Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Conspiracy shouldn't mean it didn't happen that way
I've set aside this section for conspiracy buffs. Though not exactly a "buff" I find them intensely interesting reading. 9-11, JFK, NWO, and the countless other dirty dealings and shadowy happenings deserve to be explored from all angles.

Please feel free to post whatever manner of conspiracies and intrigue you happen across or have been personally researching here.
This is a Chain Mail moderated section of the forum.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Thanks so much Keith...I always like to differentiate when speaking with the meat people the differences between the phrases "conspiracy theories' and 'conspiracy realities'... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smoke.gif" alt="Smoke" title="smoke" />
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
conspiracy denyists are simply blinding themselves as intended.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Check this out:

Funny how much space the media giants like BellSouth are suddenly giving to debunking conspiracy realities like the Kennedy assassination and 9-11 two huge areas of documentable introspection.

"can't believe everything you read on the internet"
It's not often like you think it is.
Here's a forum that specializes in conspiracy! ... /index.php
Don't believe anything they say. <br />And at the same time, <br />Don't believe that they say anything without a reason. <br />---Immanuel Kant
Yeah there's a lot of ConsPiracy going on anymore. <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
????? ????
from India's link:

Quote:So if you know, like we do, that everyone really is out to get you, then you should stop reading right now, because they are monitoring you and know where you live. You may have time to get out if you hurry, but probably not.

hey I resemble that remark!

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/damned.gif" alt="Damned" title="damned" />
the only way to fight a conspiracy is to be internally tough, factually perfect, and soulfully sincere. without any one of these three, just hang up the gloves and retire.
'I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space...' Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2
Not to mention...come up with a better story...!

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/alienship.gif" alt="Alienship" title="alienship" />
. <br /> Learning as I go...
The greatest conpsiracy of all is getting people to dismiss the truth by catergorizing it as a conspiracy or "plot" and that the manufactured crap we all buy 100% every day, day in and day out all our lives, is really true and "reality."

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments shoud be afraid of their people."<br /><br />- quote from the film "V For Vendetta"
I wonder if there's a database somewhere, or a scorecard, that shows how many theories started out as conspiracies and were later proven as fact.

Sounds like a good project for someone with more time than I have.
I can think of one already. Hitler and Goebbels plot to distill the human race. If you would have lived in Germany during these pre world war 2 days, people would have called you Psychotic for thinking that this was the plan. YOur a freak and belong in a mental ward for the insame. However, history showed this to be reality. The PLOT TO PURGE NON ARYANS from the PLANET.
'I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space...' Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2
In the Spirit of this Thread.

Shit happens.

I didn't make this shit up.

Along the vines of the Vineyard.
With a forked tongue the snake singsss...
Quote:The greatest conpsiracy of all is getting people to dismiss the truth by catergorizing it as a conspiracy or "plot" and that the manufactured crap we all buy 100% every day, day in and day out all our lives, is really true and "reality."


At the root of it all is the cash we use, which never existed in the first place.

That's why we're setting up for war with Pakistan, the welfare-warfare state needs a new target now that they've finished with Iraq, and next up is Pakistan.

One thing might save us, they over reached and the sheep are aware of it, not how and why, just that something is wrong.

The panic that comes might disrupt their plans, but then DHS has all those portable prison camps ready to go don't they?
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards...
[Image: ivan-stang-masonic-look.jpg]

The worst crime in the world is the easiest to commit.
The Worst Crime is serving The Conspiracy.
......Rev. Ivan Stang, CSG
conspiracy is the second most misused word. just say "conspiracy" and people look at you like you just escaped from the local looney bin. the MOST misunderstood word is LIBERAL. just look up the real definition in a dictionary and you will wonder how any one in his right mind could be anything else but liberal. its so bad that i often hear people from the ultra-conservative media refer to the "liberal media" in an attempt to win the battle for the minds. there is no such thing as a truly liberal media.
more or less hudsons bay again
lib?er?al? ?/?l?b?r?l, ?l?br?l/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective 1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

–noun 14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. (often initial capital letter) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.


1325–75; ME < L l?ber?lis of freedom, befitting the free, equiv. to l?ber free + -?lis -al 1

Related forms:

lib?er?al?ly, adverb
lib?er?al?ness, noun

1. progressive. 7. broad-minded, unprejudiced. 9. beneficent, charitable, openhanded, munificent, unstinting, lavish. See generous. 10. See ample.

