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?

145791063

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,153 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Me: Libya is a perfect example of western media bias, In June 2011, Amnesty International criticized "Western media coverage" which "has from the outset presented a very one-sided view of the logic of events, portraying the protest movement as entirely peaceful and repeatedly suggesting that the regime's security forces were unaccountably massacring unarmed demonstrators who presented no security challenge."


    Him: That's Amnesty's view and it's a bit bizarre considering "Western media" comprises of hundreds of outlets, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with each other.


    Me: Libya is the greatest example of not being ableable to trust western media, the lies that came out to justify the destruction of the Libyan nation is still hard to believe and people wonder why people are sceptical of the media?


    Him: That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.
    Yes. I read that too.

    Where did he say "the media isn't biased"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭ Hangdogroad


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I always thought that if it wasn’t an accident it was related to her relationship with Dodi and possibility that she was pregnant with his baby. Recently it was put forward that she was going to blow the whistle on widespread paedophilia in places of power in the U.K. implicating Jimmy Saville, many members of parliament and obviously her ex brother in law.

    Johnny rotten was called a conspiracy theorist when he called out jimmy saville in a live interview in the 70s. Overnight his career was destroyed. This is probably the best of example of someone being vindicated.

    That interview with Johnny Rotten was not live. It wasnt broadcast at the time and his career was not "destroyed".


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


    That interview with Johnny Rotten was not live. It wasnt broadcast at the time and his career was not "destroyed".

    Ahh the old Jimmy Saville conspiracy theory


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    Here is me explaining media bias because some of his posts are taking a completely different take on what media bias actually is

    You aren't explaining media bias, you are explaining your personal views on it.

    I don't agree with them. Apparently we are just "fed information" by some homogenous entity, one that works to an "agenda" rather than the truth, so we apparently can't really know about certain types of events, e.g. the Skripal poisoning

    Or at least that's jumbled and slightly condescending point you seem to be trying to make. If so, cool.

    And back on topic, is there a "popular" conspiracy you feel is credible? (e.g. 9/11, Sandy Hook, moon landing hoax, etc)


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,062 ✭✭✭ Fighting Irish


    Jill Dando


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You aren't explaining media bias, you are explaining your personal views on it.

    I don't agree with them. Apparently we are just "fed information" by some homogenous entity, one that works to an "agenda" rather than the truth, so we apparently can't really know about certain types of events, e.g. the Skripal poisoning

    Or at least that's jumbled and slightly condescending point you seem to be trying to make. If so, cool.

    And back on topic, is there a "popular" conspiracy you feel is credible? (e.g. 9/11, Sandy Hook, moon landing hoax, etc)

    Not really any of the "popular ones" apart from JFK and I don't exactly have a theory on it I just don't believe that he was assassinated by some lunatic acting alone, I'd pretty much put everything I own on that.

    I'm not explaining my personal views on media bias I'm explaining what it is, look it up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »

    I'm not explaining my personal views on media bias I'm explaining what it is, look it up.

    You are soapboxing personal views.

    You claimed an event like the Skripal poisoning was something that was "fed" to us by "Western media" because the facts pointed to Russian state involvement. What do you mean by that exactly? is our knowledge of that event false? if yes, what really happened?

    Or can we never really know because hundreds of outlets "work together" to what, present an alternative narrative?


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You are soapboxing personal views.

    You claimed an event like the Skripal poisoning was something that was "fed" to us by "Western media" because the facts pointed to Russian state involvement. What do you mean by that exactly? is our knowledge of that event false? if yes, what really happened?

    Or can we never really know because hundreds of outlets "work together" to what, present an alternative narrative?

    You seem to be under some sort of illusion that all the media outlets are completely independent they're not it's Corporate bias, when stories are selected or slanted to please corporate owners of media and Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to avoid stories that will offend anyone.

    You seem to be under the illusion that all media outlets are completely independent when in the UK just three companies (News UK, Daily Mail Group and Reach) dominate 83% of the national newspaper market and the smaller ones are getting most of their information from these outlets.


