Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Dohnjoe · 13-11-2020 10:08pm

darconio wrote: »

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.

Or people just make you think that by carefully framing the information. Conspiracy videos do this kind of manipulation all the time.

darconio · 13-11-2020 10:13pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Or people just make you think that by carefully framing the information. Conspiracy videos do this kind of manipulation all the time.

Agreed but the opposite could be true as well

Dohnjoe · 13-11-2020 10:15pm

darconio wrote: »

Agreed but the opposite could be true as well

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".

Hqrry113 · 13-11-2020 10:42pm

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not my views at all.

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.

Did I say anything like that? I said that the information which will actually make it to the media can be controlled by the people who actually get the information, they can choose to withhold information which will make them look bad and give out the information that will make them look good or promote their agenda.

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."

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?

Dohnjoe · 13-11-2020 10:54pm

Hqrry113 wrote: »

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."

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.

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?

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.

Hqrry113 · 13-11-2020 11:08pm

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.

This came out in 2014 a few years after the death of Gaddafi and after the original rape allegations made in 2011, this came with numerous other atrocity propaganda stories at a time when the justification for the Libyan war was being seriously questioned and the UK government was under extreme pressure to defend their actions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2545819/amp/Uncovered-The-macabre-sex-chamber-Libyas-Colonel-Gaddafi-raped-girls-boys-young-14.html

It also refers to the people who captured him as "freedom fighters" these are people who were taking turns poking his anus with numerous sharp objects, it's funny people arefreedom fighters when it supports the western agenda and terrorists when it doesn't.

I suppose you believe all the stuff in that article?

King Mob · 14-11-2020 2:11am

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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.

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?

King Mob · 14-11-2020 2:13am

darconio wrote: »

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.

Every conspiracy theory?

Flat earth?
Chemtrails?
Lizard people?
Holocaust denial?

All plausible?

Dohnjoe · 14-11-2020 3:44am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

This came out in 2014 a few years

It came out at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/gaddafi-killers-face-prosecution-libya

It was well reported on, as were atrocities by both sides. And stop trying to pigeon-hole other people's views thanks.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 3:49am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It came out at the time.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/27/gaddafi-killers-face-prosecution-libya

It was well reported on, as were atrocities by both sides. And stop trying to pigeon-hole other people's views thanks.

What am I supposed to be looking for in this link?

Dohnjoe · 14-11-2020 4:03am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

What am I supposed to be looking for in this link?

His death and means of his death were well reported on. How did that occur if you believe that "the Western media" (whatever that is) is operating to an agenda?

If there was another agenda, what was it and how was it implemented across hundreds of newspapers and outlets that compete with each other?

Or, as I suspect, do you just cherry-pick examples that coincide with particular world views you have in order to lazily contrive a simplistic "Western media bad" narrative..

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 4:10am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

His death and means of his death were well reported on. How did that occur if you believe that "the Western media" (whatever that is) is operating to an agenda?

If there was another agenda, what was it and how was it implemented across hundreds of newspapers and outlets that compete with each other?

Or, as I suspect, do you just cherry-pick examples that coincide with particular world views you have in order to lazily contrive a simplistic "Western media bad" narrative..

I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.

King Mob · 14-11-2020 4:14am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.

Lol that's a very lazy and pathetic strawman.

Dohnjoe · 14-11-2020 4:18am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I don't get what you mean, at what point did I say that western media tried to cover up the killing of gaddafi?

Sorry I'm now completely confused I don't have a clue what you're on about.

You just threw outousome some random article talking about the death of Gaddafi and tried to use it as some kind of proof that western media is completely fair and unbiased.

What is the "Western media" and what is it's agenda according to you?

What was it's agenda on e.g. the Libyan war? Be specific and I'll provide examples that contradict that.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 4:44am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

What is the "Western media" and what is it's agenda according to you?

What was it's agenda on e.g. the Libyan war? Be specific and I'll provide examples that contradict that.

A lot of people don't understand what media bias is and I can tell you in particular don't have a clue, media bias is the media’s tendency to systematically under-report or over-report certain types of events or situations or whatever.

I can tell by your post you don't have a clue about what media bias really is, they will over report stories even if they have little to no substance, after the war Amnesty International published their report, finding that while Gaddafi's forces were responsible for numerous war crimes, most of the allegations of mass human rights abuses lacked credible evidence and were likely fabrications by rebel forces that had been promoted by Western media.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Even if rebel forces and British forces are responsible for the same amount or more atrocities or the same amount of negative stories are out there tthe media will still spend 90% of their time reporting on negative stories about Gaddafi forces which will strongly influence public opinion on the matter.

