Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You may be correct, DJ, but I don't recall alluding to an inside job.


With reference to logical fallacies...your own logic would most definitely fall with these parameters. To wit .... "A passport can survive a fireball; the passport was found; hence the passport survived a fireball."


This is along the same lines as those inane "proofs" that god exists, e.g.:


- God created trees
- Trees exist
- Therefore God exists.


QED

The above are not examples of it. This is evidence you don't seem to understand the fallacy in the first place.

I've explained it, other's have explained it, and here are other links explaining this fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument%20from%20incredulity%2C%20also%20known,or%20is%20difficult%20to%20imagine.
"Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity
"Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance."

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The above are not examples of it. This is evidence you don't seem to understand the fallacy in the first place.

I've explained it, other's have explained it, and here are other links explaining this fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument%20from%20incredulity%2C%20also%20known,or%20is%20difficult%20to%20imagine.
"Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine."

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argument-from-Incredulity
"Description: Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance."

How then does the argument from incredulity apply to the cat or the knife man?


It's always a minefield to bring up films or stories or plays but if we were to harken back to the film "12 Angry Men".


Davis, the protagonist, attempts to connect two pieces of evidence in order to shake the foundations of them.


One piece of evidence was that a man heard the suspect yell "I'm going to kill you" and then heard the body hit the floor, seconds later, after the victim had been stabbed.


Another piece of evidence was that a woman saw the stabbing through the windows of a passing train.


Davis surmised that if she was telling the truth then the noise the noise of the train would have made it impossible to hear anything.


My question is ... is his argument from incredulity? After all he can't believe what they siad they witnessed... and if so why is such an argument so moot?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

How then does the argument from incredulity apply to the cat or the knife man?

Any examples I've seen you provide are not related at all.

Start off by choosing any evidence-based fact, e.g. Cheetah's can run at 60 mph, then apply argument from incredulity: "I can't believe that, so it's not true".

ShatterAlan

growleaves wrote: »

Yes, there must be, and for instance John Mitchel was both a conspiracy theorist and a conspirator.

Also a lot of anti-conspiracy theory discourse rests on the assumption that people in power have no reason to behave badly ('what would they have to gain?') and therefore won't and aren't.

This is belied by historical examples of tyrannies: Communism, Nazism, medieval kings, slaves states like ancient Sparta, dictators like Chiang Kai-Shek etc., etc.

Obviously the ugly side of human nature, psychotic and deliberate evil, exists and isn't all that unusual. So utilitarian question-begging leave me unmoved.

Decent point. If a parent can sexually abuse their own offspring a government can kill its own electorate if power and control are the endgame.


A little known fact is that there were some several hundred , if not a few thousand, American POWs in a prison in Japan....their location made known by the Japanese to the Americans. They were however incinerated in the A-Bomb blast at Hiroshima. Expendable.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A little known fact is that there were some several hundred , if not a few thousand, American POWs in a prison in Japan....their location made known by the Japanese to the Americans. They were however incinerated in the A-Bomb blast at Hiroshima. Expendable.

One of the reasons planners and scientists chose Hiroshima is because there were no known POW camps. Despite this, it's believed the blast killed 12 POWs who were in Hiroshima at the time.

storker

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You may be correct, DJ, but I don't recall alluding to an inside job.


With reference to logical fallacies...your own logic would most definitely fall with these parameters. To wit .... "A passport can survive a fireball; the passport was found; hence the passport survived a fireball."


This is along the same lines as those inane "proofs" that god exists, e.g.:


- God created trees
- Trees exist
- Therefore God exists.


QED

But a passport can survive a fireball. Air crash investigators find victims' documents all the time. There is no fallacy, it's your pet premise that's false.

- Passports can't survive fiery plane crashes (false)
- A 911 hijackers passport was found (true)
- Therefore it must have been planted (unsound conclusion due to false premise)

King Mob

growleaves wrote: »

I've encountered it on other forums on this site and in real life discussions.