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


    Who owns the media shapes what stories are covered and how they are written about and what stories are not, the UK media has a very concentrated ownership structure which all have working relationships with each other and, the smaller outlets on the big matters especially world conflicts receive 99 percent of their information from these bigger outlets.

    True editorial independence often doesn’t exist, The owners can – and do – interfere with what is published in their publications and which editors and journalists are promoted or fired.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Hqrry113 wrote: »
    You seem to be under some sort of illusion that all the media outlets are completely independent

    No I'm not. You keep trying to attribute positions I don't hold, repeatedly.

    If you wouldn't mind answering the below questions about your claims, thanks.

    You claimed an event like the Skripal poisoning was something that was "fed" to us by "Western media" because the facts pointed to Russian state involvement. What do you mean by that exactly? is our knowledge of that event false? if yes, what really happened?

    Or can we never really know because hundreds of outlets "work together" to what, present an alternative narrative?


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Open a history book and it will generally be based on supporting evidence from a consensus of experts and research on the matter

    Watch a conspiracy video and more than likely it will be trying to discredit an event in order to plant doubt in the viewers head, and suggest a conspiracy it never details. "Proof by denial".


    How many history books have you read that mention the CIA backed coups against Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile? How many mention the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident or the lies to justify the Iraq invasion?


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    That's Amnesty's view and it's a bit bizarre considering "Western media" comprises of hundreds of outlets, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with each other.



    That's your personal opinion. I wouldn't really agree, I followed events in Libya from a bevy of international outlets, Middle Eastern outlets for example were generally reporting the same facts on the ground as e.g. European outlets. Again, it depends on the quality of source and outlet.


    They ALL get their information from the same handful of sources, Reuters, AFP. A lot of these "on the ground" reporters often aren't even in the country they are supposed to be reporting from.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    How many history books have you read that mention the CIA backed coups against Mossadegh in Iran and Allende in Chile? How many mention the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin Incident or the lies to justify the Iraq invasion?

    There are plenty of history books, references, sources and encyclopedias that detail these events.

    e.g. Gulf of Tonkin
    https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution-1#:~:text=It%20was%20passed%20on%20August,involvement%20in%20the%20Vietnam%20War.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
    https://www.britannica.com/event/Gulf-of-Tonkin-Resolution

    What is your point?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    They ALL get their information from the same handful of sources, Reuters, AFP. A lot of these "on the ground" reporters often aren't even in the country they are supposed to be reporting from.

    Nope, depending on the outlet, they can get information from a multitude of sources, including their own reporters and journalists, and those at the scene or embedded. And no again, apart from isolated incidents, the overwhelmingly majority of "on the ground" journalists are reporting from the scene.

    You can switch on the news right now and see this for yourself. Just because conspiracy and crank sites focus on that one time CNN reported from a hotel somewhere else or another outlet did the same, doesn't mean it's systematic :)


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    But that's not the chemtrail theory. You're dismissing something out of hand without really understanding it.

    How do you explain all the patterns people see in the chemtrails?
    Why do all of the trails last for hours when contrails can't do that?

    We can also turn your point around for the conspiracy theories you buy as well.
    What's the point of having multiple shooters? Why not just have one?
    If you have to have multiple shooters, why not just say there were multiple shooters?
    Therefore we can conclude the JFK conspiracy theory is false, right?


    I'm only guessing that the length of time they remain in the air depends on atmospheric conditions


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,153 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    I'm only guessing that the length of time they remain in the air depends on atmospheric conditions
    And chemtrail believers will just state that that isn't true.
    And that still leaves the patterns you can't explain.

    And you guess?
    That's all you have to dismiss the whole conspiracy theory?
    Touch hypocritical there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    In these discussions and similar, definitely a lot of tropes which show up repeatedly

    Usually along the lines of..

