that they cite.

Channel Zero

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Not at all. Sorry if I put words in your mouth there.

I'll look into the links if I get a chance.

No apology necessary. Appreciate your reply and critical eye on the matter.

Lisandro

Channel Zero wrote: »

"We all have our different outlooks i suppose. Some more cynical than others. It's hardly "morally arrogant" to be cynical of corporate media in my opinion. We all have our own strong views."

Well, not when it comes to being cynical about the media, that much is quite fine. The problem arises when claims are made that the media only serve corporate interests and that anyone who accepts any of their stories as true is a sheep who can't think for themselves. That's what I mean by moral arrogance.

Channel Zero wrote: »

"Fair to a point, but obviously doesn't apply for so-called matters of 'national importance'. What about the long history of covert and classified CIA actions? These superceded any political point-scoring."

I don't mean covert attempts to further America's interests in the middle-east (that most people generally acknowledge do happen), I mean hardline conspiracy stories, that the government planned 9-11 and is part of the New World Order. That's the kind of conspiracy I'm talking about that cannot survive in a Western Liberal Democracy.

Channel Zero wrote: »

"Plausable deniability applies to many government conspiracies that do surface...before it emerged that British intelligence agencies mounted their own rendition operation in collaboration with Gadaffi's security services."

Evidence of a body's involvement in a conspiracy does not imply unanimous consensus or knowledge within that body. Operations like torture can only be known and conducted by small numbers; every non-essential actor is a potential informant. The fact that even then the scandal was uncovered is more telling of how difficult it is to hide a conspiracy than anything else.

Channel Zero wrote: »

"Some good newspapers like the Guardian notwithstanding, this is inaccurate in my opinion. Newspapers can only print what their editors tell them to print. Just go back and look at coverage of the Iraq war. The "embedded" media there. Why was Fallujah never adequately reported on? Or the invasion of East Timor? Or the 'illegal' bombing of Cambodia?"

It's not my duty to show that media bias doesn't exist, because it obviously does, but the (possible - I haven't checked) neglect of some issues doesn't invalidate the fact that "corporate interests" like the Iraq war received heavy media criticism at the time and that actual scandals were reported - Abu Ghraib, Watergate, Pentagon Papers, etc. When you say that the Guardian and some other papers uncover scandals, that is a massive concession; the media conspiracy hypothesis requires news outlets to keep disturbing secrets from the public. That hypothesis becomes a bit untenable when it doesn't actually work.

Channel Zero wrote: »

"Fair enough, but conversely i could say, there's also a necessity to draw a line between fantasies people have that every conspiracy will be sniffed out and exposed by a truthful, watchful corporate media or made public with every change of government and the one's that are not discovered. I could equally call that myopic."

That's not what you're here to debate, because no one denies the existence of hidden scandals and media bias. What this is about is whether or not the media at large is part of that conspiracy, and I think that is radically implausible.

Channel Zero

Lisandro wrote: »

The problem arises when claims are made that the media only serve corporate interests and that anyone who accepts any of their stories as true is a sheep who can't think for themselves. That's what I mean by moral arrogance.

I completely understand what you're saying. You're right. That type of arrogance is all over the 'conspiracy' world. It's a meme.

Will get get back to you on the rest of your post at some stage for the sake of discussion.

Channel Zero

Lisandro wrote: »

Evidence of a body's involvement in a conspiracy does not imply unanimous consensus or knowledge within that body. Operations like torture can only be known and conducted by small numbers; every non-essential actor is a potential informant. The fact that even then the scandal was uncovered is more telling of how difficult it is to hide a conspiracy than anything else.

I agree that it doesn't imply consensus or ubiquitous knowledge no, but operations like rendition, systematic torture, the use of napalm and white phosphorus in Fallujah etc; these were obviously sanctioned at high levels.
There's no denying that operations like this and conspiracies to conceal them are by their nature hard to pull off. But it's important to bear in mind that the reportage from BBC's embedded journalists didn't uncover some of these things. Rather it was the work of independent reporters.

It's not my duty to show that media bias doesn't exist, because it obviously does, but the (possible - I haven't checked) neglect of some issues doesn't invalidate the fact that "corporate interests" like the Iraq war received heavy media criticism at the time and that actual scandals were reported - Abu Ghraib, Watergate, Pentagon Papers, etc. When you say that the Guardian and some other papers uncover scandals, that is a massive concession; the media conspiracy hypothesis requires news outlets to keep disturbing secrets from the public. That hypothesis becomes a bit untenable when it doesn't actually work.

Just to add aswell. Me pointing out that the Guardian is a reasonably good newspaper compared to the rest is not really a 'massive concession', as my opinion or view is not the extreme one you seem to be ascribing to me, ie that all corporate media is so tightly controlled that almost every conspiracy/scandal will be heavily censored or not reported on.
Anyway, it would be flawed logic to assume that just because scandals like Watergate were exposed, that a media conspiracy hypothesis as you put it, but in the terms that i framed it, is not untenable.

