Why do we flat out reject CT's? [Conspiracy Theories]

[Cicero]

Newcomer, I guess I don't understand a few points. If there was a conspiracy between the UK, France and Israel to instigate a war in Egypt, how is that criminal? And I thought the UK was caught with there pants down- hardly a compelling reason to believe there was a conspiracy for war.

No I don't believe the Govt can hide anything for long. As has been said "Two people can keep a secret- as long as one is dead".

[newcomer]

Originally Posted by Cicero

No I don't believe the Govt can hide anything for long. As has been said "Two people can keep a secret- as long as one is dead".

There is a difference between establishing in March of 2003 that Bush W. was lying.

Or, establishing in August of 1964 that Lyndon Johnson was lying about Gulf of Tonkin incident. Etc. etc. etc…

The actual strength of hierarchy and power in US and its perception by citizenry somewhat perplexes me; it’s there, it’s strong, strongest in the World and brutally relentless yet so “understandable”.

What I find funny is that POTUS can get in trouble only if he’s lying about mundane stuff; like what happened to Nixon or Clinton. But make al lie to enter a war – no problem.

Anyways, it’s well beside the point.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Marley23

It's been out there for years. You just didn't know about it.

I have no idea when these details were first reported, but I bet it was in the 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004 and that Popular Mechanics article is from February 2005. Why is this information not better known? I don't know. It may have taken time to marshal the facts after the attack; certainly "hey, what was that small white plane?" was not the biggest question people wanted to have answered in the aftermath of the attacks.

I'll go you one further and assert that there was no need to refute a conspiracy theory about Flight 93 being mysteriously shot down until such a conspiracy theory became popular enough to warrant refutation.

So the timeline would be something like this:

Late 2001: Flight 93 goes down.
2002-2003: Internet conspiracy theorists gossip
Mid 2004: 9/11 Commission Report published
2004-2005: Popular Mechanics develops an interest in the (recently popular) conspiracy story, assigns editor(s) and writer(s), story gets written, vetted
2005: Story appears

Seems timely to me.

People like conspiracy stories because they're interesting. That alone accounts for the motivation to spread them; we don't need to speculate about motives.

[XT]

Originally Posted by newcomer

There is a difference between establishing in March of 2003 that Bush W. was lying.

The trouble is defining what 'lying' really means in this context, and determining what is a lie and what is simply someone being wrong or clueless (or in GW's case both).

And whether GW lied, was wrong and/or clueless really has little to do with some vast CT, unless you are trying to incorporate it into a CT.

Or, establishing in August of 1964 that Lyndon Johnson was lying about Gulf of Tonkin incident. Etc. etc. etc…

Which is pretty good evidence that there aren't any vast conspiracies that last for decades. LBJ was incredibly powerful politically, and had a lock on the government that few presidents have enjoyed...yet we know most if not all of the dirt on him in pretty vivid detail at this point. Like Nixon. That's the thing...the dirt comes out because people talk. The more people involved the harder it is to keep a secret, especially one where there is some moral or ethical ambiguity involved. Hell, we know about the 'secret' burning of toxic waste and other nasty stuff on the sooper sekrit military base at Grooms Lake (Area 51)...and that security is about as good as it gets in the US. I remember seeing proposed pictures of the secret stealth fighter a year or so before they went public with it (IIRC, Tom Clancy actually put some of the speculative details in one of his early books, again, before the thing was made public).

The actual strength of hierarchy and power in US and its perception by citizenry somewhat perplexes me; it’s there, it’s strong, strongest in the World and brutally relentless yet so “understandable”.

Yet it breaks down pretty frequently. How do you account for that? Things that the government desperately WANTS to keep secret come out in the public all the time...much to the deep embarrassment of pretty much all branches of the government. If they could keep those things secret they would...but, they just can't. Which is the basic reason most of the CTs out there are so ridiculous.

Think about this...even in a totalitarian system such as North Korea or Iran, the dirt eventually comes out, and even their own people (who are generally treated like mushrooms) find out.

What I find funny is that POTUS can get in trouble only if he’s lying about mundane stuff; like what happened to Nixon or Clinton. But make al lie to enter a war – no problem.

The trouble there is defining what a 'lie' actually is, and then proving that he was in fact lying. You THINK he was lying, obviously, but if so either he was a lot smarter than he appeared to be (or had a lot sharper folks working for him than he generally gets credit for) or the current government is willing to just go along with the 'lie' because they are nice guys...or something. My own stance is if he were in fact lying that there would be some evidence somewhere that he was, and that the Obama administration (and certainly the Democratically controlled Congress) would be making a lot of hay about it, instead of focusing on GW simply fucking up a lot and being a buffoon. YMMV of course...if he was deliberately and knowingly lying it would be a CT that he did so with the intent of taking us to war...which, to me, is implausible since I suspect someone would have dished the dirt.

Anyways, it’s well beside the point.

Well...if you really believe that GW deliberately and knowingly lied to take us to war, then it's not really beside the point, since that would certainly be a CT.

-XT

[Saint Cad]

I think the propblem is that there are 3 types of CT.
The first type is like the 9/11 CT. All the facts the CT side presents are just plain wrong and evidence to the contary is ignored. These sort of CTs shouldn't even be discussed because you can't convince the theorists of logic. We reject these out-of-hand because the CTs need to STFU.