    1. The (Western) media is conveniently controlled
    2. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty events automatically mean these types of thing are happening now
    3. Everything needs to be questioned (except the conspiracies)
    4. "The West"/UN/Nato are always up to something that only conspiracy theorists can see and no one else
    5. Actual government conspiracies committed by nations like Russia/China/etc are ignored because they aren't sexy or exciting enough
    6. "I'm just asking questions" = "I'm trying to cast doubt on something in order to hint that some unspecified conspiracy is taking place"
    7. The general public and pretty much everyone are idiots who can't see "the real truth"
    8. Lots of incredulity; "I can't believe it happened, so it didn't"
    9. A lot of "my opinion is greater than your fact"

    and so on


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,153 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    5. Actual government conspiracies committed by nations like Russia/China/etc are ignored because they aren't sexy or exciting enough
    This is also true for any possible real conspiracies broken in the actual media about the US government.
    Half of the time they're ignored entirely. The other half they get exaggerated and made into a super sexy global conspiracy.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »


    Are you talking about history books as in school texts or Wikipedia. I don't see King Mob chiming in that Wikipedia doesn't go through a clearinghouse even though he holds peer review to be very important.


    And I see there talk of the Gulf of Tonkin "Resolution". I don't see any mention of the fabrication of an attack.
    There's some talk in Britannica about doubts about a second attack I don't see any mention of Johnson deliberating lying and misleading the public about an incident that didn't occur.


    I mentioned other important events that you conveniently ignored. As far as you're concerned if it's in the history books it's true and if it's omitted then it never happened.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nope, depending on the outlet, they can get information from a multitude of sources, including their own reporters and journalists, and those at the scene or embedded. And no again, apart from isolated incidents, the overwhelmingly majority of "on the ground" journalists are reporting from the scene.

    You can switch on the news right now and see this for yourself. Just because conspiracy and crank sites focus on that one time CNN reported from a hotel somewhere else or another outlet did the same, doesn't mean it's systematic :)


    They get their information from these entities called News Services or the News Wire. The News Wire controls the story and the outlets just parrot it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 24,153 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    . I don't see King Mob chiming in that Wikipedia doesn't go through a clearinghouse even though he holds peer review to be very important.
    Have you never figured out what all those links and titles at the bottom of the Wikipedia page are for?

    Also since you're concerned about my opinion, could you please go back and address my actual points before you covienently forget them?


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    And chemtrail believers will just state that that isn't true.
    And that still leaves the patterns you can't explain.

    And you guess?
    That's all you have to dismiss the whole conspiracy theory?
    Touch hypocritical there.


    Well I'm not a meteorologist so I have to guess, don't I? And why is that hypocritical?


    What's YOUR basis for dismissing conspiracies? Are you a ballistics expert? A coroner? A virologist? A toxicologist? A structural engineer? A materials scientist?



    Thousands of scientists dispute the notion of chemtrails. Now if someone came along with evidence that these chemicals were in fact discharged from planes and it was proven to be in the air we breathe and people undeniably tested positive to having inhaled/ingested these chemicals and the effects it had upon them then I'd give it a bit more attention but as of yet I haven't seen any such evidence.


    Thousands of scientists on the IPCC confirm the existence of climate change so I'm naturally going to pay a bit more deference to what they have to say. They make a strong point.


    I know what you're going to say next. You're going to dredge up the fact that I said scientists sell their souls all the time hence I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth.

    Sometimes they just keep their mouths shut because they feel they are pissing into the wind. Any chemist will tell you that it's impossible to make a bomb with household liquids and creams and blow up a passenger airliner. You would need a veritable workshop with burners, distillers, measuring equipment, etc. Get all that into the cabin toilet. You're also going to need about 30 or 40 hours to prepare this compound and if you're good enough and haven't attracted any attention to the stench of what you are up to you might be lucky enough to concoct something that might singe your eyebrows. Chemists know this but they can't be arsed trying to explain it because people blindly choose to believe you can mix Ballygowan and a bottle of L'Oreal and bingo you've got a deadly bomb. I don't see trains and buses and crowded bars being obliterated day in and day out by terrorists armed with baby food bombs.


    A lot of the time the whole discussion around conspiracies boils down to one side doubting the official narrative and the other side resorting to "well if it didn't happen this way then tell us what really happened?" This is a tool used to ridicule the doubting Thomases.



    If I'm presented with the spectacle of a guy face down on the ground, dead, with a knife embedded in his back between his shoulder blades and you tell me he committed suicide I'm going to tell you that I don't believe you. If you next start screeching "well you tell me what happened then, smart-arse" I'm going to tell you that it's not up to me to tell you what happened. That's not going to make your story any more believable.



