Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
OverSword

O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder

247 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Vs regurgitating what some anonymous You Tube poster told them or someone like Alex Jones who has been caught in so many lies I've lost count?

Well i don't do that and I know a lot of people who don't. Far more poeple do what I said.

I dilsike Alex Jones I think he makes a mockery of real conspiracy theories and devalues them with his insane ranting.

I look at facts not other peoples theories.

Edited by Coffey
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know about ODD, but I think I have OCCTD: Obsessive Compulsive Conspiracy Theory Disorder. :D

I blame the X-Files. Growing up my dad was an avid X-Files TV watcher, and he still loves the show. So do I. But, I think it warped my brain... LOL

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i don't do that and I know a lot of people who don't. Far more poeple do what I said.

I dilsike Alex Jones I think he makes a mockery of real conspiracy theories and devalues them with his insane ranting.

I look at facts not other peoples theories.

I listen to Alex Jones, but I don't believe EVERYTHING he says. He can be a little out there to me. But, I think he is right about a few things, and I like to hear what he has to say. But that's me.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering I've thought on my own I can say that they're right 90% of the time, but their own logic irritates me. That's the issue. Many people seem to take stances "in principle" and not out of objectivity.

Most conspiracy theories are bull****, but principled skepticism is lazy. Be objective and police your own confirmation bias.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I listen to Alex Jones, but I don't believe EVERYTHING he says. He can be a little out there to me. But, I think he is right about a few things, and I like to hear what he has to say. But that's me.

I feel he takes soem things which needs to be addressed then blows them up to much. I also don't like his aggression. It's not needed.

I sometimes wonder if he is a disinformationist, or a patsy being used to make conspiracy theorists look mental. I was on his side against Piers Morgan though, I hate Piers Morgan. Half of me is sorry that you have to have him in the US now, but the other half is glad he's gone form the UK. lol

Edited by Coffey
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've read somewhere that Alex Jones' radio station is owned by ABC :unsure2: , not sure if it's true though. But like AJ has stated before, most of the articles on his website come directly from the mainstream media, so who's really showing the bias here. I rarely listen to him and he is not some authority on conspiratorial beliefs. People come to similar conclusions just by viewing the facts alone instead of listening to media spin. Alex Jones adds his own spin to the news too and is running a business, full of self-promotion. He just happens to post things of relevance while the "real" news stations talk about celebrities.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It is funny how the CT's rationalize their madness by declaring anyone who disagrees with their silliness a close-minded, angry, slave to the orthodoxy and those who believe in patently ridiculous theories as open-minded, intelligent and happy people put down by the man. LMAO. Come on, you guys are still pushing "We didn't land on the moon", "911 was an inside job" and "Aliens abduct people at night but no one ever sees it". Zero proof against reams of proof and we are the idiots? Oy vey.

I guess it makes you feel good to be told by Mr. Sheridan that believing in crazy things makes you a superior person and as far as I am concerned that is fine, feel good but just be aware it doesn't mean your beliefs are true or even rational. I am not a complete skeptic that has seen things in my travels that I can't explain but I don't leap to irrational conclusions to explain these things.

BTW , I posted this to give my CT buds some red meat to chew on until a few more of the rational folk chime in. Enjoy the gristle. LOL

Edited by Merc14
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT is ,IT is ! Tuna Texas !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well i don't do that and I know a lot of people who don't. Far more poeple do what I said.

I dilsike Alex Jones I think he makes a mockery of real conspiracy theories and devalues them with his insane ranting.

I look at facts not other peoples theories.

And that's what you guys always say.

But where do you get these "facts"? How do you research these "facts"? You have to rely on others for them, correct?

Using 9/11 as an example, most of you guys aren't engineers or architects, right? So you rely on outfits like the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth groups. You quote what these guys say like it's the Bible and will readily fall on your swords saying "1,000+ engineers and architects say......." But you never seem to consider that, while 1,000+ members may be saying these things, that millions of other architects and engineers know they're full of ****. The same goes for random nonsense said by firefighters and policemen standing in the middle of 9/11 raging around them or something said by some random reporter in the fog of war (hello Newtown and even this very day in Boston).

You guys love to call us "official story" believers the sheeple, but yet you buy this unmitigated crap hook line and sinker without seemingly giving it two thoughts before you do. All you care about is that it reinforces your world view and you can sit back in your smug self righteousness thinking you know something that no one else does.

Makes you wonder who the real sheeple are, doesn't it?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the camps are drawn.

Interesting read:

"But what's the actual appeal of believing in conspiracy theories? What purpose do they serve people?

