'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[William of Walworth]

On the general topic of conspiracy theories and their methods of 'research' and the way many conspiracists tend to draw conclusions.

I was very recently struck (once again!) by the contrast between the take by most CTers on what counts as reliable, trustable facts/evidence, and the research methods of many genuinely dilligent investigative journalists and researchers.

Excellent review in last Saturday's Guardian of two books on the Oil Industry

At a time when much contemporary non-fiction is devoted to the construction of theory, strategy and metanarrative, these two books simply provide the facts: facts that news channels and the continually updated online newspapers seem systemically incapable of digging out. They are each, in their own way, a tribute to the power of the meticulous, journalistic book. Both open a window on the global nightmare we have created: Bower's is a story of power, Maass's a story of powerlesseness.

I'm sure both books will have their drawbacks (I particularly want to read Maass's book mind) but it does look like they approach the subject (the power of the oil industry) with a systematic and credible and logical and rational approach to evidence gathering and fact presentation. Perhaps Bower, given his track record, will err on the side of sensationalism, but both book seem to be highly critical of the Oil Establishment and related government actions/policies.

It would be interesting to check the notes/citations of the two books and see how many 'conspiracy theory' sites or books are cited.

I would guess none.

Conspiracy theorists rarely work like this, being far too tempted to speculate, guess, draw random 'conclusions', bring in any and every half relevant half connected fact or pseudo-fact into a grand theory of everything, and have a thoroughly cavalier approach to 'reputableness' of sources.

Such CTer favoured sources very much including whale.to/rense/Icke/Alex Jones/wedemandthe9/11truth!!!1!!ONE!.blog.com type 'sources' racked up to the gunnells with confirmation bias and preconstructed 'conclusions'

Most CTers have learnt little about reliable methodology from independent investigative journalists and researchers and historians. The latter people can have their faults and their own biases all right, but they come up smelling of relative roses compared to your most 'out there' conspiracy theorists.

 

[Jazzz]

I have asked him to stop several times even though no one has actually reported him.

At least he has a genuine interest in the discussion, even if his language can be offensive.

And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.

8den's abuse has gone way, way over the line. As you have been strongly present on the thread you are clearly aware of it, so reporting it would seem rather unnecessary.

Moreover, I have long since stopped bothering to report abuse such as from 8den against me, because my experience is that nothing will happen.

Instead, I simply draw the line at username corruptions, and my recent experience with those - despite it being a routine piece of modding - is that several of those were ignored and it was only when I made it very clear I expected them to be dealt with and was not going to stop reporting them that you guys took any action.

Indeed, there was one recently from beanburger on this thread, and I have seen no evidence of you doing anything about it.

It is abundantly clear that your definition of 'trolling' here has precious little to do with any objective evaluation of posting misdemeanor - and has everything to do with whether the poster is on your favoured side of the discussion.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.

Christ, you really are deluded

Instead, I simply draw the line at username corruptions

Why get so upset over something so, well, unimportant?

 

[editor]

It is abundantly clear that your definition of 'trolling' here has precious little to do with any objective evaluation of posting misdemeanor - and has everything to do with whether the poster is on your favoured side of the discussion.

Blah blah blah.

Are you going to answer any of the questions I've asked you in DIRECT response to your cliams, or are you going to continue your ongoing campaign of posting up unverified batshit shit and then changing the subject whenever challenged or asked about specifics?

Are you going to add detail to your bizarre claim about DNA material being somehow smuggled into the forensic labs and then explain what happened to the 'real' plane - and provide some supporting evidence for what seems like a particularly gory and ghoulish fantasy of mas murder and mass mutilation?

And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

If you're just posting up wild claims and refusing to back them up or discuss any aspect of them, well, that's just trolling too. Or taking the piss.

 

[Pickman's model]

And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

i fear you'll find mr douglas's peers are people like jazzz, and that any review they carry out will not be of the most rigorous.

 

[Fedayn]

And could you explain who Calum Douglas is, what his relevant qualifications are to your claims and if his findings have been independently verified and properly peer reviewed?

Take your pick... Calum Douglas

 

[Pickman's model]

Take your pick... Calum Douglas

he's a fucking loon

 

[claphamboy]

And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.

I reckon even phil will be laughing his tits off when he reads that statement.

 

[Beanburger]

Right - so without a single scrap of proof to back any of this insane batshit up - you're suggesting that the plane vanished off the radar without anyone noticing, and was somehow replaced by a missile pretending to be a plane without anyone noticing that either (including all the eye witnesses who failed to notice anything wrong).