The second types is like the moon landings. These are more like faith arguments in that both side hold possible (but not equally likely) scenerios. My son was watching some fact or faked show and they showed how to simulate some of the effects of being on the Moon (like a weighted feather and hollow hammer falling at the same rate). But of course, they didn't show EVERYTHING and that's where these CTs fail. For example, why was the dust throuwn up im perfect parabolas? How could you simulate that on Earth. How was it that Jordell Bank and the Sovoets tracked the transmission coming from the Moon? Was the whole thing tape recorded and sent in a probe? If so, how were the laser reflectors set up? Ultimately these CTs fail because they claim to disprove a fact but never end up disproving it - either because an alternative scenerio is not disproof or because their data is flawed (like my favorite, the guy that couldn't bend his rubber glove in a vaccuum neglecting to use a fixed-volume glove. We reject these out-of-hand because of Occam's Razor. Does it make since that NASA seamlessly pulled of all of the fakery and anticipated every possible outcome or that we actually went to the Moon.

The last is a CT based on unknown variables. What was the relationship between Banco Ambrosiano and John Paul I's death? Did Vince Foster commit suicide to protect the Clintons? Was Marinus van der Lubbe a Nazi agent or fervent Communist? These we reject because there is no falsifiabilty with the information at hand so ANY comment is idle specualtion.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Ok, I'm back. The past 7 days has been a slight nightmare with the events in my life, and were topped off with a death of a close family friend that wasn't exactly expected. (perhaps THIS should be investigated as a CT to keep me from participating in this thread?)

I've finally caught up with my reading of the thread. Not only have a learned a few things I didn't know before, I've learned a few more things about some of the people on this board. Wow. Where one person can read a post, and answer it with a posting, link or whatever in a civil manner, there are others that are incapable of doing anything other than leveling snark, attempting to make themselves feel superior. I guess this board serves many different purposes for many different people.

As to where I am on Flight 93, well I'm going to have to admit that the official story is what actually happened. The tipping point for me was the Popular Mechanics article and the identification of the other plane in the area. See how easy that was?

Here's the thing... I wasn't exactly tearing up the web with CT postings on flight 93, nor was I doing a lot of research on it one way or the other. My opinion was formed when I stumbled onto that website after 9/11, read some of the local news articles and interviews, and left it at that. I certainly wasn't looking at a Popular Mechanics magazine article in 2005, that's for sure. In fact, I hadn't thought of it much at all until I started this thread and threw it up as one I considered plausible.

Sure, not very diligent research on my part, but also this wasn't something I had a lot of passion about one way or the other. The downing of any of those planes, and the loss of the innocent lives on those planes would have been tragic whether they crashed as a result of terrorists or being shot down out of the sky by a govt. plane. From my POV, the downing of the last plane over PA farmland certainly could have been brought down by our govt. And as cold as this may sound, I would have supported that decision. So, when I read about the other plane from that website from local witnesses in local news outlets, it didn't stretch my imagination much to get to the theory that the govt, and not the passengers, downed the plane.

I used this CT for this thread as an example. A few folks gave me good links and/or reasoning to reconsider this POV. The mission has been accomplished. The FAA asking the corporate jet to see if it could get a look at the area certainly makes sense and doing so would have probably looked like the the maneuvers witnesses saw that day.

For me at least, this particular CT (such as it is) is answered. It no longer needs to be discussed. But if others want to continue the discussion, feel free. From my POV, however, I'm out of this particular discussion.

Now, for the thread itself.... I've picked some postings which as I was reading the thread that I thought I'd address. Please keep in mind that I longer consider this an issue, and the answers below are not meant to stir the pot. If someone asked me to give an explanation for something, I will try to explain if I can. That's it.

One final note: I asked in my OP about the psychology of the CT, why some cling to one or more, while others seem to take pleasure in being beyond insulting in answering particular questions. This thread has enough examples of the latter to allow a theory to be formed.

Maybe others would like to weigh in on it if they have an opinion. Of course, I have my own.

Originally Posted by Robot Arm

<snip>
Real people can't perform some unlikely action, but the perpetrators of the conspiracy can do anything; even events they could not predict or control happen perfectly to bring about their desired end.

I really liked this statement as a general reason why the generic CT should be embraced with caution.

Originally Posted by Chimera

For example, rich and powerful people have zero need or desire to reduce the rest of the world to serfdom, destroying nations and economies in the name of power. Their wealth and comfort is dependent on the status quo and our ability to continue to produce the level of technology and goods that we currently produce.

I think you need a better example. As the latest Wall St/Investment Banking/Insurance scandal shows, greed can be intoxicating. There never seems to be an upper limit to how much wealth and comfort people want. Clearly it's more than they need, but need is not part of the equation.

