Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

1235763

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Lumping the credible possibility that more than a lone gunman acted in the assassination of Kennedy in with the inane notion of chemtrails is a popular method of shutting down debate. It's a cheap trick but if it's all you've got then go for it.

    I was referencing popular conspiracy theories. I've seen just as many chemtrail related threads on this forum as JFK ones, if not more.

    Naming popular conspiracy theories is not "shutting down debate", lol.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,596 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal


    The thread is any credible conspiracy theories.

    There are. JFK isn't one, Lennon isn't one, 9/11 isn't one.

    There are credible conspiracy theories though - Iran/Contra, Operation Himmler, MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment etc


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭ IAMAMORON


    The Rettendon murders.


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    The Nal wrote: »
    The thread is any credible conspiracy theories.

    There are. JFK isn't one, Lennon isn't one, 9/11 isn't one.

    There are credible conspiracy theories though - Iran/Contra, Operation Himmler, MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment etc
    I think there's a distinction between real conspiracies and Conspiracy theories.

    Real conspiracies are actual events where in one way or another exposed by reporters or historians or by Freedom of Information Acts etc. and rely on carefully researched fact.

    Conspiracy theories on the other hand are conspiracies that are "exposed" by untrained random people on the internet (and before that, on self published pamphlets.) using clues gleaned from the internet using dubious logic and often involving massive suspension of disbelief.

    Of all the "real conspiracies" we all know they are real because they are well researched and documented. None of them were cracked because some random layperson gathered they random easy-to-find clues the government left laying around. None of them were discussed or mentioned as theories before they were exposed by the media. For example, MK Ultra was exposed by the New York Times and some Government committees.

    Likewise, of the thousands of theories being discussed on internet forums and by cranks like Alex Jones, none of them every turn out to be true. There's never any real evidence. None of the predictions actually come to pass.
    The theories never become more clear and concise with a single truth emerging like with what happens in real research. Rather, the theories expand and grow and get more and more wild and out there.

    For me, for it to be a credible conspiracy theory, it would have to be a theory that started out exclusively in online forums or the fringes of the press. It would have to use clues that are easily found with little actual investigation. It would have to form an alternate explanation from the accepted one.

    I've never heard of any theory that did this and went on to be shown to be true.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    King Mob wrote: »
    For me, for it to be a credible conspiracy theory, it would have to be a theory that started out exclusively in online forums or the fringes of the press. It would have to use clues that are easily found with little actual investigation. It would have to form an alternate explanation from the accepted one.

    I've never heard of any theory that did this and went on to be shown to be true.

    The definition is vague enough that someone could probably find a theory that grew on the fringes of the internet and turned out to be true (and, let's face it, if the proponent is a "conspiracy theorist" that will be used as validation that these other popular conspiracies could also be true)

    I'm sure there have been some, possibly one or two that slipped my mind, but they are indeed very rare


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,165 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    The definition is vague enough that someone could probably find a theory that grew on the fringes of the internet and turned out to be true (and, let's face it, if the proponent is a "conspiracy theorist" that will be used as validation that these other popular conspiracies could also be true)

    I'm sure there have been some, possibly one or two that slipped my mind, but they are indeed very rare
    I'd be very surprised if there was one.
    Folks always bring up a list of conspiracy theories that really happened, and it's pretty much the same as the one The Nal gave. (Only with something like 9/11 or JFK tacked on, cause everyone knows that's real.) All of those were broken by the government themselves or by mainstream media.

    If one did come from conspiracy websites and internet detectives, we'd be having it rubbed in our faces at every opportunity. Instead we have people coming by to tell us that JFK was obviously a conspiracy.

    You're right that one might exist, stopped clocks and all that. But it's obscure and not popular and most likely does not have the scope of the popular conspiracy theories.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    So judging by this thread without hardcore, undeniable evidence suggesting otherwise people will believe anything?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    So judging by this thread without hardcore, undeniable evidence suggesting otherwise people will believe anything?

    Even basic evidence. Take a popular "conspiracy theory" like 9/11, the keenest proponents of it, people who literally make a living off it, can't give the simplest details of their conspiracy, in fact, they just don't even bother answering the question


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ ShatterAlan


    King Mob wrote: »
    People often claim this, but they can't seem to explain the difference between conspiracy theories they believe and conspiracy theories they understand are ridiculous.

    Both the idea of the Kennedy assassination theory and the notion of chemtrails share a lot of the same sort of bad logic and arguments.
    The same with Kennedy and the moon hoax theory.
    Same with holocaust denial and flat eartherism.

    Another one that is very very close in nature to the Kennedy Assassination is the notion of school shootings being faked.
    They share a lot of arguments specifically around witness statements, uneducated opinions about how guns work and big weird elaborate plots that don't make any sense.