You ask what it's agenda was on the Libyan war well first of all if you are going to take down the leader of a foreign country you are going to need the support of the people back home and what is the best way toto achieve that? Through the media.

They couldn't just randomly attack Libya that would have caused outrage first they need toto build public support, they will use things like killings of innocent people by Gaddafi forces but that sort of stuff happens in all those types of countries on a far far larger scale than in Libya and the reasons they used for attacking Libya the same reasons could have been used to attack nearly every African country, they had to start a propaganda campaign to build support to attack Libya for whatever their actual reason was for doing it.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 4:45am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol that's a very lazy and pathetic strawman.

I genuinely don't know what his point was in posting that random article about Gaddafis death, can you fill me in?

To add to my previous post another reason used to justify the attack of Libya was that he was a dictator and while undeniably a dictator, Gaddafi was the most benevolent in a region that only knew dictatorship, and he was a great man for someone in the extremely difficult position of being a leader in north Africa that looked out for his people and made them the envy of all of Africa.

And look at it now after the great humanitarian mission of Britain and others, one of the most war torn s**t holes in the whole world and will stay that way for a very long time.

King Mob · 14-11-2020 4:54am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I genuinely don't know what his point was in posting that random article about Gaddafis death, can you fill me in?

Could you point out where you believe he said: "that western media is completely fair and unbiased."

What leads you to believe that's his position?
Where did he say or imply this?

It's very obvious he didn't, so you are trying to make a strawman.
A very thin and pathetic one at that.

thewolfisloose · 14-11-2020 5:08am

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

I've never come across a conspiracy theory that I thought could actually be true. It seems that when you delve into one, it doesn't take long to see if it usually based on questionable logic.

Admittedly, I've never delved into any conspiracy with great detail, as I found it difficult to decipher the facts from some wack jobs take on things.

Are they are that actually hold-up if you take a closer look?

The academics who originally deduced the earth not to be flat conspired against the establishment.

However many wackjobs encircle the topic doesn't diminish objectivity.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 5:10am

King Mob wrote: »

Could you point out where you believe he said: "that western media is completely fair and unbiased."

What leads you to believe that's his position?
Where did he say or imply this?

It's very obvious he didn't, so you are trying to make a strawman.
A very thin and pathetic one at that.

Jaysus it was a figure of speech but he did post that link to somehow imply that the media is not biased

King Mob · 14-11-2020 5:15am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

Jaysus it was a figure of speech but he did post that link to somehow imply that the media is not biased

No, it's not a figure of speech. It's a strawman.
You are trying to pretend as if that's his argument when you understand it is not.
You are repeating this strawman now.
Where did he say "the media is not biased"? Please quote where he said this or what he said about media being biased.
(Lemme guess, that's a figure of speech too?)

This is a great example of the bad arguments and logic consistant between conspiracy theories.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 5:18am

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's not a figure of speech. It's a strawman.
You are trying to pretend as if that's his argument when you understand it is not.
You are repeating this strawman now.
Where did he say "the media is not biased"? Please quote where he said this or what he said about media being biased.
(Lemme guess, that's a figure of speech too?)

This is a great example of the bad arguments and logic consistant between conspiracy theories.

Well this is what the whole bloody argument is about, are you on the same thread as me?

What do you think we've been arguing about the last two pages?

King Mob · 14-11-2020 5:29am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

Well this is what the whole bloody argument is about, are you on the same thread as me?

What do you think we've been arguing about the last two pages?

Cool. Then point out where he claimed that the media isn't biased, cause I can't see it.

Did he not say that or something?

You understand that using a strawman is not a valid or honest tactic, right?
You've gone from denying that you used this tactic to saying that it was a "figure of speech". To me it seems like now you're arguing it's a valid way of arguing?

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 5:39am

King Mob wrote: »

Cool. Then point out where he claimed that the media isn't biased, cause I can't see it.

Did he not say that or something?

You understand that using a strawman is not a valid or honest tactic, right?
You've gone from denying that you used this tactic to saying that it was a "figure of speech". To me it seems like now you're arguing it's a valid way of arguing?

Ahhh here I think you're just trying to wind me up now at this stage but anyways our whole argument is about the media being biased that is what we have been arguing about, please don't just dive into random threads spouting nonsense without actually having a clue what the people in the thread are talking about.

I didn't understand what his point was by posting that link, you seem to have a great understanding of what his point was so please fill me in like I have asked you to do before but you refused.

King Mob · 14-11-2020 5:45am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

please don't just dive into random threads spouting nonsense without actually having a clue what the people in the thread are talking about.

Lol.
I have been posting in this thread.

Hqrry113 wrote: »

I didn't understand what his point was by posting that link, you seem to have a great understanding of what his point was so please fill me in like I have asked you to do before but you refused.

