87 replies to this topic

[Babe Ruth]

aquatus1, on 07 March 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Why is that a problem?

Is it really so difficult to conceive that most people would be reasonable enough agree with a more general statement such as whether government conspiracies exist?

Maybe the problem is not with the general concept.  Maybe the problem is with the specifics.



Well, think carefully about that...

On the one hand, yes, chances are good that the average supporter here, when speaking to others, faces a great deal of opposition to the idea of conspiracies.

On the other hand...most of the people here who advance conspiracies are advancing a very limited set of conspiracies, and the vast majority of these are indeed conspiracies favored by conspiracy theorist.

In other words, if someone is always talking about apples, and people are always objecting to apples, it is bad logic to conclude that these people adamantly oppose fruit.  They may just be sick and tired of apples.



I disagree.  I think it is just as valid to say that the assumption that it is "simply impossible in the minds of many" plays a large role in the general uselessness of these discussions.  In fact, I would be willing to say that it is the assumption of what the other person is thinking that colors much of what is being said, even in the face of what is actually written.

The same thing has happened in this very thread.  Now, I am a Marketing and Negotiation instructor, so I will go into behaviour gleefully, in depth, and ad nauseum, but it has already been pointed out that we are kind of off-topic (to the extent that the original topic...well, not a lot of meat to it), but yeah, assumptions go both ways.  Conspiracy theorists assume one thing about debunkers, debunkers assume certain things about conspiracy theorists, and neither one actually argues the discussion, but rather both argue their points.  Is it any wonder some of the threads in this forum never go anywhere?  There is no resolution because their is literally no discussion between people.

No, in my mind, the difference between conspiracy theorists and debunkers, and skeptics who are either for or against a given conspiracy, is not so much the claims, but rather (to absolutely no one's surprise, at this point) their behaviour.  The behaviour of conspiracy theorists and debunkers is pretty much identical.  Both have made the assumption they understand the opinion of the other, both ignore any claims or arguments of the other, both are more concerned with winning an argument than with discussing the issue.  As opposed to...

Damn, just noticed I started again with the whole lecture thing.  Sorry, nevermind, my bad...

Not at all.  I do not see it as a lecture, but rather a very good discussion with very good points.

Most of your points I agree with, but I would offer some observations on semantics, always a sticking point.

"Conspiracy theorists" and "debunkers" is convenient I guess, but I'm not so sure that it's accurate.  Most labels we use these days are not exactly accurate, and to me, go back to Orwell's observation that when the language is corrupted, the next thing to be corrupted is thought processes.

No two labels are better examples of this than "liberal" and "conservative".  Here in the US there is currently an effort being made to corrupt the meaning of the word "entitlement".  I digress.

I think that the behavior we call "denial" is a large part of what you accurately see as "threads that never go anywhere."  In their effort to "debunk", it seems that some folks blatantly ignore certain facts, or deny those facts.  Hence denial.

I know I am not the only one, because I happen to know others, but I have taken both sides in this question.  I don't consider myself a 'theorist', but I always try to look at both sides of any story in an effort to try to discover what truth there may be.

But back to the thread, we know that the CIA and other 'spook' agencies 'round the world are utterly into secrecy, as must be the case.  And we know that secret killings are part of their modus operandi, for better or for worse.

Harry Truman was President when the law creating the CIA was passed.  Afterwards, he regretted that the law had not been better written, with his largest objection being that the intelligence gathering function and the 'operations' function had been combined into the same agency.  He thought that (as had been the case prior), the operations side of it be confined to the military, with appropriate congressional oversight.

[aquatus1]

Silvergun Superman, on 08 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

It may have some validity, but based on other topics I've seen discussed in this forum (some of them multiple times in various fashions) I find it hard to believe that is the primary reason many people had for not even acknowledging the topic I am referring to.

Then the thing to do would be to check and see if your behaviour in those threads was the same as your behaviour in the thread you gave as an example.

If the behaviour was the same, chances are pretty good that the reactions are going to be the same.

Quote

It seems to me there are a lot of discussions that wouldn't exist within this forum if the reason you gave is to be considered a particularly good one.

It seems to me that you are assuming a lot of discussions on this forum are of particular importance to the people discussing them.