    How do you personally tell the difference between real conspiracy theories and fake ones?
    You said you don't believe in the notion of Chemtrails. Why not? Have you looked into it at all or have you dismissed it out of hand?


    With regards to "chemtrails"....I've been out to sea on boats and witnessed these trails. What's the point in spewing chemicals over vast swathes of uninhabited ocean if the object is to have these chemicals somehow contaminate people?
    There are more efficient ways to dumb down the population that are effectively being deployed such as the constant bombardment of rubbish TV, the degeneration of the school curriculum and the abolition of critical thinking skills in favour of rote learning to meet standardized exam requirements, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ ShatterAlan


    The Nal wrote: »
    The thread is any credible conspiracy theories.

    There are. JFK isn't one, Lennon isn't one, 9/11 isn't one.

    There are credible conspiracy theories though - Iran/Contra, Operation Himmler, MKUltra, Operation Northwoods, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment etc


    They are only credible to you because they have been exposed and so you are forced to accept them. The others have not been exposed so you have the luxury of dismissing them.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,596 ✭✭✭✭ The Nal


    They are only credible to you because they have been exposed and so you are forced to accept them. The others have not been exposed so you have the luxury of dismissing them.

    They haven't been exposed because theres nothing to expose.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭ IAMAMORON


    Anyone saying there was no conspiracy behind the Kennedy murder is just being lazy.

    Single bullet my winking brown eye. Zapruder film. Grassy Knoll. Taking 3 snipes in 8 secs to a moving cavalcade. Arresting Oswald outside a cinema, far too handy. Subsequent Oswald assasination whilst in custody. Faaaaar too much smoke. We will never know for sure, but there was a lot going on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    The others have not been exposed so you have the luxury of dismissing them.

    What others have not been exposed?

    Keep in mind, these are people claiming that the world history of an event is incorrect, that something else entirely happened, but they a) don't know what it is and b) have no credible evidence of it..


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Anyone saying there was no conspiracy behind the Kennedy murder is just being lazy.

    Single bullet my winking brown eye. Zapruder film. Grassy Knoll. Taking 3 snipes in 8 secs to a moving cavalcade. Arresting Oswald outside a cinema, far too handy. Subsequent Oswald assasination whilst in custody. Faaaaar too much smoke. We will never know for sure, but there was a lot going on.

    Again, the cornerstone of conspiracy thinking, the argument from incredulity + the usual dose of denialism

    Cool, so what did happen then, please don't spare the details..


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,724 ✭✭✭ AllForIt


    If it's undeniably true then it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. Prolly said already I'm sure.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭ IAMAMORON


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Again, the cornerstone of conspiracy thinking, the argument from incredulity + the usual dose of denialism

    Cool, so what did happen then, please don't spare the details..

    I agree, we will never find out now. But there is too much smoke and it will just go down as one of life's mysteries.

    The clincher for me was when they managed to arrest Oswald outside a cinema after he had an altercation with a Dallas Police officer. I never understood that one, how did they know that he was in the cinema? I know they were looking everywhere but how did he get singled out?

    We will never know, but I am sure that it is a fair enough assumption that there was a bigger conspiracy than the Warren Commission accounted for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I agree, we will never find out now. But there is too much smoke and it will just go down as one of life's mysteries.

    This is cop out is used for literally every conspiracy without supporting evidence
    The clincher for me was when they managed to arrest Oswald outside a cinema after he had an altercation with a Dallas Police officer. I never understood that one, how did they know that he was in the cinema? I know they were looking everywhere but how did he get singled out?

    We will never know, but I am sure that it is a fair enough assumption that there was a bigger conspiracy than the Warren Commission accounted for.

    Note how the interest is only in the sequence of events not making sense, rather than the effort of explaining otherwise. I'm sure Nal will be along shortly to explain anyway.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭ IAMAMORON


    Just because you cannot prove something does not necessarily mean it never happened.

    It ain't what you say or do that gets you into trouble, it is what you know for sure that just ain't so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Just because you cannot prove something does not necessarily mean it never happened.

    Not really how it works. At all.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Not really how it works. At all.

    How do you mean it's not how it works?

    Just wondering is there any events in the world that you are suspicious about?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    How do you mean it's not how it works?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If someone is going to claim for example, that all the history books, and investigations, and evidence and witness statements about an event are false, they are going to need some pretty strong evidence to back that up, and to of course support their alternative theory.

    However when someone asserts an event didn't happen, but can't dispute it properly and worse can't detail what they thought really happened and can't provide evidence - then yes, you can just dismiss them
    Just wondering is there any events in the world that you are suspicious about?