Torakx

Its my thinking, that if there was a mass media conspiracy,they would still at some stages need to use some form of truth when reporting.

I would say sometimes it could be beneficial to put a twist on a truth you cannot hide,rather than deny it and have your reputation tarnished.

I find news reports interesting mostly because i always wonder what they are not saying to the public.
But then i ussually just need to pop in here and check out the "gossip" and CT's to get a lot more of a clear picture of whats going on in the background.

Monty Burnz

Torakx wrote: »

Its my thinking, that if there was a mass media conspiracy,they would still at some stages need to use some form of truth when reporting.

I would say sometimes it could be beneficial to put a twist on a truth you cannot hide,rather than deny it and have your reputation tarnished.

You should have a look at the reporting by Russia Today (Russian international propaganda) and Press TV (Iranian international propaganda). Those are two outlets who do some reasonably good straight reporting and mix it with hilariously bad propaganda. Russia Todady did a report on a subject I'm very familiar with first hand and it was full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations to allow them put a propaganda spin on the report. But you can often see the spin with no knowledge at all of the subject.

Fox News is another good example. Total rubbish mixed with actual news.

Lisandro

Channel Zero wrote: »

I agree that it doesn't imply consensus or ubiquitous knowledge...There's no denying that operations like this and conspiracies to conceal them are by their nature hard to pull off.

Which was my point, so we agree on that.

Channel Zero wrote: »

But it's important to bear in mind that the reportage from BBC's embedded journalists didn't uncover some of these things. Rather it was the work of independent reporters.

Well, sometimes. I think that's what diverse media is good for.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Just to add aswell. Me pointing out that the Guardian is a reasonably good newspaper compared to the rest is not really a 'massive concession', as my opinion or view is not the extreme one you seem to be ascribing to me, ie that all corporate media is so tightly controlled that almost every conspiracy/scandal will be heavily censored or not reported on.

It's a massive concession from the point of view of the argument I was responding to before you replied to one of my posts. Indeed, I think it moves the debate from being about media conspiracy to now being more about media bias, which is widely acknowledged to exist and is in any case much less conduissive to hardline conspiracism.

Channel Zero wrote: »

Anyway, it would be flawed logic to assume that just because scandals like Watergate were exposed, that a media conspiracy hypothesis as you put it...

I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say there, can you correct the grammar? Not trying to be rude or anything, I'm just not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

Torakx wrote: »

Its my thinking, that if there was a mass media conspiracy,they would still at some stages need to use some form of truth when reporting.

I would say sometimes it could be beneficial to put a twist on a truth you cannot hide,rather than deny it and have your reputation tarnished.

I find news reports interesting mostly because i always wonder what they are not saying to the public.
But then i ussually just need to pop in here and check out the "gossip" and CT's to get a lot more of a clear picture of whats going on in the background.

Well, the claim that's made is that the media conspiracy exists and that it has isolated knowledge of scandals to a small number of internet warriors who are dismissed as tinfoil-hat-wearing crazies. Precisely what do they need to be honest about if they're evidently doing such a good job of not being caught? I'm just curious as to when they'd actually need to do this, because my instinct is that if there's a need to put a spin on the truth then the public probably aren't as easy to fool as the hypothesis says they are.

Mind you, I'd be careful to cross-reference your conspiracy hypotheses (as a scientist, I have a particular aversion to using the word theory here), contradictions can be found in the most peculiar of places!

Torakx

Im sure your aware that alot of the time and especially with mass media,you can pass off any amount of "spin", if you repeat it enough times.

To say all news outlets for example, are in on a big conspiracy to fool the world would be exagerated.
I am guessing it might be more along the lines of a good many if not all the main news channels and the underdogs will follow along or spin another angle as competition requires of them.

Competition for ratings on the lower end of the mass media scale,
and maybe at the top, just plain lies, because they can and are most likely biased in certain circumstances.

Im not sure myself if this is true, how many news anchors know what is going on and who are just reading the teleprompter.

Ron Burgundy comes to mind lol

stuar

Sorry just jumping in here without reading the posts that went before, ignorant I know, I apologise.

but true conspiracies...

Northwoods...verified and true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam war): death count million'S
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distortion_of_the_event

France's roll(role) (and instigation of) in the Rwandan Genocide
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7542418.stm

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experim

Testimony of Nayirah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Rex 84
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84

Iran-Contra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_contra

CIA Drug Running
GOOGLE IT!

Mena:
Barry Seal....clinton...google.

Gunwalking....all the way to mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Paperclip:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

Jews funding Nazi Germany to kill Jews helped by skull and bones.
Google that.