For one thing, conspiracy theories help us cope with distressing events and make sense out of them. Conspiracies assure us that bad things don't just happen randomly. Conspiracies tell us that someone out there is accountable, however unwittingly or secretly or incomprehensibly, so it's possible to stop these people and punish them and in due course let everyone else re-establish control over their own lives. Conspiracies also remind us that we shouldn't blame ourselves for our predicaments; it's not our fault, it's them! In these ways, believing in conspiracies serves many of the same self-protective functions as scapegoating."

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200809/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are extremists on both sides. It's a shame that there's a paradigm like the one we now have. It's like "conspiracy nuts" and "establishment sheep" are the only two available categories, and we have to pick one, even if by default. There should be more fluidity involved in our choices.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are extremists on both sides. It's a shame that there's a paradigm like the one we now have. It's like "conspiracy nuts" and "establishment sheep" are the only two available categories, and we have to pick one, even if by default. There should be more fluidity involved in our choices.

Well said, and I agree with you on the merits of your statement. But, in this, there really is no 'middle ground', is there?

How can you/we/us divide the pie 'in half'? Truth, as far as I know, has no grey area.

Maybe we should move this to the philosophy forum. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've read somewhere that Alex Jones' radio station is owned by ABC :unsure2: , not sure if it's true though. But like AJ has stated before, most of the articles on his website come directly from the mainstream media, so who's really showing the bias here. I rarely listen to him and he is not some authority on conspiratorial beliefs. People come to similar conclusions just by viewing the facts alone instead of listening to media spin. Alex Jones adds his own spin to the news too and is running a business, full of self-promotion. He just happens to post things of relevance while the "real" news stations talk about celebrities.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission? Seems strange?

I thought the article was somewhat amusing, no more than the typical whine of "Listen To Me People, Not The Experts". More of a proverbial white flag than anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are extremists on both sides. It's a shame that there's a paradigm like the one we now have. It's like "conspiracy nuts" and "establishment sheep" are the only two available categories, and we have to pick one, even if by default. There should be more fluidity involved in our choices.

it's exactly like it is in Politicics, isn't it; you have to be one of "us" or one of "them". Really, like everything else, I suppose it's down to dogma.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Australian Broadcasting Commission? Seems strange?

I thought the article was somewhat amusing, no more than the typical whine of "Listen To Me People, Not The Experts". More of a proverbial white flag than anything.

They probably mean American Broadcasting Company, a commercial U.S. broadcaster.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without naming names, it describes quite a few of our "fellow posters" :innocent::whistle:

Yep, you could find a whole shipload here..... never seen so many in any other place.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They probably mean American Broadcasting Company, a commercial U.S. broadcaster.

:blush:

Thanks, the ABC is quite big over here, we have 3 of them, didn't realise the US had one too!

:tu:

abc.jpegABC-hacked.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's what you guys always say.

But where do you get these "facts"? How do you research these "facts"? You have to rely on others for them, correct?

Using 9/11 as an example, most of you guys aren't engineers or architects, right? So you rely on outfits like the 9/11 architects and engineers for truth groups. You quote what these guys say like it's the Bible and will readily fall on your swords saying "1,000+ engineers and architects say......." But you never seem to consider that, while 1,000+ members may be saying these things, that millions of other architects and engineers know they're full of ****. The same goes for random nonsense said by firefighters and policemen standing in the middle of 9/11 raging around them or something said by some random reporter in the fog of war (hello Newtown and even this very day in Boston).

You guys love to call us "official story" believers the sheeple, but yet you buy this unmitigated crap hook line and sinker without seemingly giving it two thoughts before you do. All you care about is that it reinforces your world view and you can sit back in your smug self righteousness thinking you know something that no one else does.

Makes you wonder who the real sheeple are, doesn't it?

Ironically I knew that 9/11 wasn't right when I never even had internet access.... So caryy on with your BS.

Also you go by the official story reported by the media from the goverment.

The same media who do this:

Public manipulation. 90% of the US fall for this. That is being a sheep.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are extremists on both sides. It's a shame that there's a paradigm like the one we now have. It's like "conspiracy nuts" and "establishment sheep" are the only two available categories, and we have to pick one, even if by default. There should be more fluidity involved in our choices.

I think there already is quite a bit of fluidity, and in my view this 'paradigm' that we're discussing here is really pretty much irrelevant; it's essentially just playground name-calling. Not that it doesn't add color to the conversation of course but it certainly isn't making anyone more correct in their views. So even if some people insist on dividing everyone up into two extremes about the most that deserves is a shrug; I'd hope that both 'sides' and everyone in-between agrees that no one's particular argument on anything is wrong just because someone has labeled them a sheep or a nut.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, in my short time here, met some folks who fit in the description perfectly :innocent:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny how the CT's rationalize their madness by declaring anyone who disagrees with their silliness a close-minded, angry, slave to the orthodoxy and those who believe in patently ridiculous theories as open-minded, intelligent and happy people put down by the man. LMAO. Come on, you guys are still pushing "We didn't land on the moon", "911 was an inside job" and "Aliens abduct people at night but no one ever sees it". Zero proof against reams of proof and we are the idiots? Oy vey.