Originally Posted by Marley23

By the time an idea has reached Conspiracy Theory status, it's become an enormous and ridiculously complex plot supported by little or no evidence and a lot of the time it doesn't even make much sense, and that doesn't matter because people don't believe in it based on the evidence. They believe in it because the truth just doesn't feel right to them. Common sense and parsimony get thrown out the window and any evidence that contradicts the theory is simply woven into the narrative as part of the coverup. Robert Anton Wilson noted long ago that if you believe in some of these enormous plots, how can you even trust the evidence that points to the plot? If the conspiracy pulled off the coverup, they might have faked your evidence, too.

An excellent point by Robert Anton Wilson.

I cut the link out of this post that Marley put in pointing to the Popular Mechanics piece. I've already discussed this above.

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A theory needs evidence. Conspiracy theories get dismissed when they fail to produce that evidence. If a conspiracy theory is able to produce evidence that it's true (like the Tonkin Gulf incident) then it stops being a conspiracy theory and becomes an accepted part of history.

And it's not enough to claim that you have a piece of evidence. You have to show that your theory has more evidence to support it than the accepted mainstream theory has.

I think this explains a lot. In large part, it's a terminology issue. If a CT happens to be true or have merit, it no longer falls into the CT category. CT's by definition don't have the proof required to make it the prevailing explanation of events.

Originally Posted by Musicat

Ever hear of the Fog of War?

Yes. it has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

<snip>

I loathe Conspiracy Theories and their proponents for a few reasons. They are typically amazingly stupid and illogical, waste our time, promote suspicion and hatred of our leaders and valuable institutions and programs, and the motive force behind many of them is bigotry (often against Jews, but also commonly involving other religious and ethnic groups. The more conspiracy theories you believe, the more likely you are to be a flaming bigot).

What? where in the world do you get the jew persecution on this one? I can see why you might loathe them if you are jewish and you think that any CT is pointing to jews. But I've never connected the jews with the Kennedy assassination, the faked moon landings, or anything else I can think of. I DO remember the "9/11- jewish connection" (Jews got a "stay home" email or sometihing), but that comment sounds like it has a lot of paranoia in it than anything else.

Wait! Jack Ruby was Jewish (Rubenstein). It now makes sense! The Jews killed Kennedy!

I have to admit, I've never heard what you are talking about... People who believe in multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza are bigots?

Originally Posted by Rick

So wait, let me see if I have this right.
The passengers on the plane were on the phone to their loved ones, and they made the decision to rush the cockpit.
At exactly the same time a mysterious white airplane, a private plane that had been modified to carry a sidewinder missile shows up and shoots the plane down.
Riiiiiiiiiight.

The problems are: (my numbering)
1) How did they arrange the timing?
2) How did the modify the white plane, with no one noticing
3 How did the white plane take off with no one pointing and saying "Holy Shit! there is a missile on that white plane!" (think people hanging around the airport and tower people.
4) How did the white plane find flight 93? Its not like the hijackers had filed a flight plan.
5) How did the missile explode and NOT leave any residue
6) How is it possible that the missile explosion did not cause any parts to be shed from the aircraft.
I could go on, but answer these and we at least have a start.

A few people have asked me to go through a bullet list of actions or scenarios to answer. I chose one. This one.

ok. I'll do this as an exercise. As I've stated, I don't believe in the CT theory any longer, mainly because of Marley's post (I think) which discussed the other plane, which I never had an explanation for.

1) by timing, I assume you are referring to the phone calls to loved ones and the arrival of the mysterious plane. This may not be that complicated. The mystery plane would have been tracking 93 when the calls took place. The callls could certainly be intercepted as they were sent out through the air. So, if the plane was prepared to intercept 93, the order to take it down could have been given the order as the passengers moved into the cockpit. If you DON'T believe the NSA doesn't have this messa

2) This is also easy. I believe I read that the DEA has planes that are armed to take down potential smuggling planes. The plane could have been easily dispatched when 93 was identified as a hijacked plane.

3) Planes taking off from airports are one thing. Planes taking off from AFB's are something else entirely (see A Few Good Men on how Colonel Jessup got rid of an entire flight)

4) Also not too hard, assuming that 93 was the only one in the air at the time. It was being monitored by every ATC in the North East.

5) residue was never tested for (as far as I know. anyway.) So if it was there, it would have escaped notice.

6) I believe that parts of the plane were found away from the crash site (I'm not going back to the website to prove it, but I think that's where I read it.)

All of a sudden, the questions are answered. Perhaps the answers have quite a bit of reach to them ( to put it mildly), but i don't believe there are any barriers to keep the CT from occurring.

That's it. I don't wish to debate these because I'm not supporting the mysterious plane any longer

Originally Posted by Musicat

Stink Fish Pot, I properly credited your quote of another site by nesting them. Maybe you didn't write it originally, but you quoted it and appear to support it.Just Asking Questions, hunh? Tomayto, Tomahto. We have a name for that.Then why are you doing it?

You did NOT properly credit the quote. Quoting something I actually wrote is one thing. Quoting something I copied from a source and attributing it to me without any indication that it came from the source gives a different impression to the reader. I don't know how you cant see this, but I believe most others can. And this JAQing_off nonsense says more about you than anyone or anything else. I think it is a strange way to try to make a point in debate. In fact, I believe you are making direct accusations about my motives, which I thought was a no-no in GD. I never said I agreed with that quote. I said I found it interesting. Big difference.

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Stink Fish Pot I can not help but to notice that you just ignored that the crash site of Pacific Southwest Airlines Fligh 1771 also looked a lot like the one we got at flight 93.

You also seem to have just skipped the 800 thread, suffice to say, that is indeed behavior that I see from conspiracy theorists.

As for flight 93, mostly the engines were found. What you request was not feasible and unnecessary when other evidence like the flight recorder showed that the terrorists plunged the plane when the passengers stormed the plane.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...yths-flight-93

I answered most of this in another post, but I wanted to address the flight 1771 crash site. I looked around, but did not see a picture. Therefore, I can't compare it. I didn't read the flight 800 info because I personally don't see any conspiracy theory here; I simply threw that out as another example of a crash of an airliner where many believed it was shot down. Sorry for any confusion.

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Your post is my cite.

And your post is mine.

I've summed up my thoughts at the beginning of this post. So if you skipped to the end to cheat, go back and read it all.


I think I've answered a fair sample of questions posed by other posters. I've also tried to give credit where I thought excellent points were made.

I'm tired. Please forgive any typos. I've done my best to manage the different quote tags, but if I've screwed the pooch here or there, my apologies.

[Evil Captor]

Originally Posted by Chimera

For example, rich and powerful people have zero need or desire to reduce the rest of the world to serfdom, destroying nations and economies in the name of power. Their wealth and comfort is dependent on the status quo and our ability to continue to produce the level of technology and goods that we currently produce.

Nobody that I know of proposes it as a conspiracy. Wealthy people don't get together secretly to make such plans as you describe. They don't even have the aims you describe. They DO seek, with almost mindless rapacity, to increase their wealth and power, and they do NOT give a shit about average folks. The net result tends to be that middle class and lower class people are losing it economically, big time. But it's not a conspiracy. Just a side effect of irresponsible, uncontrolled greed.

[BrainGlutton]

RationalWiki is a great source here.

Classification of conspiracy theories

In his book Culture of Conspiracy, Michael Barkun[31] (a political scientist specializing in conspiracy theories and fringe beliefs) defines three types of conspiracy theories:

* Event conspiracy: In which a conspiracy is thought to be responsible for a single event or brief series of events, e.g. JFK assassination conspiracies.

* Systemic conspiracy: A broad conspiracy perpetrated by a specific group in an attempt to subvert government or societal organizations, e.g. Freemasonry.

* Super-conspiracy: Hierarchical conspiracies combining systemic and event conspiracies in which a supremely powerful organization controls numerous conspiratorial actors, e.g. the New World Order or Reptoids controlling a number of interlocking conspiracies.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

RationalWiki is a great source here.

RationalWiki is right with the classification of conspiracy theories; however, I think it would more clarifying to look at conspiracy theories chronologically.


Before 9/11, there was Watergate. And before Watergate? New World Order.


9/11 involved planes and hijackers. Who were they? Al-Qaeda? Osama bin Laden? Osama bin Laden is dead. And Al-Qaeda? We'll see. The question is not whether or not there is, in fact, Al-Qaeda, the question is how could Al-Qaeda, or any group of people for that matter, do what happened on September 11, 2001.

Watergate, of course, "went all the way up to the President", and resulted in the resignation of the President.

This much is known about the New World Order. According to Wikipedia, the Order of the Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. Thus, there is a conspiracy that is technically older than the United States. The question is not whether there could be Illuminati, the question is whether there still is Illuminati.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

9/11 involved planes and hijackers.

Of course, many conspiracy theorists (most?) say September 11th did not involve hijacked planes.

The question is not whether or not there is, in fact, Al-Qaeda

I'm pretty sure I've seen CTers deny the existence of Al Qaeda, at least as a group acting on its own and independent of, say, the U.S. government. And I've definitely seen people deny that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

the question is how could Al-Qaeda, or any group of people for that matter, do what happened on September 11, 2001.

Yes, that's the general question.

This much is known about the New World Order.

That it doesn't exist outside of professional wrestling?

According to Wikipedia, the Order of the Illuminati was founded on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. Thus, there is a conspiracy that is technically older than the United States. The question is not whether there could be Illuminati, the question is whether there still is Illuminati.

I don't think the 18th century Illuminati are even properly termed a conspiracy. That's separate from the fact that there's no evidence saying they lasted more than a decade and nothing linking them to the 1990s-ish definition of New World Order. So no, "are there still Illuminati?" is not the only question.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

And I've definitely seen people deny that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

I've also seen people deny that Bin Laden was killed or that he even exists or existed.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Yes, that's the general question.

The specific question is: How many people had to know about the plot? 19? 20? 200? 5000? As Mr. X said in JFK, "No one's guilty, because anyone in the power structure who knows anything has a plausible deniability. There are no compromising connections except at the most secret point. But what's paramount, is that it must succeed. No matter how many die or how much it costs, the perpetrators must be on the winning side and never subject to prosecution for anything by anyone."

The ultimate question is: Who is at the most secret point?

Originally Posted by Marley23

So no, "are there still Illuminati?" is not the only question.

What other questions are there?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I've also seen people deny that Bin Laden was killed or that he even exists or existed.

Yup.