Meanwhile, the passengers were landed at some secret airport and were taken off and all murdered, and then torn apart, charred, shredded and spiced with fuel, with the grisly remains invisibly shipped into the forensics lab without anyone noticing, while the the remainder of the 60 bodies (and all their belongings and, presumably, the entire plane) were then magically vanished off the face of the earth?

That is one sick fantasy. Actually, it's worse than that. It's obscene.

And more to the point, why the fuck would they bother? Given the huge cover-up necessary to fake the impact of a passenger jet, why not just find a bloody jumbo jet to fly into the Pentagon?

 

[Pickman's model]

I reckon even phil will be laughing his tits off when he reads that statement.

yeh, he's always struck me as the sort of person with moobs.

he's like an unholy cross between eric cartman and homer simpson with none of the attractive qualities of either.

 

[Beanburger]

Now, which side is someone undecided more likely to believe?

Given the resounding lack of support that your posts have encountered, I think you have your answer.

Thanks for the reply. Did anyone happen to report Phil Dwyer?

At least two people have asked publicly for him to be shown the door from this thread.

Indeed, there was one recently from beanburger on this thread, and I have seen no evidence of you doing anything about it.

Phew. Thought for a while that you'd missed that!

 

[Fedayn]

he's a fucking loon

You are referring to a leading light in the truthseeking community fighting the evil in our midst in the hunt for the truth about 9/11 and the quest to rid us of our brainwashed govt inspired mindcontrol.
But 'fucking loon' will probably suffice.

 

[William of Walworth]

I really, genuinely intended not to post about dwyer again today, but this takes the biscuit so bloody much ...

And phildwyer doesn't? Seems to me he is just about the only other person with a genuine interest in the discussion.

Have you actually read his posts over the last 3 or 4 or 5 pages?

If you genuinely think he really was posting on 'your favoured side of the discussion' and was actually helping that position, then you really are thoroughly deluded.

That the above is your intepretation of dwyer's posts doesn't say anything that's at all good about your reading and interpretation and critical assessment skills.

See post 1501, top of this page

 

[William of Walworth]

Seriously Jazzz, dwyer is not helping your position in this thread at all.

 

[Pickman's model]

You are referring to a leading light in the truthseeking community fighting the evil in our midst in the hunt for the truth about 9/11 and the quest to rid us of our brainwashed govt inspired mindcontrol.
But 'fucking loon' will probably suffice.

it's a technical term

 

[phildwyer]

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me. Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.

 

[Pickman's model]

Seriously Jazzz, dwyer is not helping your position in this thread at all.

 

[claphamboy]

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me. Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.

 

[Pickman's model]

OK Ninny, that does it. You are now banned from my thread. And don't bother sending any of your grovelling PM's this time.

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me. Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.

as you've previously usurped mod powers to try to ban other people from threads, it seems only fitting you should be banned from a thread yourself.

 

[Fedayn]

it's a technical term

And it appears to be both factually and technically accurate.

 

[Jazzz]

I'd like you to explain the exaxt route by which the body parts supposedly got to the forensics lab, in some case mere hours after the crash, please.

I want you to detail where the real plane went and how it was vanished off the face of the earth, and I want you to explain the process by which the passengers were slaughtered en masse, and then methodically torn apart, shredded, burnt and sliced by Evil CIA Operatives, and then their body parts somehow slipped into the forensics lab without a single soul noticing anything amiss.

And I'd like you to explain what happened to the plane, the pilots and crew and the substantial amount of body parts after because no one seems to have seen anything of them....

Unbelievable!

You make absolutely NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER about your extraordinary errors, in particular where you asserted that flight 77 had a continuous radar trace when in fact it completely and mysteriously vanished from radar and was never reidentified by FAA officials.

The extraordinary thing was not so much that you assumed it was true but that you threw your mistaken assumptions in MY face and now have not even had the modicum of grace to acknowledge the errors (let alone find the revelations that you might learn from the necessary self-examination).

Instead, you are quite bizarrely demanding that - in order to explain all the inconsistensies surrounding the official evidence and story - I have to come up with the detailed explanation of events that fits all the facts. No - not the FBI, not the USG, not the people that have all the withheld evidence and upon whose word world events change - no, you are demaning that I have to explain it all. As if I have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq! As if I am taking away your liberties!

Do you not think, hang on, maybe this is the wrong way around? Perhaps I am asking the wrong person here?