1. reactionary. 8. intolerant. 9, 10. niggardly.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
My brother (an engineer working on his PhD) mentioned these to me:

Architects and Engineers for 9/11

Pilots for 9/11

And this DVD asks a lot of questions that aren't easily answered:
all of these events were conspired-people with power and abilities to involve and investigate just cringe at the word 'conspire'... like it doesn't happen all the time.

I remember right after 9/11 asking one of my relatives who is a very connected pilot around the country what he thought happened with the planes and the plane in the Pentagon specifically. I was disheartened when he emailed me back like he believed a big old plane did the damage. But he's a wily coyote so I assumed he was playing the part. you know?
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
That pilot site is pretty good.

The part where they go over the math saying the plane had to pull Gs worth of a turn to hit the pentagon and that according to the data it actually missed the pentagon is pretty good reading.
Quote:No mountain is too tall if your first step is belief. -Anonymous
...Because even if there were no artifacts anywhere, not studying things of interest is an extreme disservice to science. -Tarius
Just found another site with a couple of links:
ETA: just noticed this article is SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! there aren't articles like this anymore... a great dumbing down of the internet happened too, when we were in the thralls of discovery-used to be great articles like this all over the place, then the never ending flow from the Cults of Personalities just never have stopped since the anti-life regime's second coup of a so called election occurred... and life got in the way for plenty of us to learn conspiracy realities ourselves first hand.

from a DJBarney link that segued to this one:

Conspiracy Theory as Naive Deconstructive History

by Floyd Rudmin
April, 2003

Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.

All such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being tainted by the pejorative label.

There is currently a boom in books on conspiracy theory, most of them derogatory, as is evident in some recent titles: Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics; Conspiracy Culture: From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files; Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.

Within popular US culture, there is also now a boom in movies, novels, and web sites that feature conspiracy theories. The apparent popularity of conspiracy theories is often cited as a cause of concern, that our society is breaking down. For example, Canadian journalist Robert Sibley has said that conspiracy theory is "a nihilistic vortex of delusion and superstition that negates reality itself."

I think that just the reverse is true. There is nothing insane or sinister about conspiracy theory research. It is rather matter of fact. A wide range of ordinary people from many walks of life take an interest in the political and economic events of our era. They think things through on their own, use the library, seek for evidence, articulate a theory, communicate with other people with similar interests. It is heartening that some citizens invest time and effort to unearth and expose some of the conspiracies that damage our society, our economy and our government.

But it certainly does seem that some historians and journalists are quite frightened of conspiracy theory and its wide popularity. Those are the two professions whose job it is to interpret our world for us. When ordinary people take on the task of doing this themselves, it must mean that they don't believe what the authorities say we should. Maybe the professionals feel threatened when amateurs think about political events for themselves.

Perhaps we are in the middle of a new Reformation. The high priests are again losing their monopoly, and they see us sliding into cults and chaos. Something similar happened in 1517, when Martin Luther challenged the Church and translated the Bible into German so that ordinary people could think about theology for themselves. When put on trial, Luther said, "I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other." That is exactly what a JFK conspiracy theorist would say about the Warren Commission.

People take on the task of explaining things for themselves when the orthodox experts insist on saying nonsense—for example, that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone killed JFK. A Reformation is a rebellion against arrogance. If historians and journalists want to understand why they are being displaced by conspiracy theory, it would be most reasonable to examine their own failings first.

The correct big-word label for conspiracy theory would be "naive deconstructive history." It is "history" because it explains events, but only after they have happened. Past-tense. Conspiracy theory, as a political act, is an after-the-fact complaint. To see conspiracies while they are happening would require the resources and powers of police forces and espionage agencies.

Conspiracy theory is "deconstructive history" because it is in rebellion against official explanations and against orthodox journalism and orthodox history. Conspiracy theory is radically empirical: tangible facts are the focus, especially facts that the standard stories try to overlook. There is a ruthless reduction down to what is without doubt real, namely, persons. Conspiracy theory presumes that human events are caused by people acting as people do, including cooperating, planning, cheating, deceiving, and pursuing power. Thus, conspiracy theories do not focus on impersonal forces like geo-politics, market economics, globalization, social evolution and other such abstract explanations of human events.