But here is a conspiracy forum, and as some will tell you I've been here for a very long time and I'm "extremely anti conspiracy theory."

So how is it that I've never seen or used this argument that is so prelevent amount people like myself?

I think that it's not prelevent at all and it's just you oversimplifying arguments and people you don't agree with.

The only time I've ever seen anything close it that argument being used is in reference to theories like flat earth.

growleaves

King Mob wrote: »

But here is a conspiracy forum, and as some will tell you I've been here for a very long time and I'm "extremely anti conspiracy theory."

So how is it that I've never seen or used this argument that is so prelevent amount people like myself?

I think that it's not prelevent at all and it's just you oversimplifying arguments and people you don't agree with.

The only time I've ever seen anything close it that argument being used is in reference to theories like flat earth.

The question of motivation of comes up constantly. It came up again in the covid forum today in discussing the Great Reset where I was asked by a poster why K. Schwab would be motivated to create a worse world (the default assumption being that people like him are dispassionate technocrats.)

'People like myself'

Who are people like yourself?

I'm speaking to my own experience. If you want to reply to say you have a different experience that's fine but it doesn't invalidate anything I'm saying.

I don't have to provide an explanation of why someone I've never spoken to on a forum I've only just started reading has a dissimilar frame of reference to me.

King Mob

growleaves wrote: »

The question of motivation of comes up constantly.
.

Yet it doesn't here, where conspiracy theories are most often discussed.

growleaves wrote: »

'People like myself'

Who are people like yourself?
.

Someone who engages in "a lot of anti-conspiracy theory discourse".

growleaves wrote: »

I'm speaking to my own experience. If you want to reply to say you have a different experience that's fine but it doesn't invalidate anything I'm saying.

I don't have to provide an explanation of why someone I've never spoken to on a forum I've only just started reading has a dissimilar frame of reference to me.

Sure. But I'm very familiar with conspiracy theory discourse both here and else where.
There has been no examples of what you claim is a common argument and position that I have seen.

According to you, a lot of the anti-conspiracy discourse is centred about this argument, so surely in a forum that exclusively discusses conspiracy theories, there would be a ton of examples of this argument everywhere here. And surely the folks who don't accept the conspiracy theories would be using the argument a lot.

But we don't see that.

I think this is because your contention that is is a main/common/central argument against conspiracy theories isn't true. I think your experiences are a bit skewed and a feature a bit of reductionism on your part.

Would you also characterise a lot of the pro conspiracy discussion as "resting on the assumption of things like a New World Order or microchips or the mark of the beast"?

Do you believe that this would be a fair characterisation?
Cause I can certainly provide way more examples of this that you can of yours.

ShatterAlan

[QUOTE=storker;115431137]But a passport can survive a fireball. Air crash investigators find victims' documents all the time. There is no fallacy, it's your pet premise that's false.

- Passports can't survive fiery plane crashes (false)
- A 911 hijackers passport was found (true)
- Therefore it must have been planted (unsound conclusion due to false premise)[/QUOTE]




I'm sure they do. They find luggage and teddy-bears and various other personal effects blown from the hull in mid air or when the vehicle hits a mountain or slams into the sea......generally days later.


But the thing is, they rarely find a passport before the crash-site bereft of its owner.

ShatterAlan

storker wrote: »

But a passport can survive a fireball. Air crash investigators find victims' documents all the time. There is no fallacy, it's your pet premise that's false.

- Passports can't survive fiery plane crashes (false)
- A 911 hijackers passport was found (true)
- Therefore it must have been planted (unsound conclusion due to false premise)

A passortt can survive a fireball?


Excellent......then why can't the jacket it was inside survive the same fireball?

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A passortt can survive a fireball?


Excellent......then why can't the jacket it was inside survive the same fireball?

Who says it was in a jacket?
How do you know it was in a jacket?

The Nal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A passortt can survive a fireball?


Excellent......then why can't the jacket it was inside survive the same fireball?

Whats this obsession with it being in a jacket? Weird.

growleaves

King Mob wrote: »

Yet it doesn't here, where conspiracy theories are most often discussed.

And I've only just starting reading/posting here like I said.

We're just around in circles now. I'm not getting into an interminable discussion with you.

I was replying to another poster to begin with.

Buzz off

King Mob

growleaves wrote: »

And I've only just starting reading/posting here like I said.

We're just around in circles now. I'm not getting into an interminable discussion with you.

I was replying to another poster to begin with.

Buzz off

Weird reaction.

But no, we're not going in a circle, I'm going in a pretty straight and direct line.

I've made an argument for how and why your characterisation of people who don't believe conspiracy theories is not accurate.

For some reason this seems to have upset you greatly.

Rather than becoming upset, maybe you could try addressing my points?
If you don't want to address points that don't agree with yours, maybe a discussion site isn't the right place for you.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

A passortt can survive a fireball?

Still incredulous.

As mentioned many times, perishable items were recovered from the sites. 3 hijackers passports were found either intact or partially intact, and 1 passport was recovered in luggage that didn't make the connecting flight.

Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTBOM#:~:text=Passports%20recovered,-According%20to%20testimony&text=Four%20of%20the%20hijackers'%20passports,on%20American%20Airlines%20flight%2011.

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

ShatterAlan

The Nal wrote: »

Whats this obsession with it being in a jacket? Weird.

I don't know.


I suppose the same obsession with a ring being on a finger but being found in the rubble.

The Nal

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.


I suppose the same obsession with a ring being on a finger but being found in the rubble.

The finger got pulverised. Gold/Silver is tougher than skin and flesh. I don't really get the confusion?

The passport could've been on a seat and got blown out a window. Just like the thousands of other documents and artifacts they found in the rubble.

King Mob

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I don't know.

There is no reason for why you keep insisting on it.
It's just part of your dishonest strawman argument you are sticking to for some bizarre reason.

And again, we can point to a great many other items that would have been in jackets or wallets etc.
You can't explain those and you're not honest enough to admit you believe they are all faked.

Dohnjoe

The Nal wrote: »

The finger got pulverised. Gold/Silver is tougher than skin and flesh. I don't really get the confusion?

The passport could've been on a seat and got blown out a window. Just like the thousands of other documents and artifacts they found in the rubble.

Indeed, over 200 Claddagh rings were recovered from ground zero.

https://www.claddaghrings.com/irish-symbol-of-friendship-loyalty-and-love-at-ground-zero/

One of the victims, a Clinton family friend, their wedding ring found in the rubble
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2497916/Wedding-ring-9-11-victim-Clinton-family-friend-1-6-million-tons-Ground-Zero-rubble-provide-hope-daughter-died-hit-run-decade-later.html

storker

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I'm sure they do. They find luggage and teddy-bears and various other personal effects blown from the hull in mid air or when the vehicle hits a mountain or slams into the sea......generally days later.


But the thing is, they rarely find a passport before the crash-site bereft of its owner.

Rare != impossible.

The circumstances of the 911 crash were pretty rare too, so other rare phenomena associated with the crash is hardly surprising.

But in admitting that documents can and do survive air crashes, you've just defeated your own argument, so we can drop that line of enquiry now. That just leaves the BBC fantasy, which has been pretty comprehensively dealt with.

Anything else in the shot locker?

storker

King Mob wrote: »

Lol weird reaction.

Bizarre. One wonders if that was the desired end goal from the outset.

King Mob

storker wrote: »

But in admitting that documents can and do survive air crashes, you've just defeated your own argument, so we can drop that line of enquiry now. That just leaves the BBC fantasy, which has been pretty comprehensively dealt with.

Anything else in the shot locker?

Remember that these were the best arguments that he picked to show that 9/11 was obviously true.

This was the best he had.