I guess it makes you feel good to be told by Mr. Sheridan that believing in crazy things makes you a superior person and as far as I am concerned that is fine, feel good but just be aware it doesn't mean your beliefs are true or even rational. I am not a complete skeptic that has seen things in my travels that I can't explain but I don't leap to irrational conclusions to explain these things.

BTW , I posted this to give my CT buds some red meat to chew on until a few more of the rational folk chime in. Enjoy the gristle. LOL

(response to first bolded) here in lay the problem, so 'you guys' huh, so we believe in all three or none of the above? is that the way it works? If I believe in the ETH I must also believe in 9/11 and no moon landing?

tut tut tut.

second bolded part shows a little bias IMO and then that woyuld firmly leave you in the opposite camp to those 'believe all three and anything else' kind of people you refer to. The opposite camp being those that believe the scientific method has been followed to reach the conclusion that Venus can hover low to the ground, change direction, take off at speed and appear many different shapes and colours.....right? science...lol this sort of debunk is never questioned but just accepted....whos jumping to conclusions now?

quick question ...

better to believe that Venus can do all those things

OR

believe the ETH is possible

I know which side I would pick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is funny how the CT's rationalize their madness by declaring anyone who disagrees with their silliness a close-minded, angry, slave to the orthodoxy and those who believe in patently ridiculous theories as open-minded, intelligent and happy people put down by the man. LMAO. Come on, you guys are still pushing "We didn't land on the moon", "911 was an inside job" and "Aliens abduct people at night but no one ever sees it". Zero proof against reams of proof and we are the idiots? Oy vey.

I guess it makes you feel good to be told by Mr. Sheridan that believing in crazy things makes you a superior person and as far as I am concerned that is fine, feel good but just be aware it doesn't mean your beliefs are true or even rational. I am not a complete skeptic that has seen things in my travels that I can't explain but I don't leap to irrational conclusions to explain these things.

BTW , I posted this to give my CT buds some red meat to chew on until a few more of the rational folk chime in. Enjoy the gristle. LOL

Yes, it is certainly a sign of the times when questioning government stories which do not comply with the facts is seen as being a "madness".

Orwell would be proud.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is certainly a sign of the times when questioning government stories which do not comply with the facts is seen as being a "madness".

Orwell would be proud.

Conspiracy Theories have been around for a VERY VERY long time. Many Romans thought Nero started the fire of Rome and then convienantly blamed the Christians for it.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think it is wrong to suggest that there are only 2 camps - CT'ers, and De-Bunkers. Most of the people here fall into one or the other camp dependent on the theory being discussed, but may hold apposite views in other theories and debates. This makes them neither CT'ers OR De - Bunkers.

For myself, I used to wonder very seriously whether the USA put a Man on the moon and stated such. My viewpoint was altered 180 degrees by the sheer weight of facts evidenced by the late, and sadly missed, MID.

I have serious reservations about the Govt Line on 9/11 however - but that could just have been the result of an over zealous Media wanting instant answers from their Govt., and once a story is released it becomes exponentially more difficult, with the passage of time, to retract it. Instead of being allowed sufficient time to get to the heart of the issues, they bumbled about like headless chickens to get SOMETHING released.

There are many issues like those above where people, being people, will hold different viewpoints, but it is very evident that the same person can be a CT'er AND a debunker

Edited by keithisco
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is wrong to suggest that there are only 2 camps - CT'ers, and De-Bunkers. Most of the people here fall into one or the other camp dependent on the theory being discussed, but may hold apposite views in other theories and debates. This makes them neither CT'ers OR De - Bunkers.

For myself, I used to wonder very seriously whether the USA put a Man on the moon and stated such. My viewpoint was altered 180 degrees by the sheer weight of facts evidenced by the late, and sadly missed, MID.

I have serious reservations about the Govt Line on 9/11 however - but that could just have been the result of an over zealous Media wanting instant answers from their Govt., and once a story is released it becomes exponentially more difficult, with the passage of time, to retract it. Instead of being allowed sufficient time to get to the heart of the issues, they bumbled about like headless chickens to get SOMETHING released.

There are many issues like those above where people, being people, will hold different viewpoints, but it is very evident that the same person can be a CT'er AND a debunker

Which is why I've tried to ignore yesterdays bombing as much as I can. Hard to resist though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.