Babe Ruth, on 08 March 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Not at all.  I do not see it as a lecture, but rather a very good discussion with very good points.
Most of your points I agree with, but I would offer some observations on semantics, always a sticking point.

Always, yes.  That said, there is a time and place for semantics, although the word has recently, and rather ironically, been used less and less to refer to actual semantics and more simply as a general negative insinuation against accuracy.

Quote

"Conspiracy theorists" and "debunkers" is convenient I guess, but I'm not so sure that it's accurate.  Most labels we use these days are not exactly accurate, and to me, go back to Orwell's observation that when the language is corrupted, the next thing to be corrupted is thought processes.

I would agree with Orwell, but I'm not seeing why the convenient labels are not of sufficient accuracy.  They are, after all, the labels assigned to each party by their opposites.

Quote

I think that the behavior we call "denial" is a large part of what you accurately see as "threads that never go anywhere."  In their effort to "debunk", it seems that some folks blatantly ignore certain facts, or deny those facts.  Hence denial.

True, but as I said, the same behaviour is clearly observed in the opposite camp, where the conspiracy theorists also make their points without addressing, and often not acknowledging, certain facts or arguments.  Each side, of course, firmly believes they are in the right, but from the outside looking in, both sides are behaving the same way.

Incidentally, speaking of accuracy, Denial is not a form of cognitive dissonance.   It is an entire self-defense mechanism all on it's own.

Quote

I know I am not the only one, because I happen to know others, but I have taken both sides in this question.  I don't consider myself a 'theorist', but I always try to look at both sides of any story in an effort to try to discover what truth there may be.

Again, claims are not as important as behaviour.  Silvergun believes the same as you do.  So does Stundie, so does Q24, so does Skyeagle, so does FlyingSwan, so do a lot of people.
It is one thing to claim that you are a genuine skeptic; the real  question is whether your behaviour is that of a genuine skeptic.  

lightly, on 08 March 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Is there any other word in English more capable of distracting or confounding  than  ... THE ?
(think about it)

Absolutely.  There is another word that could well be considered the most powerful word in the English language.  A word that has started countless wars, love affairs, built empires, destroyed civilizations, and which still today, in our everyday lives, will attract our immediate attention and make us more willing to accept what someone else is telling us.

And no, it isn't "sex".

[Babe Ruth]

Yes, a type of psychological defense mechanism is the most accurate description.

Speaking only for myself, regarding an analyis of the events of the day 10 years ago, my 'belief' is based upon what facts are available, and looking at the overall picture, my 'belief' is that the official story is a lie.

While there are some facts that shape my 'belief', all that can really be said with any accuracy is that the official story is false.

If one believes the official story, one is grossly misinformed, as I was for several years.

[aquatus1]

More relevant to this discussion, however...


Why do you feel the need to re-iterate a point that is simply not a part of this discussion?  

Why admit that your opinion is belief, and then immediately follow it up with a declaration that your opinion, in objective format, is actually fact?

Why make the absolute claim that anyone who disagrees with that opinion-made-fact is automatically wrong?


Behaviour has always been a far truer indicator of mindset than actual claims or beliefs.  

Consider:  

Repetition, as a behaviour.  

Justification, as a form of Denial.

The False Dilemma

[Left-Field]

aquatus1, on 09 March 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

Then the thing to do would be to check and see if your behaviour in those threads was the same as your behaviour in the thread you gave as an example.

If the behaviour was the same, chances are pretty good that the reactions are going to be the same.

I'm actually referring to threads that I either haven't posted in, or have said very little in. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how your comment above makes sense based on what I am stating.

The reason you gave as to why people didn't participate in the discussion is because "the one thread where a decent discussion could have actually gotten started, and it was ruined by the CT-ish behaviour."

My response to that is that there are numerous threads within this forum which generate plenty of discussion despite the fact people who have started them and / or have participated in them cleary display "CT-ish" behaviour.

With that being the case I find it very doubtful that any of my comments, or anyone elses, in the thread I linked you to kept most people from participating in it.  

With all due respect, I find that reason to be a fairly weak one (again, that is based on the fact there are plenty of threads here where discussion takes place regardless of people with "CT-ish" behaviour participating in them).

