Conspiracy theorists

[Freiheit 7]

We're speaking of conspiracy theories, not conspiracies.

[Kat 59]

I'll repeat:

Sure, some theories are wacky, but so are people. Doesn't mean there aren't quite a few very real conspiracies going on and that every theory about them is mad.

[Pat Bateman 3]

 

We're speaking of conspiracy theories, not conspiracies.

A theory is defined as a refined hypothesis. A conspiracy theory therefore fould be the idea that there is a conspiracy behind certain events. In regards to 911 no one argues that the event hasn't taken place, and various folks seem to think that there is a conspiracy behind the actual event that is bigger then the plan itself.

In other words, there has been a conspiracy to achieve 911, and everyone believes that the conspiracy is bigger then the original suicidal conspirators. (Although no evidence really suggests that that has to be the case).

 

So, anyone attributing a certain event or number of events to a conspiracy is a conpiracy theorist. That includes people that believe that some evil cabale calling themselves 'Al Queda' masterminded a conspiracy to fly planes into the WTC.

 

Edit: yes i do consider the 'Al Quaeda'-conspiracy pretty whacky. for those that still remember what 1984 really was about: Osama bin Goldstein. 5-minute-hate. Works wonders to keep the people in line. No, they will never catch him.

[gideon 137]

Just to clarify, for me personaly "the conspiracies" are the big ones. Usualy involving more people than you could fit into a stadium and oddly enough involving american politics or the dreaded industrail-military-mafia triangle of control. The legal definition is more than one person, yes but Kat I'm sure we're all very clear here what the subject matter is.

[Kay 4,137]

 

Kay, watergate came out after credible evidence was delivered from a credible and reliable source (washington post if Iremember correctly).

It wasn't me, Gideon, you should check your sources.

 

 

Enough have proven to be true. Watergate, for example.

[Freiheit 7]

Again, Watergate was nothing even remotely similar to the conspiracy theories of the day. See my attempt to differentiate the two above.

[Batson Creek 20]

I'll give you a conspiracy theory. I go to lunch, have a pint, come back, and find entire threads have disappeared...explain that.

[Pat Bateman 3]

 

Just to clarify, for me personaly "the conspiracies" are the big ones. Usualy involving more people than you could fit into a stadium and oddly enough involving american politics or the dreaded industrail-military-mafia triangle of control. The legal definition is more than one person, yes but Kat I'm sure we're all very clear here what the subject matter is.

By that criteria the official theory is more of a conspiracy theory then a number of those that you label "conspiracy theory". Al Queda is supposedly a pretty multinational operation...

 

How do you like this one: everyone went precisely according to the official description, but additionally there have been some informal phone calls between Osama and Dick Cheney to figure out the best date and methods of payment...? Would that require so much more conspirators then what you think is feasable? Wouldnt it make more or atleast as much sense?

[Kat 59]

Sometimes I wonder if the real conspiracy isn't to put out so many truely unlikely conspriacy theories that everyone will just groan when another conspriacy is theorized.

But the investigation of a conspriacy must start with a theory or hypothesis about who did what and why, as in any crime, and I contend that we should look at all objectively and critically.

[Pat Bateman 3]

I think you hit the nail on the head, with both issues.

[eurovol 126]

 

Sometimes I wonder if the real conspiracy isn't to put out so many truely unlikely conspriacy theories that everyone will just groan when another conspriacy is theorized.

You have been paying attention to the Republican's modus operandi haven't you?

[Dafydd 30]

I understand that Captain Pugwash was taken off the air because it featured characters with rude names.

[Pleb 45]

Is it slightly possible that in a highly controlled media the populace is being fed (in a manner similar to learning by repetition) the 'facts' that are deemed 'necessary'?

 

When Herr Rockafella thanked the press for not shining it's bright spotlight upon his and his friends plans for the last 40 years, what was he referring to?

 

Is it possible that the brainwashing is perhaps occuring on the popular media side of the fence?

 

What was 'The Project for the New American Century' in it's document 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' referring to when it stated that the internet must be controlled?

 

These are not statements Freiheit, but questions and honest ones at that.

 

When you label me as mentally unstable because I dare to ask some logical questions about poorly explained and extraordinary events, perhaps, just perhaps you should examine your own situation?

[eurovol 126]

You do know why pot is actually illegal in the US in the first place don't you?

 

Hint: it had to do with the media.

[Freiheit 7]

'Highly controlled media'? Today's media is without a doubt the least controlled it has ever been at any point in human history.

 

Give me a break.

[eurovol 126]

Freiheit, you are just soo naive. There is less independent media today than ever before. The Republican Congress made sure of that.

[Pat Bateman 3]

 

There is less independent media today than ever before. The Republican Congress made sure of that.

That proves it, you are just a whacko conspiracy nutcase ... the congress, an elected body of representatives in a democratic country conspiring to eliminate independent media - thats completely preposterous! :rolleyes:

[eurovol 126]

They are the ones that past the laws allowing single ownership of more markets and more outlets within the same market. Of course, the argument used the internet as the reason this should be allowed. Thing is, the majority of people don't trust the internet as much as they do print and broadcast media sources.

 

Now back to the pot question. I will give you another hint: William Randolph Hearst.

[Freiheit 7]

For someone living outside the U.S., you are a most America-centric person. The world is a big place. There are more than two political parties. There is more to life than politics. The U.S. Congress is (regardless of who's in the majority) mostly incompetent.

 

That being said, I would love to see some evidence that Republicans were able to control the media. And if they were, are Democrats untieing these invisible ropes? Also, please name a point in time where the media as a whole (including all its forms TV, radio, newspapers and lately the internet) had more freedom than now. It certainly wasn't before the break-up of the Soviet Union, when a huge chunk of the world had state-controlled media. Take a look at a bigger picture than podunkville, USA.

 

Republicans did allow marginally more media consolidation, but that is a far step from controlling it. That same trend is occuring in every industry and it goes against a free market system to prohibit consolidation that falls short of monopolies.

[eurovol 126]

Dude, don't be so ignorant of the world around you. There is this nice little Aussie guy that is buying up media outlets all over the world and he has an agenda. Also, you don't really believe that media outlets in Russia aren't "controlled" do you?

 

There is also this Italian guy who owns the media in his country and became the head of that country.

 

As for Republicans controlling the media? I wonder who Bush put on the board of the body that controls NPR and VOA? I wonder why VOA has had its budget slashed to nothing and NPR is under heavy pressure to be less independent and why the Republican Congress tried to pass laws to slash its independence.

 

I also tend to remember a certain bought and paid for reporter sent out by the White House to promote its agenda.

 

Want me to go on or have you been schooled enough?