I would like to think that you are seeking to make a genuine contribution to the thread rather than just seeking to score points (in which case I would normally expect you to resort to your 'threads from several years ago out of context rant')

 

[William of Walworth]

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" though, no?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Unbelievable!

You make absolutely NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER about your extraordinary errors, in particular where you asserted that flight 77 had a continuous radar trace when in fact it completely and mysteriously vanished from radar and was never reidentified by FAA officials.

The extraordinary thing was not so much that you assumed it was true but that you threw your mistaken assumptions in MY face and now have not even had the modicum of grace to acknowledge the errors (let alone find the revelations that you might learn from the necessary self-examination).

Instead, you are quite bizarrely demanding that - in order to explain all the inconsistensies surrounding the official evidence and story - I have come up with the detailed explanation of events that fits all the facts. No - not the FBI, not the USG, not the people that have all the withheld evidence and upon whose word world events change - no, you are demaning that I have to explain it all. As if I have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq! As if I am taking away your liberties!

Do you not think, hang on, maybe this is the wrong way around? Perhaps I am asking the wrong person here?

There just isn't enough facepalm in the universe...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I'd like to know whether I'm allowed to reply to the various aspersions being cast upon me. Please clarify whether I am banned from this thread or not.

Oh lordy

 

[Jazzz]

See post 1501, top of this page

As per your request William I have looked at this post carefully. It seems to me that you refer to two books on the oil industry, both of which go into detail to describe a world of ruthless corruption, where things are not what they seem, where our leaders give vapid speeches about human rights while in fact they are the false patriots who would gladly pimp out their own grandmothers.

You suggest that the careful research of these books (although, you haven't actually read them) is in contrast to the work of 'conspiracy theorists'.

Perhaps you will forgive me if I cannot find the same conclusion.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yet more facepalm required...

 

[William of Walworth]

As per your request William I have looked at this post carefully. It seems to me that you refer to two books on the oil industry, both of which go into detail to describe a world of ruthless corruption, where things are not what they seem, where our leaders give vapid speeches about human rights while in fact they are the false patriots who would gladly pimp out their own grandmothers.

You suggest that the careful research of these books (although, you haven't actually read them) is in contrast to the work of 'conspiracy theorists'.

Perhaps you will forgive me if I cannot find the same conclusion.

My point was that the research methods of the authors of those books seems to contrast quite strongly with those found acceptable by many/most conspiracy theorists (particularly on line).

My other point was that you can (and very often should) reach conclusions critical of 'the establishment', of power elites,. etc., without resorting to the cut corners, sloppy 'evidence' etc favoured by many/most conspiracists.

Find me a conspiracist on line who never cites prisonplanet, whale.to, Icke's site, Alex Jones' site, rense and the vested-interest, confirmation-biased, preconcluded like and I'll see one who at least starts to be discerning and discriminatory about the quality and standard of their sources ....

 

[trevhagl]

just saw a book today "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham. Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?
Had a quick flick thru it and Diana said something along the lines of "people close to me are in grave danger" - so even SHE must've been a conspiracy theorist ho ho!

 

[phildwyer]

dwyer

dwyer

dwyer

dwyer

dwyer.... dwyer.... dwyer.... DWYER.... dwyerdwyerdwyerdwyer...

Really, this is quite ridiculous now.

Am I allowed to participate in this thread or not?

If I am banned, so be it. It seems a monstrous injustice, but such is life. I'll live. But this uncertainty is a torment beyond endurance. Am I or am I not banned from this thread?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[William of Walworth]

just saw a book today "The Murder of Princess Diana" by Noel Botham. Anyone fancy chipping in for a Xmas present for Clapham Boy & 8den?
Had a quick flick thru it and Diana said something along the lines of "people close to me are in grave danger" - so even SHE must've been a conspiracy theorist ho ho!

New York Times review from 2007 of a TV programme. Review refers to the Botham book from which the TV programme was adapted...

We’ve seen this movie before. As you can guess from the title, “The Murder of Princess Diana,” like the book by Noel Botham from which it was adapted, is a compendium of Diana conspiracy theories: the royal family/MI6/C.I.A./international arms dealers marked her for death because she was pregnant/she was going to marry a Muslim/she was about to put a crimp in land-mine sales and covered it up by erasing the surveillance tapes/faking the driver’s blood test/killing her in the ambulance. Or were they trying to kill Dodi?

Let's just say the full NYT review looks suitably sceptical ....