It's why conspiracy theorists have to rely on quantity rather than quality.
So when it looks like their first claim is failing, they can always pull out another claim to distract and deflect. And as long as they can avoid getting cornered into actually defending and thinking about a specific claim, they never have to face that they might be wrong.

cml387

I really thought there was a deicated thread to 9/11 nonsense.

Anyway here's my input.

It's long been a cinspiracy theory that whoever brought down PA103 over Lockerbie, it had nothing to do with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

At this moment there is an appeal going on whicjh on the face of it is blowing large holes in the eveidnce of the Maltese shopkeeper who claims he sold the famous suitcase to al_Megrahi.
Mind you to any outside observer the evidence seems flimsy in the extreme, but still governments are clinging to the al-Megrahi theory and still witholding files on the matter

King Mob

cml387 wrote: »

I really thought there was a deicated thread to 9/11 nonsense.

There is, but the 9/11 stuff is pretty illustrative of the thinking behind a lot of conspiracy theories.

cml387 wrote: »

Anyway here's my input.

It's long been a cinspiracy theory that whoever brought down PA103 over Lockerbie, it had nothing to do with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

A lot of other people just seem to be posting that they believe X or Y conspiracy, but they aren't really explaining how they are more credible than other conspiracy theories.

People say the same stuff about 9/11 and the Moon Hoax and Holocaust denial as you do about this conspiracy.
And as we've seen, what people claim about their preferred conspiracy and what's reality don't often match up.

What we've yet to see is any example of a credible conspiracy theory as I've outlined it.
A theory started on the internet, that relies solely on the clues gathered by internet detectives, about a plot that was later shown to be true and is accepted as such.

partyguinness

I was on an adventure holiday years ago in Egypt and there was this daughter and father on it as well.

She was in her early 40s and father late 60s and Scottish. They were perfectly normal sensible although prone to get a bit ratty. Ok the fact there roomed together was probably a little weird in hindsight.

There was also this guy from NI on the tour travelling on his own and he celebrated his 50th birthday during the trip. He was a fecking weirdo straight off the bat and just irritated everyone.

One night after dinner conversation led to the moon (no idea how it came up) but the Scottish couple and the NI firmly believe the moon landings never happened. The rest of us thought they were joking to begin with but no, deadly serious. Crazy feckers.

We gave them a wide berth for the remainder of the tour.

Dohnjoe

partyguinness wrote: »

I was on an adventure holiday years ago in Egypt and there was this daughter and father on it as well.

She was in her early 40s and father late 60s and Scottish. They were perfectly normal sensible although prone to get a bit ratty. Ok the fact there roomed together was probably a little weird in hindsight.

There was also this guy from NI on the tour travelling on his own and he celebrated his 50th birthday during the trip. He was a fecking weirdo straight off the bat and just irritated everyone.

One night after dinner conversation led to the moon (no idea how it came up) but the Scottish couple and the NI firmly believe the moon landings never happened. The rest of us thought they were joking to begin with but no, deadly serious. Crazy feckers.

We gave them a wide berth for the remainder of the tour.

Yeah have bumped into a few over the years like this. Often they'll know stuff about the event that normal people don't know, so they can hijack them with "explain that" style questions

partyguinness

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah have bumped into a few over the years like this. Often they'll know stuff about the event that normal people don't know, so they can hijack them with "explain that" style questions

We didnt even bother going there. You could tell by the steely look in her eyes especially she was not for turning.

King Mob

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yeah have bumped into a few over the years like this. Often they'll know stuff about the event that normal people don't know, so they can hijack them with "explain that" style questions

I think this is why flat earth has been making a bit of a come back of late.
This tactic works really well for them because a lot of their points are actually more difficult to explain and debunk than most people expect.

There are some things they point to that to fully explain you need to have a good grasp of things like optics, geometry and physics.
While for conspiracy theories like 9/11 or the Moon Hoax, it's a little easier to just fact check basic stuff and point out incorrect claims.

partyguinness

I think the most hilarious one is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane on 9/11.