Where Are the "Skeptics" in This "International Skeptics Forum"?

zooterkin said:
Don't go revealing secrets like that! Everyone is supposed to think JFK was shot in '63!
Click to expand...
OK, so I was off a year but still it's ancient history. Near all the players are dead and whomever still lives is 85 years old or better.

What's a life sentence in prison to them? Two years?
 
Just have to throw in this:

After reading all the JFK Assassination documents posted on the National Archives website it's clear that the HSCA was never really interested in the JFK and MLK Jr. assassinations as anything more than an excuse for certain Congressmen to gain access to the CIA and FBI's files on anti-Cuban operations, and Mafia investigations. As already stated, this was post-Watergate/post-Vietnam, and conducted under an air of mistrust of these two institutions. Some of that mistrust was well earned. Some of it was not. 70% of the JFK Assassination records have NOTHING to do with the assassination. They go back to 1946, and detail the CIA's efforts to counter Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere, and later JMWAVE, MONGOOSE, and other anti-Castro operations. HSCA staffers also got a detailed look into the FBI's intelligence on the Mafia stretching from Los Angeles, CA. into Toronto, Canada.

The HSCA originally found no evidence of a possible second gunman, or conspiracy. The Dictaphone evidence was dropped in late, and there was no time explore the crappy source materials used.

To sum up: The HSCA was a fishing expedition with a foregone conclusion against the backdrop of post-Nixon America.
 
Before we all trash on the HCSA, I would point out that they did a quite a number trashing most of the MLKjr conspiracies. That didn't get much press but they had a chance to interview the actual assassin (who was helping spread many of the conspiracies) and he got taken to the cleaners.
 
8enotto said:
OK, so I was off a year but still it's ancient history. Near all the players are dead and whomever still lives is 85 years old or better.

What's a life sentence in prison to them? Two years?
Click to expand...
It may be ancient history to you, but for some of us it was during our lifetime! (Even though I was too young to take notice, I do remember other things from that year.)
 
My older brother was born late that year. I wasn't too far behind him.

Current events and past events can age badly and both become a footnote in history. Ancient history. Doesn't really affect the present much.

I have files on a USB drive years older than my son. He calls those ancient history. (they are) I haven't looked at them since before he was born. .I do remember what they are about.
 
Just before flouncing, Calderaro posted this AI generated description of pseudoscepticism, a word he'd been bandying about willy nilly. It's pretty good, and demonstrates that it is actually pseudosceptics the OP is missing on this forum.

Pseudoskepticism, also known as selective skepticism or false skepticism, occurs when someone adopts an excessive and unfounded attitude of distrust toward certain ideas, theories, or evidence, while ignoring rigorous standards of critique for other beliefs that are more convenient or align with their worldview. This approach can be harmful for several reasons, as it distorts the rational pursuit of truth and undermines critical thinking. Below are some of the key disadvantages of pseudoskepticism:

  • Pseudoskepticism can lead to the rejection of new ideas or scientific discoveries simply because they challenge the status quo or seem counterintuitive. This can delay important advances in fields like medicine, technology, and social sciences.
  • Historical Example : The initial resistance to Einstein's theory of relativity by scientists who were stuck in classical notions of physics.
  • Pseudoskeptics tend to accept information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and reject information that contradicts them, regardless of the quality of the evidence. This behavior reinforces cognitive biases and prevents intellectual growth.
  • Example : A person who strongly believes in pseudosciences (like astrology) may systematically reject scientific evidence about astronomy and psychology.
  • Pseudoskepticism can create an environment where pseudoscience thrives, as pseudoskeptics may use superficially "rational" arguments to justify unfounded beliefs or conspiracy theories.
  • Example : Some anti-vaccination groups use pseudoskepticism to question scientific studies on vaccines, promoting false narratives and endangering public health.
  • When pseudoskepticism becomes widespread, it can undermine public trust in scientific institutions and academia. This creates fertile ground for conspiracy theories and anti-science movements.
  • Example : During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people rejected evidence-based guidelines, claiming that experts were either wrong or manipulated.
  • Pseudoskepticism can lead to inaction or excessive hesitation, even in the face of robust evidence. This is especially problematic in urgent matters like climate change or public health crises.
  • Example : Denying the severity of climate change based on pseudoscientific arguments can prevent effective policies to mitigate its impacts.
  • Pseudoskepticism contributes to political and social polarization, as individuals who adopt this stance tend to align with groups that share their beliefs, rejecting constructive dialogue with opposing viewpoints.
  • Example : Discussions about topics like global warming or evolution often become ideological battles rather than evidence-based debates.
  • On an individual level, pseudoskepticism can prevent people from exploring new ideas, medical treatments, or practices that could benefit them.
  • Example : Rejecting proven psychological therapies (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy) due to unfounded distrust can worsen mental health issues.
  • People who practice pseudoskepticism are more vulnerable to manipulation by malicious actors, such as companies promoting fraudulent products or politicians spreading misinformation.
  • Example : Movements funded by polluting industries that deny climate change exploit pseudoskepticism to protect their profits.
  • By adopting a pseudoskeptical stance, individuals may avoid taking ethical or moral responsibility, justifying inaction or harmful behaviors based on unfounded doubts.
  • Example : Companies that deny the environmental impact of their operations may use pseudoskepticism as an excuse to avoid adopting sustainable practices.
Pseudoskepticism is harmful because it replaces the rigor of critical thinking with selective and irrational distrust. It not only hinders the advancement of knowledge but also fuels social divisions, misinformation, and poor decision-making. To combat these disadvantages, it is essential to promote education based on critical thinking, evidence analysis, and a willingness to revise beliefs in light of new information.
Click to expand...
 