To call conspiracy theory "naive" does not mean that it is uncritical or stupidly innocent. In fact, that is what conspiracy theorists might say about orthodox explanations of events promoted by government sources, by mainstream journalism, or by schoolbook history. For example, it is naive to believe that the September 11, 1973, coup d'etat against Allende was not orchestrated by the United States. Rather, to here call deconstructive history "naive" means that conspiracy theorists are unaware that they are doing deconstructive history, and they are amateurs, untrained in deconstructive history.

Conspiracy theories arise when dramatic events happen, and the orthodox explanations try to diminish the events and gloss them over. In other words, conspiracy theories begin when someone notices that the explanations do not fit the facts.

Take the case of explaining the past two decades of US "free-trade" schemes among countries in the Americas: FTA, NAFTA, and soon FTAA. These schemes began with two nations, then three, and soon four and more. The first was the 1989 Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which set the subservient conditions of member nations to US economic dominance. The essence of the FTA is that US corporations get unrestricted commercial rights and resource ownership in Canada, and in exchange, Canada gets to obey US trade laws.

Why would Canadians have agreed to this? Well, we didn't, but historians would explain it by saying something like, "Globalization made Canadians choose free-trade." Conspiracy theorists would say, "Don't be naive. Look at the facts." In a decade of political opinion polls, and in three consecutive national elections (1984, 1988, 1993), a majority of Canadians had consistently said that they do not want American "free-trade" schemes. How has it happened that such a clear, strong democratic decision by so many millions of Canadians could be overthrown?

In the 1984 and 1993 federal elections in Canada, the successful parties had explicitly campaigned against free-trade, but when elected they reversed themselves. The 1988 vote was also not straight: of the two anti-free-trade parties, the minor one in mid-campaign began to attack the leader of the major one. It is reasonable to see such facts and to surmise that orthodox explanations are not the real explanations.

Let's look in the library to see what can be found. From 1976 to 1979, more than a decade before the FTA, US Ambassador Thomas Enders was crisscrossing Canada promoting free-trade. Who was Thomas Enders? He was hired by the US government in 1958 as an "intelligence research specialist." In 1969 he was in Yugoslavia, in 1971 Cambodia. His jobs there were to rig Lon Nol's election and to use a local intelligence network to pick villages to be bombed by B52s in President Nixon's secret war. From 1976 to 1979, he was in Canada weaving a web of political and business connections to promote the American version of "free-trade." In 1981 Enders became President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, working on the invasion of Grenada and the illegal proxy wars against Nicaragua and El Salvador. One of his jobs was to coordinate operations with Oliver North and Duane Claridge, head of the CIA's covert operations in Latin America.

Considering these facts, which is more likely—that Enders was in Canada promoting free-trade as some kind of personal hobby, or that he was under orders, promoting free-trade as one more operation in a career of covert operations? At the time, Quebec's populist premier, Réne Lévesque, said of Enders, "He's the bum who launched the bombs in Vietnam. He's a damned spy. He must be working for the CIA" (quoted in Lisée, 1990, p. 207).

The idea of NAFTA first appeared in public in 1979, to everyone's surprise, as Ronald Reagan's core policy when he announced his candidacy for President. But, curiously, it was then never again mentioned in his campaign. In 1979, Reagan's campaign was run by Michael Deaver and Paul Hannaford, who reportedly also ran a public relations firm that represented the right-wing Guatemalan group Amigos del Pais and its leader Roberto Alejos, who had provided the ranch used for CIA training of Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion forces in 1961. In early 1980 William Casey became Reagan's campaign director. Casey began his career directing OSS espionage operations in Germany and China in the 1940s, and he ended his career as director of the CIA. It is not common for US presidential candidates to be so managed by those so linked to covert operations.

The information in the proceeding two paragraphs comes from library sources. "Free-trade" comes from the dark lower bowels of Washington sometime in the early 1970s. It seems to have been conceived and promoted, in part, by conspiracy rather than by forthright democratic processes.

This exemplifies how conspiracy theory arises: 1) significant political or economic events change power relationships in our society; 2) contradictions are noticed by ordinary citizens in the explanations of these events; 3) concern and curiosity are aroused; 4) further information is sought under the presumption that power is being abused and deception is being deployed. Most of the evidence discovered is circumstantial, as it must be when investigating conspiracies.

"Free-trade" was definitely not the democratic choice of Canadians, and maybe not of Americans or Mexicans either. There is a history waiting to be written about these "free-trade" schemes. Orthodox, school-book historians will probably not write that history, and mainstream journalists will not dig it out. Conspiracy theorists might. (Did anyone notice that the NAFTA treaty was not legally passed by Congress as a treaty?)