I won't deny that there may be a few who shied away for that reason, but to suggest it is the primary reason almost nobody voiced any level of disbelief in the subject is ill-founded in my opinion.

aquatus1, on 09 March 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

It seems to me that you are assuming a lot of discussions on this forum are of particular importance to the people discussing them.

I never really thought about importance as a reason anyone particpates in discussions here (although to some extent it could be).

For the most part I believe the people that post in this section of the forum do so because of some combination of the following: they take interest in a particular subject, they want to make people aware of certain conspiracies, they care to hear others thoughts on a given conspiracy, a desire to educate people (from both the stance of explaining why a conspiracy theory is faulty, and others from the standpoint of why a theory may have believability), and entertainment purposes.

I'm sure there are other reasons as well, but off the top of my head those are the reasons that come to mind.

Edited by Silvergun Superman, 10 March 2012 - 06:08 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

aquatus1, on 10 March 2012 - 01:49 AM, said:

More relevant to this discussion, however...


Why do you feel the need to re-iterate a point that is simply not a part of this discussion?  

Why admit that your opinion is belief, and then immediately follow it up with a declaration that your opinion, in objective format, is actually fact?

Why make the absolute claim that anyone who disagrees with that opinion-made-fact is automatically wrong?


Behaviour has always been a far truer indicator of mindset than actual claims or beliefs.  

Consider:  

Repetition, as a behaviour.  

Justification, as a form of Denial.

The False Dilemma

Perhaps I was not clear enough.

Webster's definition of "believe" makes a distinction between an intransive verb and a transitive verb, obviously, as dictionaries do.  One is "to credit with veracity", and it is in that sense that I use it.

I thought that WAS where this discussion went, as it strayed from the thread title of the heart attack gun to the government's tendency to fraud and deception?  Maybe I misunderstood your words too?

There are certain facts regarding the events of the day that lead me to my conclusion (is it a belief?) that the story as told in the press is a hoax.  Missing airplanes, pools of molten metal, and other things.

Am I in error in concluding that those facts destroy the integrity of the story?  If you say yes, I hope you will be specific Aquatus.

I firmly believe that any person is entitled to any opinion he wants to hold, no matter how absurd or irrational it might be.  That he is entitled to that, does not mean that I or anybody else must respect that opinion.

And at some point 'belief' becomes animated by 'faith', or so it appears through the cyber filter.  And all those years ago Huck Finn observed that "faith is when you believe something you know ain't true."

[lliqerty]

These three journalists died of a sudden, unexplained heart attack.

Andrew Breitbart, age 43, disclosed facts that led to the ACORN scandal and claimed to have more damaging information about Obama. († March 1, 2012)

Mark Pittman, age 52, first person to ever sue the Federal Reserve, has won a court ruling but as of March 2011 the case remains on appeal. He was an investigative journalist for Bloomberg. († November 25, 2009)

Tim Russert, age 58, asked both Bush and Kerry in 2004 about their member ship in Skull & Bones, interviewed Obama on May 4, 2008 about his connection to Reverend Wright and Louis Farakhan. († June 13, 2008)

Edited by lliqerty, 07 July 2012 - 06:25 AM.

[lliqerty]

Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko is Dead, 3 Days After Sabrosky Interview Implicates CIA/Mossad in 911

http://www.dailypaul...a-mossad-in-911

[pallidin]

Maybe it's just an often lethal natural event called "sudden cardiac arrest"
SCA is different than a "normal" heart attack. With SCA, your heart suddenly stops beating for no apparent reason.
Not a bad way to go actually. You lose consciousness within seconds and die within a few minutes.

Edited by pallidin, 07 July 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[Czero 101]

Search function is your friend...


http://www.unexplain...howtopic=223258





Cz

[Left-Field]

Just for reference, here is another thread about the CIA's "Heart-Attack" Gun: CIA's Heart-Attack Gun

That thread discusses the gun itself, what reason the government would need such a weapon, and the obvious fact that use of such a weapon would indicate government conspiracies occur.

While some in the thread were willing to concede that point, they still seemed to rationalize it as if the government would only carry out a conspiracy for the good of the people.