Axxman300 said:
Just have to throw in this:

After reading all the JFK Assassination documents posted on the National Archives website it's clear that the HSCA was never really interested in the JFK and MLK Jr. assassinations as anything more than an excuse for certain Congressmen to gain access to the CIA and FBI's files on anti-Cuban operations, and Mafia investigations. As already stated, this was post-Watergate/post-Vietnam, and conducted under an air of mistrust of these two institutions. Some of that mistrust was well earned. Some of it was not. 70% of the JFK Assassination records have NOTHING to do with the assassination. They go back to 1946, and detail the CIA's efforts to counter Soviet influence in the Western Hemisphere, and later JMWAVE, MONGOOSE, and other anti-Castro operations. HSCA staffers also got a detailed look into the FBI's intelligence on the Mafia stretching from Los Angeles, CA. into Toronto, Canada.

The HSCA originally found no evidence of a possible second gunman, or conspiracy. The Dictaphone evidence was dropped in late, and there was no time explore the crappy source materials used.

To sum up: The HSCA was a fishing expedition with a foregone conclusion against the backdrop of post-Nixon America.
Click to expand...
Yup, it was an extension of the Church and Pike Committees and the Rockefeller Commission.

But the real scandal is that the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. have been convenient tools for Presidents of both parties and their National Security Councils to increase their own power at the expense of the legislative branch (Congress). Just taking the CIA—it carries out covert action at the behest of the NSC, ie. the President and his foreign policy and military advisers. The CIA isn’t “rogue” at all, even if the notion of a “Deep State” may been convenient for presidential administrations (and certainly the current one).

Yes, there is more Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community than in the past (thanks to the fallout from the 1970s investigations), but there are still plenty of problems both because of the sheer amount of secrets that our government generates (a lot of it is surely over-classified) and because a lot of Congresspeople are frankly less interested in doing their jobs than in being partisan grandstanders or worse, complete and utter lapdogs for their party’s President and his authoritarian agenda (but enough about current events).
 
Last edited:
mikegriffith1 said:
From what I've seen, this forum has precious few "skeptics." The majority of the regular posters seem devoid of skepticism on a wide range of issues. They seem to accept just about every tale the government gives us, . . . , etc., etc. Where is the "skepticism"? Is there a major government claim that most people in this forum do not accept?
Click to expand...
For my part, I seldom take the government at its word. I have long subscribed to the belief that if you "follow the money/votes" you are more likely to find the truth about what the government is doing.

But if you think that skepticism means embracing every CT that contradicts the official line then I guess I am also devoid of skepticism.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Which TWA flight?
Click to expand...
The one that was shot down by a surface-to-air missile such as an ICBM. Or by a Phoenix missile which requires an F-14 Tomcat, except when you launch it from a small boat, or by a Standard missile launched by a Navy ship, but it was never missed because Scotty forgot to inventory the photon torpedoes. All of these missiles are suitable for anti-air missions because they used shaped-charge warheads. (See the last couple pages of the “TWA 800 movie” thread.)