He's stated his point pretty clearly here:

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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.

And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
This is another strawman on your part.
Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 5:59am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
I have been posting in this thread.

He's stated his point pretty clearly here:

And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
This is another strawman on your part.
Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.

Do you not understand what's going on? My argument is that the media is biased, his argument is that it's not.

I posted a link from a UK outlet about Gaddafis sex dungeon where he apparently kept hundreds of underage girls captive for "sexual torture" as one small example of the propaganda against Gaddafi, he then posted a link from the same outlet which was a report on Gaddafis death, I was flabbergasted to what his point was in posting this link it doesn't mean anything at all it was a simple story on Gaddafis death I didn't see the point in it.

I have never been so puzzled about a poster on this site as I am with you right now.

King Mob · 14-11-2020 6:05am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

Do you not understand what's going on? My argument is that the media is biased, his argument is that it's not.

But that's not his argument. That's a strawman you've invented.
Around and around you go again.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 6:07am

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
I have been posting in this thread.

He's stated his point pretty clearly here:

And I didn't say that I "have a great understanding of what his point". Never implied this either.
This is another strawman on your part.
Using strawmen arguments are not a valid method of discussion. You should stop.

You keep asking me at what point did he say the media was not biased, this is what our whole argument has been about I'm claiming that the media is extremely biased and he's claiming that it's not.

King Mob · 14-11-2020 6:10am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

You keep asking me at what point did he say the media was not biased, this is what our whole argument has been about I'm claiming that the media is extremely biased and he's claiming that it's not.

Ok. Point to where he claimed this.

I've read his points and no where does he say or imply this.
I even quoted a posted where he explains his position pretty unambiguously.

So please quote where he has claimed the media isn't biased.

If you can't point this out, why are you claiming that it's his position?

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 6:12am

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. Point to where he claimed this.

I've read his points and no where does he say or imply this.
I even quoted a posted where he explains his position pretty unambiguously.

So please quote where he has claimed the media isn't biased.

If you can't point this out, why are you claiming that it's his position?

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.

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 6:17am

Hqrry113 wrote: »

A lot of people don't understand what media bias is and I can tell you in particular don't have a clue, media bias is the media’s tendency to systematically under-report or over-report certain types of events or situations or whatever.

I can tell by your post you don't have a clue about what media bias really is, they will over report stories even if they have little to no substance, after the war Amnesty International published their report, finding that while Gaddafi's forces were responsible for numerous war crimes, most of the allegations of mass human rights abuses lacked credible evidence and were likely fabrications by rebel forces that had been promoted by Western media.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Even if rebel forces and British forces are responsible for the same amount or more atrocities or the same amount of negative stories are out there tthe media will still spend 90% of their time reporting on negative stories about Gaddafi forces which will strongly influence public opinion on the matter.

You ask what it's agenda was on the Libyan war well first of all if you are going to take down the leader of a foreign country you are going to need the support of the people back home and what is the best way toto achieve that? Through the media.

They couldn't just randomly attack Libya that would have caused outrage first they need toto build public support, they will use things like killings of innocent people by Gaddafi forces but that sort of stuff happens in all those types of countries on a far far larger scale than in Libya and the reasons they used for attacking Libya the same reasons could have been used to attack nearly every African country, they had to start a propaganda campaign to build support to attack Libya for whatever their actual reason was for doing it.

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

King Mob · 14-11-2020 6:28am

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"?

Hangdogroad · 14-11-2020 7:08am

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".

Hqrry113 · 14-11-2020 7:48am

Hangdogroad wrote: »

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

Dohnjoe · 14-11-2020 12:34pm

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)

Fighting Irish · 15-11-2020 7:58pm

Jill Dando

Hqrry113 · 15-11-2020 8:02pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 15-11-2020 8:23pm

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?

Hqrry113 · 15-11-2020 8:52pm

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.

Hqrry113 · 15-11-2020 9:01pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 15-11-2020 9:51pm

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?

ShatterAlan · 15-11-2020 10:57pm

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?

ShatterAlan · 15-11-2020 11:02pm

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.

Dohnjoe · 15-11-2020 11:04pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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?

Dohnjoe · 15-11-2020 11:10pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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

ShatterAlan · 15-11-2020 11:10pm

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

King Mob · 15-11-2020 11:31pm

ShatterAlan wrote: »

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.

Dohnjoe · 15-11-2020 11:32pm

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

King Mob · 15-11-2020 11:44pm

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.

ShatterAlan · 16-11-2020 12:13am

Dohnjoe wrote: »

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?

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.

ShatterAlan · 16-11-2020 12:16am

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.

Are there any credible conspiracy theories?

Comments