Unless definitive proof comes into existence of a "common" person (by that I mean someone who isn't a political leader or someone in the military) suffering a heart-attack due to the use of this weapon people will continue to state it is preposterous to think the government would use it to silence people that oppose their beliefs or possess information they do not care the general public to know about.

My stance is that a weapon such as this is more likely to be used for those reasons than it is to be used to take out someone who is a terroristic threat. My reason for this belief is that you can openly kill such a threat without the need to make it look like a natural occurrence (although I realize there are some instances where that case could be made).

---

Really, the "search" reminder again 'Czero101?' People can't win here when it comes to that. If they find an old thread and respond to it they get told they should've just started a new thread on the topic (you did this yourself to someone recently).

Then, if they start a new topic on the subject they get told they should've used the "search" feature.

And also, while I realize I am breaking this rule on my own right now, it is actually against the forum rules to tell others what they should or shouldn't do in regards to such things - it is supposed to be left to the moderators.

---

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 07 July 2012 - 08:22 AM.

[lliqerty]

pallidin, on 07 July 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

Maybe it's just an often lethal natural event called "sudden cardiac arrest"
SCA is different than a "normal" heart attack. With SCA, your heart suddenly stops beating for no apparent reason.
Not a bad way to go actually. You lose consciousness within seconds and die within a few minutes.

You should suggest to them to send the CIA a thank you note.

[Czero 101]

Angel Left Wing, on 07 July 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

---

Really, the "search" reminder again 'Czero101?' People can't win here when it comes to that. If they find an old thread and respond to it they get told they should've just started a new thread on the topic (you did this yourself to someone recently).

Then, if they start a new topic on the subject they get told they should've used the "search" feature.

First off... Yes, 'Angel Left Wing', the Search Reminder... if you have a problem with that, report it.

As to the other thread you're referring to, the one I linked here was a few months old. Most if not all the participants in that thread are still here, actively posting away.

The other one was 11 YEARS OLD and chances are none of the people involved in that thread are around any more to respond.

See the difference...?

Quote

And also, while I realize I am breaking this rule on my own right now, it is actually against the forum rules to tell others what they should or shouldn't do in regards to such things - it is supposed to be left to the moderators.

---

Please quote specifically from my post above where I told anyone to do anything.

I'll wait........................................................................












Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 07 July 2012 - 08:27 AM.

[lliqerty]

Angel Left Wing, on 07 July 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Just for reference, here is another thread about the CIA's "Heart-Attack" Gun: CIA's Heart-Attack Gun

That thread discusses the gun itself, what reason the government would need such a weapon, and the obvious use of such a weapon would indicate government conspiracies occur.

While some in the thread were willing to concede that point, they still seemed to rationalize it as if the government would only carry out a conspiracy for the good of the people.

Unless definitive proof comes into existence of a "common" person (by that I mean someone who isn't a political leader or someone in the military) suffering a heart-attack due to the use of this weapon people will continue to state it is preposterous to think the government would use it to silence people that oppose their beliefs or possess information they do not care the general public to know about.

My stance is that a weapon such as this is more likely to be used for those reasons than it is to be used to take out someone who is a terroristic threat. My reason for this belief is that you can openly kill such a threat without the need to make it look like a natural occurrence (although I realize there are some instances where that case could be made).

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding." (quote from Wikipedia).

Also to be considered is the timing. Pittman's case is still pending as of 2011, Breitbart had not released his information yet (whatever that was), and Russert - who disclosed Bush and Kerry's secret society, and after being tough on Obama - may have raised worries he may also disclose Obama's facts as they become available.

[Left-Field]

lliqerty, on 07 July 2012 - 08:31 AM, said:

"In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime needed to convince a jury of guilt in a criminal proceeding." (quote from Wikipedia).

Also to be considered is the timing. Pittman's case is still pending as of 2011, Breitbart had not released his information yet (whatever that was), and Russert - who disclosed Bush and Kerry's secret society, and after being tough on Obama - may have raised worries he may also disclose Obama's facts as they become available.

I haven't come across anything to definitively suggest any of their deaths were the result of foul play, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

When Tim Russert died I do recall some immediate speculation about him having possibly been murdered.

Edited by Angel Left Wing, 07 July 2012 - 10:21 AM.