    I don't believe paper passports can survive fireballs. I don't have to tell you how they can.


    Anyway I've probably rambled a bit there so I'll leave it at that.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    In these discussions and similar, definitely a lot of tropes which show up repeatedly

    Usually along the lines of..

    1. The (Western) media is conveniently controlled
    2. Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, USS Liberty events automatically mean these types of thing are happening now
    3. Everything needs to be questioned (except the conspiracies)
    4. "The West"/UN/Nato are always up to something that only conspiracy theorists can see and no one else
    5. Actual government conspiracies committed by nations like Russia/China/etc are ignored because they aren't sexy or exciting enough
    6. "I'm just asking questions" = "I'm trying to cast doubt on something in order to hint that some unspecified conspiracy is taking place"
    7. The general public and pretty much everyone are idiots who can't see "the real truth"
    8. Lots of incredulity; "I can't believe it happened, so it didn't"
    9. A lot of "my opinion is greater than your fact"

    and so on


    Isn't this what happens in police investigations and court cases all the time? So you've got detectives in the Ana Kriegel murder investigation. They've got two suspects in separate rooms telling a version of events and the detectives picking holes in their stories.

    Are the detectives trying to cast doubt on something in order to hint at some unspecified conspiracy that is afoot? Should they just say "Ah you say you weren't there, even though the other guy says you were? Grand so. No further questions. You're free to go."


    As for your point #6. You seem to be of the bent that "I can't believe it didn't happen the way I'm told...so it didn't".


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    And I see there talk of the Gulf of Tonkin "Resolution". I don't see any mention of the fabrication of an attack.
    There's some talk in Britannica about doubts about a second attack I don't see any mention of Johnson deliberating lying and misleading the public about an incident that didn't occur.

    It's in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article I linked.

    "The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the USS Maddox incident, was a disputed international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved a fabricated confrontation between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Isn't this what happens in police investigations and court cases all the time? So you've got detectives in the Ana Kriegel murder investigation. They've got two suspects in separate rooms telling a version of events and the detectives picking holes in their stories.

    Are the detectives trying to cast doubt on something in order to hint at some unspecified conspiracy that is afoot? Should they just say "Ah you say you weren't there, even though the other guy says you were? Grand so. No further questions. You're free to go."


    As for your point #6. You seem to be of the bent that "I can't believe it didn't happen the way I'm told...so it didn't".

    Point 6 is argument from incredulity, someone already demonstrated this in the thread when they wrote that they "couldn't believe" JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,688 ✭✭✭✭ Dohnjoe


    Isn't this what happens in police investigations and court cases all the time?

    Investigators build a case from the ground up. Consensus of witnesses, physical evidence, CCTV, forensic evidence, electronic evidence, expert testimony, etc

    Conspiracy theorists attack all that and try to cast doubt on it to hint at a conspiracy they rarely detail.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article I linked.

    "The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the USS Maddox incident, was a disputed international confrontation that led to the United States engaging more directly in the Vietnam War. It involved a fabricated confrontation between ships of North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident


    Point taken. I missed that. So it's mentioned in Wikipedia. I guess I picked the wrong example of something that doesn't appear in history books.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Point 6 is argument from incredulity, someone already demonstrated this in the thread when they wrote that they "couldn't believe" JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman

    I never said I couldn't believe he couldn't be assassinated by a lone gunman.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Point 6 is argument from incredulity, someone already demonstrated this in the thread when they wrote that they "couldn't believe" JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman


    Is that not the same as you saying that you couldn't believe other factors were in play surrounding his assassination?



    I can't believe, or bring myself to believe, that a passport can survive a fireball.


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


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Investigators build a case from the ground up. Consensus of witnesses, physical evidence, CCTV, forensic evidence, electronic evidence, expert testimony, etc

    Conspiracy theorists attack all that and try to cast doubt on it to hint at a conspiracy they rarely detail.


    You didn't say that. You said that asking questions was an attempt to cast doubt on a narrative and hint at an alternative explanation, i.e. a conspiracy.


Advertisement