'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
toblerone3
Grrrrr
Perhaps people will scoff at this but I think that the growth of Wikipedia as a reliable (or semi-reliable source) has been damaging for conspiracy theorists.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
conspiraloon
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well my first exposure to what would now be called conspiracy theories was aged 17, a Lockerbie one via word of mouth from a friend, and an AIDS one via a bbs (the internet wasnt widely available at the time). I found them more believable than I would now, not sure if that was because of my age or just something personal to me or whether Ive grown weary over the years and learnt to apply cynicism more broadly. Learning a little bit about history and politics and reading declassified government papers probably helped.
Is there a 'basic factual error' or otherwise lack of logic in this video? Do enlighten me.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
lol - 
invisibleplanet
porter des cornes
I blame the internet (especially earlier social networking sites such as myspace). A good friend whom I've known for many years began sending me (or forwarding me) conspiralunacy through myspace. I presumed he'd been spammed with it too by someone he didn't know in real life. He seemed to buy into it completely. I did try to explain how it could look so convincing, but to no avail. He's now lost to it, and has a complex defense mechanism which he deploys every time I counteract the tripe he talks. He's become an utter bore.
I gave it a brief glance a few years ago now, and it seemed to originate from US right-wing patriots as anti-federalism and has since grown to become anti-'NWO'.
lol -
why 'lol'? You see only I came across that video last time JFK was mentioned, I posted it, and I don't believe 8den or anyone else commented on it then.
It seems very strong to me. Of course, I'm open to hearing criticism of it.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
lol etc
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Because you're like a fly to shit.
I don't believe the number of conspiraloons has gone up but as mentioned above they have many more way's of spreading their nonsense ...
ie; one person could hire a hall and even though only 10 people turn up, they make a big thing out of it, mentioning it on their blog and their Friends blog and his (the guy who helped set up the projector), website which then gets reprinted and referred too on their friends blog and website "how the people seeking the truth have even had a recent movie and information night which has been picked up by several blogs and websites" even though hardly anyone attended and the blogs and website all belong to only 2 people who organized the movie night in the first place.
But i do believe many people are looking for an alternative too the way present day politicians lie so easily and often and the disdain they show for the average member of the public.
You may have a point, however even I'd say that's a little disrespective of 8den's post.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
5 points. just off the top of my head.
1. The author of the video of is using poorly blow up stills off a video to illustrate his point.
2. At 2.55 it shows a diagram of the car that is completely inaccurate, it shows Kennedy's seat as directly behind Connallys. However Connally was in a bucket seat, slightly lower and further to the right of Kennedy. It means the straight line trajectory of this "fourth bullet" could and should have gone through Connally, and none of Connally's injuries match this. Also such a basic factual calls into account the questionable research of the piece.
3. Furthermore the author of the video is basically claiming the bullet travelled upwards through the back of Kennedy's skull it means the shooter would have to have been lower than the car, ahead of it and shooting up. A Ridiculous angle for an assassination.
4. It makes enormous leaps and supposition about what Jackie Kennedy was thinking and her actions in the miliseconds during and shooting, She'd just watched her husbands brains explode in front of her, I sincerely doubt she was thinking or acting rationally, and any analysis of his actions is fucking vile.
5. The author is working off (inaccurate) 2D Maps of the car and plaza. http://www.markturner.com/jfk/index.htm Gives you a 3-D map. Surely if the video is correct you can point out where the shooter of this 4th bullet. (I'll give you a clue, underneath the Grassy Knoll),
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
You truly are a pathetic excuse for a human being. Fuck off and die, and become worm food, so you can start doing something worthwhile with your life.
1) The Zapruder film is the classic footage of the incident. It's a little strange to dismiss its frames. In addition the same point is also shown with x-ray and autopsy photo.
2&3) I think you misunderstood the diagram: the shot angle is claimed as coming from the side and only a little below.
4) If she didn't have JFK's brain in her hands I'm a bit puzzled how she gave it to the doctor.
anyway, I guess we'll disagree and I shall leave it there.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
I'm not dismissig Zapruder you fucking twat, I'm dismissing the quality of the blow up and video compression.
No it claims the exit wound is the same as the entry wound of another bullet.
Is the word "trajectory" in your vocabulary. The bullet was travelling upwards, either the sniper was traveling on a skateboard alongside the car, or the bullet was fired from fucking middle earth.
She was holding his head you fucking dullard.
How about we agree you are reprehensible asshole?
I guess that means you're ignoring the bit about the seating arrangement in the car is completely different than the diagram.
So you're an weasel faced snivelling fucking liar. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, and go back to back peddling your way out of a half dozens conspiraloonery threads.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
And there we have it, in a nutshell.