The ultimate question is: Who is at the most secret point?

The question is whether or not the conspiracies exist. The evidence says no; people's ignorance, gullibility, and susceptibility sometimes say 'yes.' There's no secret point if there's no conspiracy. The question you're asking is how the conspiracy works if it exists. That can have some bearing on the plausibility of the CT, but doesn't address whether or not it's real.

What other questions are there?

Does "Is the Illuminati" a conspiracy count? That'd be an important one, and I think the answer is no. From what I've seen it was a secret society that was mainly created to discuss ideas that were not popular or not legal to discuss in public. Whether it existed in secret after 1785 is another one and I think the answer to that is also no, although I think it was revived briefly a few decades later. Of more consequence, given that the New World Order is maybe the most nebulously defined conspiracy I've ever heard of, is what the NWO is supposed to have done and how. The basic questions of what the hell it is in the first place and what it is, what it wants, and how it's supposed to achieve it are only vaguely answered as far as I can see.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

What other questions are there?

Well, we could start with why anyone (beyond students of European history) should care what happened to a group that only survived nine years and never accomplished anything in the few years they were actually around.

[Darth Panda]

I treat CTs the same way I treat random strangers who tell me they once hooked up with Jessica Alba and Natalie Portman at the same time.


Pics or it didn't happen.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Before 9/11, there was Watergate. And before Watergate? New World Order.

Actually, Watergate was an actual conspiracy, not the sort of Conspiracy Theory being discussed in this thread.
Before 9/11, there were any number of CTs, not limited to, (in reverse order), The Moon Landing Hoax, Aliens at Area 51, the JFK Assassination, FDR promoting and having full knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and any number of other bits of nonsense.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Actually, Watergate was an actual conspiracy, not the sort of Conspiracy Theory being discussed in this thread.

Yes, Watergate was an actual conspiracy. 9/11 was an actual event (or events) that happened on September 11, 2001. The New World Order is based on the Illuminati, an historical secret society.


Watergate is a good starting point because it was an actual conspiracy.

9/11 is where it diverges. Because, for (most) conspiracy theorists the question is: How did the events of September 11, 2001 happen?

The New World Order would be nonsense but for the fact that it is based on the Illuminati, an actual historical society that was founded on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt .

[Marley23]

You can make up nonsense based on history. People do it all the time. A conspiracy theory that posits FDR allowed the Pearl Harbor attacks is exactly the same type of "how did it happen?" conspiracy question that a lot of people ask about Bush and September 11th. There was no divergence in the '90s.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

You can make up nonsense based on history. People do it all the time. A conspiracy theory that posits FDR allowed the Pearl Harbor attacks is exactly the same type of "how did it happen?" conspiracy question that a lot of people ask about Bush and September 11th. There was no divergence in the '90s.

But then you have (some) people who reject CTs like the NWO because they claim (incorrectly) that the Illuminati is fictional.

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

But then you have (some) people who reject CTs like the NWO because they claim (incorrectly) that the Illuminati is fictional.

Well, it's not an either/or question, is it? There is a middle ground between "completely made up" and "in charge of everything".

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

The New World Order would be nonsense but for the fact that it is based on the Illuminati, an actual historical society that was founded on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt .

Nope, it's still nonsense. It's like saying the movie "National Treasure" would be nonsense but for the fact that it is based on the Knights Templar, an actual historical society endorsed in 1129 by the Catholic Church.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

But then you have (some) people who reject CTs like the NWO because they claim (incorrectly) that the Illuminati is fictional.

Since it hasn't existed for some 200 years, the gist of the claim is true. The New World Order is nonsense. I've lost track- what is the point of this quibble?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

the gist of the claim is true.

How? The Illuminati is historical. It's not fictional. It's not like the Roswell UFO incident.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

How? The Illuminati is historical. It's not fictional.

The Illuminati existed, but there's no evidence that it's anything like what you are claiming. There's no evidence it lasted more than a decade. There's no evidence that anything in recent years is connected to that tiny, ineffective group. Without that you've got the exact same support as folks that believe in Roswell.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

How? The Illuminati is historical.

Yes. It existed for a decade, was crippled by infighting, was crushed after 9 years and hasn't been active in 200 years. The fact that it did exist for a little while doesn't lend any credibility to the actual NWO claims, which are unsupported and preposterous even if there was at one point a group in Germany whose name is posthumously applied to some of the alleged conspirators. Abe Lincoln was real, but if anybody tells you he really hunted vampires, they're insane. Same with the historical Illuminati and the fictional NWO.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

How? The Illuminati is historical. It's not fictional.

So what? The Knights Templar were real and Masons are real, but stories that the Masons were founded by Templars hiding from royal persecution are just made up nonsense. The Illuminati were (past tense) real--for nine years--and the story written about them twelve years after they were suppressed was made up nonsense.

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

I would also like to add that a plane of this variety could easily be fitted with an air-to-air missile system that could launch a sidewinder or similar weapon to take out a passenger liner.

No. That claim is not possible.

It takes hundreds of air hours, and dozens of drop-tests, costing several hundreds of thousands of dollars per test, to get a missile qualified to safely drop from an aircraft designed to drop it.. Google "I shot myself down", and only look at actual aviation sites. You'll see many accounts of test pilots who shot themselves down, testing air-dropping of air-to-air ordinance. Even today, it takes actual, expensive testing, before a missile or other air ordinance can be used safely. If you seriously think someone can just strap on a Sidewinder to a Cessna, and it will work, you are seriously mistaken.

Show me the dead Cessna pilots. And the shot-down planes. Then I might believe what you say actually happened. If you can't show it, then it likely didn't happen.

If the testing didn't happen, what you claim could not possibly have happened. That's the way reality works.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Once an idea has already been shown to be loony, it then becomes a CT--and those we reject out of hand.

By that criterion, the Roswell UFO incident would be a CT while the New World Order would not.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

The Illuminati were (past tense) real--for nine years--and the story written about them twelve years after they were suppressed was made up nonsense.

It's not loony to believe that the Illuminati were real; however, it is loony to believe that the Illuminati are real.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

It's not loony to believe that the Illuminati were real; however, it is loony to believe that the Illuminati are real.

Yep. It is not loony to acknowledge that there really was an order of the Knights Templar, but it is loony to believe that they continue on, today, disguised as Masons.

The fact that a group existed ar one time is no reason to believe that they continue to exist after we know that they have been disbanded.

Of course, if one is predisposed to believe in CTs. . . .

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

By that criterion, the Roswell UFO incident would be a CT while the New World Order would not.

The fact that the Illuminati existed 200 years ago is not enough to elevate the NWO stuff into a plausible theory. LBJ and the CIA and the mob were real and they existed in the '60s, but the theory they killed John F. Kennedy is most definitely a CT. You need a lot more evidence to move the NWO stuff into the realm of the plausible. There's no factual connection between the group that went out of commission in the 1780s and the global NWO conspiracy theory. There isn't even evidence the Illuminati existed in 1790.

It's not loony to believe that the Illuminati were real; however, it is loony to believe that the Illuminati are real.

Exactly. Saying the theory is plausible because a historical group once had that name is like saying Dracula is real because Vlad the Impaler existed.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Of course, if one is predisposed to believe in CTs. . . .

From Wikipedia, List of conspiracy theories:

New World Order - possible
Federal Reserve System - possible
False flag operations - 9/11 -- rejected
Wars - FDR having full knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack -- rejected
Coup d'etat - Operation Ajax -- real
Assassinations - JFK -- rejected
Clinton body count - rejected by Snopes
Barack Obama birth conspiracy theories - rejected by SDMB
Anti-semetic conspiracy theories - The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -- rejected as a forgery
Armenian International Conspiracy - rejected
"Babylon" - Haile Selassie did not die -- rejected
Eurabia - rejected
Arab fascist axis - Martin Bormann did not die - rejected
Baha'i - rejected
Apocalyptic prophecies - rejected
Bible conspiracy theory - Jesus had a wife -- possible
Catholicism as a veiled continuation of Babylonian paganism - rejected
Suppression of technologies - possible
Development of weapons technologies - Manhattan Project -- real
Weapons testing - possible
Surveillance, espionage and intelligence agencies - real
DTV transition - possible
Medicine - AIDS was "invented" -- rejected
Drug legalization - hemp competing with pulp paper -- rejected
Diet - rejected
Creation of diseases - AIDS is a man-made disease -- rejected
Water fluoridation - rejected
Traditional, natural and alternative medicines -- possible
Peak oil - possible
Real groups said to be involved in conspiracies - possible
Alleged groups associated with conspiracy theories - rejected
The Plan - rejected
Extraterrestrials - Roswell UFO incident -- rejected
Evil aliens - reptilians -- rejected
Miscellaneous - rejected
Moon landing conspiracy theories - rejected

Given that the Manhattan Project was real and that Operation Ajax really did happen and that surveillance, espionage and intelligence agencies are real, could you explain to me why it is naive to believe that there is suppression of technologies and weapons testing and, specifically, DTV transition. Why is it naive to believe in conspiracies involving traditional, natural and alternative medicines and peak oil? Of all the beliefs some people have about Jesus, why do you find it hard to believe that Jesus had a wife and had children.

Originally Posted by Marley23

Exactly. Saying the theory is plausible because a historical group once had that name is like saying Dracula is real because Vlad the Impaler existed.

By that criterion, Majestic 12 would be implausible while the Illuminati would be plausible. Given that, conspiracies involving the Federal Reserve System and the New World Order are possible.

[FinnAgain]

Well, shit.
You had a Wikipedia cite all along?
Why didn't you just say so?

[Telemark]

Yup, that Wiki entry convinced me all right. It's possible according to random strangers on the internet.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

By that criterion, Majestic 12 would be implausible while the Illuminati would be plausible. Given that, conspiracies involving the Federal Reserve System and the New World Order are possible.

I don't know where you are getting this from what I am posting. You suggested NWO conspiracies are "possible" because there was once a group called the Illuminati. I pointed out that that's absurd because there's no evidence connecting to the two groups. There was a Vlad Dracula, but that's not evidence there was a vampire named Dracula. Abe Lincoln existed, but that's not evidence he hunted vampires. The fact that the Illuminati existed in the 18th century is not evidence for the NWO. Their name is used in the NWO CT because they were a real historical group. It's a detail from reality incorporated into a fictitious theory. If you're going to say the NWO CT is plausible, you need evidence connecting the real Illuminati historical group to that conspiracy (not just say-so like "the Illuminati are part of the NWO"). Get it yet?

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Given that the Manhattan Project was real and that Operation Ajax really did happen and that surveillance, espionage and intelligence agencies are real, could you explain to me why it is naive to believe that there is suppression of technologies and weapons testing and, specifically, DTV transition.

Which of your examples represents conspiracies uncovered by dogged amateurs writing pamphlets and babbling frenetically to each other on the Internet?

Why is it naive to believe in conspiracies involving traditional, natural and alternative medicines...?

"Naive" is not the word I'd use to describe conspiracy theories involving traditional/natural/alternative medicine. "Nonsensical", "moronic", and "viciously stupid" fit the bill far better.

These conspiracy theories all basically revolve around the idea that there are fantastically effective, 100% safe and cheap remedies for all diseases, but the Evil Medical Establishment/Big Pharma/Government/NWO is suppressing them in order to make money. Apparently nobody in those categories ever gets seriously ill or has friends and loved ones in need of these magical therapies, so to believe the conspiracy theories you must think that all these people are suicidal sociopaths. When you point this out to the conspiracy theorists, you're typically met with sullen silence, after which they go right on babbling their bullshit.

Nope, "naive" is not the word I'd use to describe them.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Barack Obama birth conspiracy theories - rejected by SDMB

Ah, no; even big time right wingers like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter think that the ones following that theory are cranks.

It has been rejected even by right wingers that are just a little bit over the average IQ.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

Which of your examples represents conspiracies uncovered by dogged amateurs writing pamphlets and babbling frenetically to each other on the Internet?"Naive" is not the word I'd use to describe conspiracy theories involving traditional/natural/alternative medicine. "Nonsensical", "moronic", and "viciously stupid" fit the bill far better.

These conspiracy theories all basically revolve around the idea that there are fantastically effective, 100% safe and cheap remedies for all diseases, but the Evil Medical Establishment/Big Pharma/Government/NWO is suppressing them in order to make money. Apparently nobody in those categories ever gets seriously ill or has friends and loved ones in need of these magical therapies, so to believe the conspiracy theories you must think that all these people are suicidal sociopaths. When you point this out to the conspiracy theorists, you're typically met with sullen silence, after which they go right on babbling their bullshit.

Nope, "naive" is not the word I'd use to describe them.

I used that argument on a fitness/nutrition board and the person came right back with "they're keeping the cures within their inner circle."

[Robot Arm]

Originally Posted by runner pat

I used that argument on a fitness/nutrition board and the person came right back with "they're keeping the cures within their inner circle."

It's not as far fetched as you think. When people "in the know" (heads of pharmaceutical companies, 27th-level Masons, air traffic controllers, and the like) get sick, it's entirely possible that they are availing themselves of holistic cures in complete and total secrecy.

I mean, the stuff comes right out of the tap. No one would suspect a thing.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

The fact that the Illuminati existed in the 18th century is not evidence for the NWO.

It's not a stretch to go from the Illuminati existed in the 18th century to the Illuminati existed in the 19th and 20th century. The Illuminati supposedly explains the history and events of the 19th and 20th century.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

It's not a stretch to go from the Illuminati existed in the 18th century to the Illuminati existed in the 19th and 20th century.

It is when there's no evidence it's true.

The Illuminati supposedly explains the history and events of the 19th and 20th century.

Not without evidence it doesn't.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by XT

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and most CTs don't even have marginal proofs, but instead rely on wild speculation and conjecture, in most cases using ignorance or lies, out right or through omission and everything in between. THAT is what gets ridiculed or dismissed around here. If you have some examples of CTs you (the OP) feel are valid pr worth a second look then by all means let's see them. To be sure, conspiracies do happen in real life. Look at the Foed Pinto for example...or Iran-Contra. The difference is both these conspiracies actually happened, and there is real hard evidence concerning them...which is why they aren't CTs, but instead examples of real conspiracies.

-XT

To be fair, though, some conspiracies would never get found without people who suspected that they existed, and looked for evidence of their existence.

That's true of science, too. All the earliest researchers in the hard sciences were clueless fools who, in some cases, killed (or nearly killed) themselves through sheer ignorance of the dangerous nature of their work. Early chemists didn't even wear eye protection, for heaven's sake. ROFL

Think about it, though...we wouldn't have modern science without people with the brains and desire to do the dangerous early experiments.

So don't hate people who believe crazy things. Hate the ones who won't change their minds when given good evidence, if you have to hate someone.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by runner pat

I used that argument on a fitness/nutrition board and the person came right back with "they're keeping the cures within their inner circle."

I doubt it. Most of the really wealthy people I know, or know of, are paranoid and quite ignorant of things outside their areas of expertise.

There's little reason to believe that the wealthy people who own lots of Big Pharma stock are anything more than just smart/lucky investors and businesspeople. I'd say that's largely true of the CEO and executives of those companies, as well.

I MIGHT be willing to believe that a few of the actual scientists who do the actual research are keeping some awesome natural cures to themselves. Those guys see the results of research firsthand. Such experience is harder to forget or ignore. Remember, if it can't be patented, there's no incentive to develop/sell it.

In addition, there's a great risk if the truth came out. Can you imagine the shitstorm if some Big Pharma executive was caught taking his kid down to Mexico for some alternative cancer clinic? Who's going to risk that? Even messier would be if he got caught making the medicine himself, and then giving to the kid.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Marley23

You suggested NWO conspiracies are "possible" because there was once a group called the Illuminati. I pointed out that that's absurd because there's no evidence connecting to the two groups. There was a Vlad Dracula, but that's not evidence there was a vampire named Dracula. Abe Lincoln existed, but that's not evidence he hunted vampires.

You keep giving the examples of Vlad the Impaler and Abraham Lincoln. Look at the list of conspiracies that I posted. One of the conspiracies is the Bible conspiracy theory which I wrote down as "possible" because it it possible that Jesus had a wife and, futhermore, it is possible that Jesus had children. Some people believe Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. Some people believe Jesus had a wife and had children. I am not going to go into whether it is possble that Jesus rose from the dead in the same sense that it is possible that Jesus had children. However, I made my point.

It is possible that there is development of weapons techonology like in the Manhattan Project. Likewise, it is possible that there is weapons testing. It is possible that there is supression of technologies just as it is possible that there are conspiracies involving traditional, natural, and alternative medicines. Similarily, it is possible that there is a conspiracy involving peak oil.

Now, let's look at some conspiracies that are real. Operation AJAX, also know as the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, had some interesting participants according to the Wikipedia article: CIA and MI-6.

From the Wikipedia article:

On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence. According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city. 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict.

After the coup, Pahlavi ruled as an authoritarian monarch for the next 26 years, until he was overthrown in a popular revolt in 1979.

So Operation AJAX had a limited scope (1953 - 1979) and had two very interesting participants (CIA and MI-6).

That's what the CIA and MI-6 did. Can you imagine what the Illuminati could do?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

. Can you imagine what the Illuminati could do?

Are we talking about the actual Illuminati, the one which no longer exists?
Or the magical, imaginary, super-powered criminal organization whose existence is only suggested because it has the same name as a secret society which ended two centuries ago and whose only definiable trait is that they fit in well with your CT's?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

Are we talking about the actual Illuminati, the one which no longer exists?
Or the magical, imaginary, super-powered criminal organization whose existence is only suggested because it has the same name as a secret society which ended two centuries ago and whose only definiable trait is that they fit in well with your CT's?

RationalWiki claims that the Illuminati was founded in 1776 and ceased to exist in 1789. Assuming this claim is true, the Illuminati must have been very busy during those years.

What did they do? Seriously, from 1776 to 1789, what did they do?

[FinnAgain]

And how about the Romans, eh? Everybody thinks that their empire fell centuries ago, but how do we really know? All of reality becomes a lot clearer if we assume that the Romans still exist, that the Illuminati still exists, and that the Romans are controlling the Illuminati. I'll take my Nobel Prize now, please. Fnord.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

What did they do? Seriously, from 1776 to 1789, what did they do?

Basically, they joined a few Masonic lodges, wrote a few tracts championing a "rational" society, quarrelled among themselves as to who was top dog, and broke up when they got themselves outlawed for promoting changes to German society against the will of the Bavarian Prince.
None of their tracts every brought about any changes, other than to attract the attention of a paranoid ruler who ordered them disbanded.

If John Robison and, to an extent, Augustin Barruel, had not written a couple of woo-woo Conspiracy Theory books, they would have been nothing but footnotes to the end of the Enlightenment.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

None of their tracts every brought about any changes, other than to attract the attention of a paranoid ruler who ordered them disbanded.

Looks like their doctrines spread to the United States.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by runner pat

I used that argument on a fitness/nutrition board and the person came right back with "they're keeping the cures within their inner circle."

Wonder why our elite conspiracy-unravelers have yet to discover any of these cures or where they are supposedly occurring. Or explain how the rich and famous are getting cancer just like the rest of us, and either surviving or dying much like the remainder of the population.

[Marley23]

Kozmik, will you please explain what makes a conspiracy theory "possible" other than your opinion that it's possible? I don't see any logical or rational basis for your categories. It sounds like you're using a tautology to make the whole NWO/Illuminati thing "possible:" the theory is possible because the Illuminati existed, but the only reason they're included in the theory is that they were real in the first place. It doesn't make the idea that they survived the 1780s, went global, and got into this NWO thing plausible.

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Assuming this claim is true, the Illuminati must have been very busy during those years.

How do you figure? The fact that they lasted nine yeares isn't evidence they were "busy," it's evidence they were not a strong organization. A short lifespan doesn't prove you got a lot done. It's an indication of the opposite.

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Can you imagine what the Illuminati could do?

If they hadn't gone out of business 200 years ago, you mean?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

From Wikipedia, List of conspiracy theories:

New World Order - possible

But why does anybody have anything against it?! Serious question. Anything that might eventually produce a real world government falls under the heading of "best-case scenario."