Conspiracy theory has a special focus on contradictions, discrepancies, and missing facts. The natural sciences similarly seek to find faulty explanations by focusing on facts that don't fit the orthodox explanations. If we want more truthful explanations of events, whether of scientific events or of political and historical events, then we must compare competing explanations.

One explanation usually fits the available observations better than the other. By the principle of fit, the explanation that encompasses more of the observations should be preferred. This principle can favor conspiracy theories. For example, one gunman cannot shoot a bolt-action rifle as fast as the shots were fired at JFK. The vast majority of eye-witnesses heard shots coming from different directions.

We can discover mis-explanations and find better ones by focusing on the facts that don't fit. For example, Galileo concluded that moons around Jupiter are discrepancies to the then-orthodox geocentric theory. Galileo was called a heretic for writing that. Mark Lane's book, Rush to Judgment, includes hundreds of facts that did not fit the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone gunman killed Kennedy. Lane was called a conspiracy theorist for writing that.

The pejorative force of the "conspiracy theory" label comes from its ad hominem attack on the author's personality. It is true that conspiracy theory authors doubt the orthodox explanations and suspect that there are other explanations for events. Such doubt and suspicion, which is the same kind of doubt and suspicion as motivates many scientific discoveries, gets labeled paranoia.

Think for a moment. Most of the US population believes that a conspiracy, not a lone gunman, killed JFK. A society could not function if that many people were "paranoid." That word is pure pejorative. Real paranoia includes: 1) fear, 2) of a prominent person, 3) whom you think threatens you personally, 4) using invisible means, like the evil-eye, x-rays, or laser beams. Conspiracy theory entails doubt and suspicion, but that is far from clinical paranoia. For example, I believe the Iran-Contra conspiracy theory, but I have no emotion of fear, certainly no fear that Oliver North is out to get me, using invisible rays of some kind.

However, we should remember that conspiracy theorists are ordinary people and will show ordinary failings of rationality, for example, what is referred to as "confirmation bias." This means that we are all biased to look for evidence that our ideas are right rather than for evidence that our ideas are wrong. This bias has been demonstrated and replicated in many different contexts and countries. Confirmation bias is a common mistake made by conspiracy theorists, as well as by historians, journalists, and everyone else. David Fischer has catalogued and exemplified over 100 different kinds of faulty reasoning in the research of competent, published historians. These would all apply to conspiracy theorists as well.

Conspiracy theory is more thoughtful than fearful. The motivations behind conspiracy theory research are cognitive and social. It is very much like doing family genealogy. You begin with a few facts. Then you puzzle out the story, make inferences and hypotheses, and seek further facts. With help from other people, with good luck, you discover information that is sometimes difficult to find. A story emerges, suggesting new facts that should be sought. The satisfaction comes from finding the facts, constructing the story, and sharing the process and discoveries with other people.

Conspiracy theorists think they are serving the public good. Often their motivations are patriotic, and with good reason. Democracy is built on distrust of the king and all the king's men. Democratic safeguards like habeas corpus, jury trial, independent courts, and secret ballots all presume that we should not trust people in positions of power. Because of distrust, opposition parties and an independent press are expected to question and criticize the government, and the government is expected to answer. The free press is called the Fourth Estate, in opposition to the First Estate (the Church), the Second Estate (the aristocracy), and the Third Estate (those who live off capital). Since orthodox journalism has become an instrument of power, investigative journalism is now sometimes called the Fifth Estate. Conspiracy theory is part of the Fifth Estate in this balance of powers. The independent, oppositional thinking that underlies conspiracy theory is not paranoia; it is the very foundation of freedom and democracy.

There probably appear to be more "conspiracy theories" about for three reasons: 1) More people have the skills and resources to look for conspiracies and to make their thinking public; 2) Probably there are more conspiracies to find as political and economic power become ever more concentrated and our democracy declines; 3) Mainstream journalism and schoolbook history now serve the state and corporate interests more than in the past, so now we hear more nonsense.

Conspiracy theory will certainly be a growth industry for the foreseeable future. Conspiracy theory will decrease when conspiracies decrease and when journalists and historians increase their efforts to explain events rather than explain them away.
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Can anyone care to explain this--
Seek and ye shall find. JESUS
I am a recovering vegetarian   Hi
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
"The Worst Crime In The World Is The Easiest To Commit...
 The Worst Crime Is Serving The Conspiracy."


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)