I don't think it's really relevant but just FYI, there is in fact a comically large storm drain siver (?) located just off where the front left wheel would have been! I can't work out whether this is in the same direction you were talking about. Probably not. And in any case I don't think Elvis could have fit down there.
Sounds a bit like your mate was formally too reliant on 'official bodies' for information then.
To get a 'lightbulb moment' of 'why are these bastards lying to me' is fair enough. But to leap straight from that to gullibly trusting anything and everything presented on out and out conspiranoia sites just because conspiranoids claim to 'distrust everything' is the instinct of a fool.
If you're going to be sceptical and distrustful, the best place to fucking start with scepticism and distrust is the made up, dubiously sourced, ill referenced, underquestioned, out and out raving batshit of conspiranoia websites and pop eyed 'visionaries' like the well barking Icke, Alex Jones, and their friends drivelling away one on whale.to and prisonplanet and Rense etc. All five of those websites are bywords for total lunacy for anyone even marginally sane and intelligent.
If you don't distrust them, if you even ever cite them except to point and laugh, anyone's claim to 'distrust what they're told' by the Government is laughable.
Good posts from elbows btw. Looking forward to BK's return on this as well, she always talks sense because from painful experience she knows what so many of these conspiracists are really like.
got it in a nutshell.
We've done this before trev, but it's crazy to suggest that just because you're anti conspiracist you must be instinctively gullible/trusting of the establishment/Government.
The best exposers of wrongnesses like Deepcut and aspects of the Iraq war were independent minded poltical types/campaigners and independent minded, dilligent investigative journalists/historians/researchers who put in the proper spadework and only use reliable information using reputable sources (ie not barking CT websites!!).
Get barking conspiracists onto their case though and their work gets hindered and discredited and obstructed.
bhamgeezer said:
Fair enough, but for me especially including cynicism about the motives (and sanity!) of conspiracy theorists ...
I'm wary of anything presented as a conpiracy tbhm, just as I'm wary about 'official' narratives. As a historian I have to agree that some historical conspiracies end up getting proven through dilligent research from the sort of people I describe in my previous posts. They almost NEVER get exposed by out and out conspiracy theorists though
i've never SEEN a conspiracy website!! I just make my mind up in each case about the likelihood of something sinister and in David Kelly, Deepcut, Diana, John Lennon etc, thats a high likelihood.
You gotta basically think "Does it make sense if.." and ask yourself if the person who got bumped off had greatly upset those in power...etc
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Is he a lizard?
Curious that someone posts a thread posing a reasonable question regarding the ascendancy of conspiraloonacy, and Jazzz manages to turn it round into a discussion about a conspiracy.
Yes, conspiraloonacy is growing - from the casual sympathiser who jsut believes this shit because they've "read something on the internet", to the full-blown lizard-hunter who is irrevocably committed to the conspiraloon view of any given event, because that's the chosen paradigm within which they operate. It's the new religion. People need something to believe. They need to feel that there's order to their world. Even if that order is scary, the alternative - chaos - is even worse.
If you look at the way most conspiraloons operate, it's identical to religious fanatics. They proceed from the view that their ideas are true, then selectively seek evidence to support those theories, twisting it and misrepresenting it. "Ah yes, the fossil record... god planted that there to test our faith!". The rational mind looks at the evidence and follows where it leads. Conspiraloons don't do this - they decide on their destination, then drag the evidence along with them.
Yeah, but you've a proven record of being an out and out denialist on climate change Sas, and very gullible about/underquestioning of your own favourite sources/'gurus' too. The barking Christophers Booker and Monckton and the highly unbiased Daily Telegraph anyone?
Not to mention having outed yourself many times on here as being a scientific near-illiterate on the subject.
Ask the sadly absent Bernie Gunther and the still present free spirit ....
That you recognise as being conspiracist?
i just never bother with websites to be honest!! You don't have to be mentally deprogrammed by lizards to think the state might do underhanded things!
Not disagreeing with that at all, but as you know my overall point is different ...
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Conspiraloons often site this in support of their argument. "So you don't believe governments are dishonest and conspire then?" Well duh. If you wanna be that simplistic, then you could equally argue "So you don't believe terrorists wanna blow shit up then?"
Of course governments are deceitful, devious and conspire. Of course terrorists wanna blow shit up. Neither fact proves a case one way or the other. Although if you wanna apply Occam's Razor, then it's a damn site harder for a government to fake 911 than it is for a bunch of terrorists to actually carry it out, so Occam's Razor falls on the side of the terrorist theory.
- Status
Similar threads