    For example the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, sounds to me like it was an inside job by the Russian leadership, and there's a decent amount of evidence pointing in that direction.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If someone is going to claim for example, that all the history books, and investigations, and evidence and witness statements about an event are false, they are going to need some pretty strong evidence to back that up, and to of course support their alternative theory.

    However when someone asserts an event didn't happen, but can't dispute it properly and worse can't detail what they thought really happened and can't provide evidence - then yes, you can just dismiss them



    For example the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, sounds to me like it was an inside job by the Russian leadership, and there's a decent amount of evidence pointing in that direction.

    I find it funny the only event you question is a something that puts the blame on Russia which makes me believe that you will go along with whatever is fed to you by western media.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    If someone is going to claim for example, that all the history books, and investigations, and evidence and witness statements about an event are false, they are going to need some pretty strong evidence to back that up, and to of course support their alternative theory.

    However when someone asserts an event didn't happen, but can't dispute it properly and worse can't detail what they thought really happened and can't provide evidence - then yes, you can just dismiss them



    For example the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, sounds to me like it was an inside job by the Russian leadership, and there's a decent amount of evidence pointing in that direction.

    I'm sure when the Iraq or Libyan wars started you went along with all the fabricated information and straight up lies and falsified or simply misleading propaganda to justify military intervention in foreign countries by western states.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I find it funny the only event you question is a something that puts the blame on Russia which makes me believe that you will go along with whatever is fed to you by western media.

    I question pretty much any event I come across, and with the example I gave, the Skripal poisoning, I go with the facts of the case, which points towards government involvement.

    Conspiracy theorists generally aren't interested in conspiracies committed by countries they have no interest in or they see as aligned against their favorite boogeymen (the US gov, the Jews, the "West", etc, etc)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    I'm sure when the Iraq or Libyan wars started you went along with all the fabricated information and straight up lies and falsified or simply misleading propaganda to justify military intervention in foreign countries by western states.

    I protested the Iraq war, and generally supported limited action against Gadaffi at the time.

    People who are partial to conspiracy theories often share simplistic black/white world views, X country is "evil" and so on.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I question pretty much any event I come across, and with the example I gave, the Skripal poisoning, I go with the facts of the case, which points towards government involvement.

    Conspiracy theorists generally aren't interested in conspiracies committed by countries they have no interest in or they see as aligned against their favorite boogeymen (the US gov, the Jews, the "West", etc, etc)

    What evidence in the Skripal case do you find so overwhelming?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 273 ✭✭ Hqrry113


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I protested the Iraq war, and generally supported limited action against Gadaffi at the time.

    People who are partial to conspiracy theories often share simplistic black/white world views, X country is "evil" and so on.

    Seems a little like your views, simplistic views that the west can do no wrong and any allegation against Russia you are probably likely to dive on as if it's fact so long as it is supported by western media.

    I don't think the media is completely at fault for the bias of western meidia on world issues, it's very easy to control what information actually makes it to the media and what doesn't also a big part is how the media portrays it and that they will support stories with little substance so long as it goes along with the agenda of the powerful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    What evidence in the Skripal case do you find so overwhelming?

    It's a big case, but to summarise one of the key points

    The two men accused of poisoning Skripal (and others) were caught on CCTV making the route in Salisbury, the Russian government via state TV claimed the men were just civilians and there on holiday. An investigation exposed that they were actually GRU agents, Putin had actually decorated one of them himself. There was no credible explanation from the Kremlin to this. Also the poison used was Novichok, a Russian military nerve agent, it would have been difficult for a non-state actor to obtain, also it bore the same "calling card" hallmark as the poisoning of Litvinenko, an ex FSB officer who was critical of the Russian leadership, via Polonium 210.

    As of yet there are no other credible alternatives.
    Overview here
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal

    There's a high chance the a state murdered an ex-spy on foreign soil using a highly dangerous nerve agent (it managed to kill an innocent person). In my experience it doesn't interest "conspiracy theorists" in the slightest because it doesn't involve any of their favorite targets (e.g. the US gov), in fact, they are more than likely to try and argue against it

    Just preempting what's to come next from experience :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,802 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Seems a little like your views, simplistic views that the west can do no wrong

    Not my views at all.

    it's very easy to control what information actually makes it to the media and what doesn't also a big part is how the media portrays it and that they will support stories with little substance so long as it goes along with the agenda of the powerful.

    Right, the "Western media" is systematically controlled according to you, yes? okay, please explain how this works with e.g. the Guardian newspaper in the UK.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭ darconio


    In my opinion what makes every CT plausible is the fact the whole truth is never revealed and made available to the public.
    There are always some hidden aspects or twisted facts that would make anybody suspicious, or at least made you think why the events evolved in that specific manner.


Advertisement