IRA (partly)controlled by British secret service.
Google

David Kelly
Google if you must

EU/IOU/uOWE ME
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/9920508/Some_conspiracy_theories_are_true__and_the_worst_of_them_all_is_the_European_Union/

Palestine
Google or have common sense, whatever suits

Dublin Bombings by Brits and Nazi's
it wasn't me and we thought it was liverpool

Vatican Paeodophilia
little boys telling lies (but sworn never to tell these lies again)

Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii
USS Boston

Potatoe Famine
Starve the Irish

MK-ULTRA
Who am I and what am I doing?

Midnight Climax
That was some bad trip man

Public Experiments.
US and UK...Google

Menu (operation)
Cambodia

The 10 baht coin =€2
personal, toll bridge, cigarette machines......Very True:D

Channel Zero

Lisandro wrote: »

I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say there, can you correct the grammar? Not trying to be rude or anything, I'm just not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

No probs. Will try again. It was in response to this:

When you say that the Guardian and some other papers uncover scandals, that is a massive concession; the media conspiracy hypothesis requires news outlets to keep disturbing secrets from the public. That hypothesis becomes a bit untenable when it doesn't actually work.

Sorry to paraphrase, but how i read what you are saying above is more or less:

"The Media Conspiracy Hypothesis is supposed to keep disturbing secrets from the public, but the fact is, disturbing secrets like Watergate have been exposed.
Therefore the Media Conspiracy Hypothesis becomes a bit untenable, (meaning not able to be held as an opinion or position.)"

This is flawed logic. Just because Watergate etc came to light, that doesn't mean that a Media Conspiracy Hypothesis is necessarily rendered untenable. It just means that corporate is not completely controlled and biased to the point that all scandals/conspiracies/issues are censored or not printed.

Hope that's a bit clearer.

Lisandro

Channel Zero wrote: »

It just means that corporate is not completely controlled and biased to the point that all scandals/conspiracies/issues are censored or not printed.

Actually, that was what I was trying to prove. That some agencies have agendas on certain issues, I can accept, but not to the point that the media can keep you in the dark on a sizable proportion of issues we all know to be true. I think that requires a certain commonality to exist between the aims and intentions of media outlets beyond a simple dismissal of anything that conflicts with British interests. Then again, I'm not trying to dispute that there are issues that aren't reported the way they should be in the media, simply the idea that the media situation is so biased that essential scandals are known and hidden from the public to the extent of not being covered at all.

Brown Bomber

Lisandro wrote: »

Actually, that was what I was trying to prove. That some agencies have agendas on certain issues, I can accept, but not to the point that the media can keep you in the dark on a sizable proportion of issues we all know to be true. I think that requires a certain commonality to exist between the aims and intentions of media outlets beyond a simple dismissal of anything that conflicts with British interests. Then again, I'm not trying to dispute that there are issues that aren't reported the way they should be in the media, simply the idea that the media situation is so biased that essential scandals are known and hidden from the public to the extent of not being covered at all.

Had you been aware of this?
Israeli Government Documents Show Deliberate Policy To Keep Gazans At Near-starvation Levels


http://www.imemc.org/article/59843

If so, how? If not, why not?

Lisandro

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Had you been aware of this?
Israeli Government Documents Show Deliberate Policy To Keep Gazans At Near-starvation Levels

http://www.imemc.org/article/59843

If so, how? If not, why not?

I'll answer that it a minute. But first I'd like to ask you what you think.

A blog on this story reported that only two English-speaking publications picked up on it, both of them Palestinian, and a google search of the story yielded only isolated blog posts.

Why do you think this story went unreported by pretty much all media pro-Israel, neutral and anti-Israel in the Anglophonic world?

Brown Bomber

Lisandro wrote: »

I'll answer that it a minute. But first I'd like to ask you what you think.

A blog on this story reported that only two English-speaking publications picked up on it, both of them Palestinian, and a google search of the story yielded only isolated blog posts.

Why do you think this story went unreported by pretty much all media pro-Israel, neutral and anti-Israel in the Anglophonic world?

I believe it was suppressed. How or by whom I cannot say. But lets face it it is unquestionably newsworthy. It is every inch the scandal you stated the media craves by virtue of it's sheer barbarity alone.

Channel Zero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe it was suppressed. How or by whom I cannot say. But lets face it it is unquestionably newsworthy. It is every inch the scandal you stated the media craves by virtue of it's sheer barbarity alone.

What's your opinion on the coverage of the current Palestinian hunger strikes?

It has been of course reported on, it doesn't seem to be splashed on the front pages shall we say.
Is it because publicising nonviolent forms of Palestinian resistance maybe don't dovetail in with some media owners agenda's?

Seems like a big story to me. 1300 prisoners on hunger strike.