I mean, it’s just science, but the silly skeptics won’t listen.


I should probably apologize for my first post on here in a long time being so snarky. Sorry! (waves)
 
When I was a kid, I loved the Wild Wild West. It was my favorite show, and at the time, I wanted to become a Secret Service agent and bust drug dealers.

That is until I got drunk one night and smoked a joint. I loved it, and that's when I realized the government doesn't always tell the truth, and Nixon was the biggest liar of them all.

Today, the fat clown and the maga weirdoes make Nixon look like a saint in comparison, but that's just my opinion.

Your mileage may vary of course.


-
 
I don't know why but I thought this thread might have something useful to say.

I'm also sure it's been covered elsewhere but the House Committee on assassination concluded that JFK was probably killed via a conspiracy and then ruled out every organization that would have been involved. So, what they seem to have concluded was that JK was killed by a conspiracy of two people, one of whom missed his target and the other of whom was Lee Oswald. They also agreed with the single bullet theory but thought the warren commission was wrong about the timing and what Turingtest said.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
From what I've seen, this forum has precious few "skeptics." The majority of the regular posters seem devoid of skepticism on a wide range of issues. They seem to accept just about every tale the government gives us, from the Warren Commission's discredited lone-gunman theory of JFK's murder to the NTSB's cockamamie tale that TWA Flight 700 blew up because of a fuel-tank spark to the now-debunked CDC/Fauci claims about the need for masking
Click to expand...
You would certainly never get surgery from a surgeon in a mask I am sure. Far to few surgeons fight masking up like they should.

And why did you leave you the whole ball earth thing everyone here seems to believe with out a shred of evidence?
 
ahhell said:
I don't know why but I thought this thread might have something useful to say.

I'm also sure it's been covered elsewhere but the House Committee on assassination concluded that JFK was probably killed via a conspiracy and then ruled out every organization that would have been involved. So, what they seem to have concluded was that JK was killed by a conspiracy of two people, one of whom missed his target and the other of whom was Lee Oswald. They also agreed with the single bullet theory but thought the warren commission was wrong about the timing and what Turingtest said.
Click to expand...

Is this sarcasm?
If not, then do have a look at the JFK thread, where these spurious claims have been comprehensively debunked.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Is this sarcasm?
If not, then do have a look at the JFK thread, where these spurious claims have been comprehensively debunked.
Click to expand...
Its not sarcastic, well the first sentence was but the rest wasn't. I have to decide if I care enough to read through that. I'm already convinced there was a single gunmen named Lee. I was just amused that mike referenced skepticism of the House Committee when it mostly agreed with the warren commission as far as I can tell. The only thing the seem to disagree on was a possible other gun men that missed. They even agreed on the supposedly "discredited" single bullet. I'm mostly amused by the reference to something that in no way supports the OPs points.
 
ponderingturtle said:
You would certainly never get surgery from a surgeon in a mask I am sure. Far to few surgeons fight masking up like they should.

And why did you leave you the whole ball earth thing everyone here seems to believe with out a shred of evidence?
Click to expand...
Those claims are as nonsensical as the stuff he's spewing in the latest shroud thread.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
Fauci claims about the need for masking and draconian shutdowns in response to COVID
Click to expand...
I can recommend the thread Sweden's liberal pandemic strategy questioned as Stockholm death toll mounts.
The thread would have been better if I had switched my references from Worldometer to Our World in Data much sooner, but still ...

From a fairly recent post in that thread:
Take a look at these two graphs of five countries, 🇸🇪 🇩🇰 🇫🇮 🇧🇻 🇸🇬, from the first fifteen months of the pandemic, i.e. approximately pre-vax; by the summer of 2021 almost all of the most vulnerable groups had had the first two C19 shots):
Cumulative confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people (Our World in Data, Mar 18, 2020 to June 4, 2021)
Excess mortality: Cumulative deaths from all causes compared to projection based on previous years, per million people (Our World in Data, Mar 15, 2020 to May 30, 2021)

One of the countries had pretty draconian lockdowns and mandatory masking.
One of the countries bragged about having no lockdowns and no mandatory masking.
Three of the countries had short and not-at-all draconian lockdowns and mandatory masking in indoor public settings and on public transport in the worst winter months.

Guess which of the five countries did what!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom