Merged Psychology of Conspiracy Theoriests

[Cosmic Yak]

1. What’s in CIA’s secret JFK files? -- Troves of files on JFK assassination remain secret -- 50 years later, sealed JFK files still raise questions -- JFK Assassination Files On The CIA And Lee Harvey Oswald Still Classified After 50 Years -- Secrets: JFK files still classified -- Papers on Kennedy Assassination Are Unsealed, and '63 Is Revisited


You know, just in case you missed anything that has been reported on this.

2. Why do you think I argue with myself aloud in the bathroom? What are you trying to claim?

1. None of the links you have posted in your usual Gish Gallop show what information is being withheld, apart from speculation that it is about LHO's movements before the shooting. Nor do they show why it is being withheld. So you have confirmed my point.Well done.

I suppose what I do in the bathroom when no one is home (assuming there is no listening devices ) would be an example of that.

You were answering a point about disagreement. Listening devices would only be necessary if you were talking out loud. It seems clear to me that you were saying you disagree with yourself out loud in the bathroom. Your claim, not mine. Do you think this is normal behaviour?

 

[Jango]

1. None of the links you have posted in your usual Gish Gallop show what information is being withheld, apart from speculation that it is about LHO's movements before the shooting. Nor do they show why it is being withheld. So you have confirmed my point.Well done.

You were answering a point about disagreement. Listening devices would only be necessary if you were talking out loud. It seems clear to me that you were saying you disagree with yourself out loud in the bathroom. Your claim, not mine. Do you think this is normal behaviour?

1. Not small issues. And if you feel as though you're drowning, get the **** out of the pool then.

2. No ****. It is a Known Unknown. The National Archives, which has a .gov url website, plainly says that Not Everything Has Been Released, And Some Of It Is C.I.A. -- What else do you need? Perhaps an upgrade or different linguistic playbook methinks

3. It is your claim. I listed a spy device implying espionage. Did I have to discount all of the known spy devices?

 

[Redwood]

Conspiracy theorists don't like the prospect of being wrong, and they don't the prospect of having to prove they're right. Hence most conspiracy debates devolve quite quickly into some flavor of a rhetorical quagmire over who has to do more homework.

I think that deep, down inside most conspiracists realize that they are touting BS; hence the deep reluctance to do any real research. Being wrong is one thing; proving yourself to be wrong is another. See how the small amount of research that Birthers and Truthers have ever actually done has worked against them. Far better to endlessly recycle news footage in YouTube videos, write purely speculative stories as to "how it might have been done", and as you say, to engage in endless rhetoric.

But more to the point, conspiracy theorists don't like the prospect of being in the mainstream. Ironically that means they don't want to win the debate either, at least in the sense of having their hypothesis widely accepted and believed. That would make their theory the mainstream, and then they'd just be a few voices among millions. There's no thrill there, no payoff.

I think you're a bit off here. I think most conspiracists would love to be the mainstream, in the sense of being Galileos or Wegeners vindicated in their lifetimes. It's just that they know at some level that they are wrong, or have no idea as to how to prove themselves right. And there's the even worse prospect of proving yourself wrong!

When you understand this, you realize the purpose of debate among conspiracy theorists is not to test ideas or resolve ambiguity, but to prolong the debate. Conspiracy theorists don't fear being wrong. They fear being irrelevant.

I think that the fear of being irrelevant is what drives the constant in-fighting amongst conspiracists. They probably spend as much time attacking each other as the supposed Vast Conspiracy. Take Alex Jones (please! ), probably the best-known of the bunch. At least 1% of the public has at least heard of him, more than anyone else I can think of offhand. Google "Alex Jones exposed", and you'll find there's probably more attacks on him by conspiracists than by debunkers!

BTW, there's been a big falling out at Veteran's Today between publisher Gordon Duff and writers Stew Webb, and Jim Fetzer:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/201...howComment=1429931238021#c7987655462649852366

James Fetzer April 25, 2015 at 12:00 PM

Gordon took down my article about JADE HELM, which I have republished here, and after I talked about what had happened with Stew Webb, whom he had recently fired from VT radio, he booted me from VT--and the first thing I noticed was that this article (which is not about JADE HELM) had disappeared. [It's a Boston Bombing conspiracy article speculating on "how they faked it"; see above] I am asking him what happened to it, but this is one in series of events that are profoundly troubling me.

It must really frost Prof. Fetzer that few in Conspiracy Land have even noticed!

 

[JayUtah]

Being wrong is one thing; proving yourself to be wrong is another.

Or more accurately, proving yourself incapable of doing the proper research adroitly. Conspiracism is foremost a means to achieve the illusion of erudition. Hence it's always someone else's job to do the actual legwork of proving the conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists are "just asking questions" or "demanding a new investigation." These arise simply from the typical exercises of "anomaly hunting" or "common sense," or the "political" methods of simply questioning authority implicitly.

I think you're a bit off here. I think most conspiracists would love to be the mainstream, in the sense of being Galileos or Wegeners vindicated in their lifetimes.

Put that way, I agree. Let me clarify, and hopefully you'll see we're proposing the same thing. When I say conspiracists don't want to be in the mainstream, I mean they don't want to believe mainstream ideas and argue mainstream points of view. If they do that, they're unremarkable. They don't stand out. They don't have special knowledge or skill or insight.

Yes of course they would want to be Galileo, a minority believer persecuted conspicuously for his claims. But it the notoriety of the minority belief that they crave. They can stomach the persecution and criticism so long as they are noticed for it.

I think that the fear of being irrelevant is what drives the constant in-fighting amongst conspiracists.

Indeed. Just prior to his death, Moon hoax theorist Ralph Rene could speak of little else beyond how all the other hoax authors had stolen his material and were making more money off of it than he was.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Being wrong is one thing; proving yourself to be wrong is another.

Or more accurately, proving yourself incapable of doing the proper research adroitly. Conspiracism is foremost a means to achieve the illusion of erudition. Hence it's always someone else's job to do the actual legwork of proving the conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists are "just asking questions" or "demanding a new investigation."

I was thinking of something much simpler when I wrote that. The Obama Birthers who claimed he was really born in Kenya and that his birth certificate was forged were demanding to see the birth notices in the vital statistics commonly published in newspapers circa 1961. (I remember how they used to be in the Los Angeles Times.)

No specialized knowledge or erudition required to do that! An 8th grader could do it, and indeed one Birther did actually check the microfilm libraries of the local Hawaiian papers and, lo and behold, there was the birth notice. Of course, this merely proved that the microfilm was faked and the researcher was part of the conspiracy!

Later, another Birther checked Obama,Sr.'s college records and found that he was enrolled in the U. of Hawaii's summer session at the time when he and Mrs. Obama were supposedly in Kenya so their child could be born on native soil.

After that, suggesting to Birthers that they do actual research was like offering to Count Dracula a bowl of garlic soup, washed down with holy water, while wearing a crucifix. I became Birther persona non grata when I suggested checking the passenger manifests of international airlines for a "Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama" inbound to Kenya and "Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama and infant son" outbound.

 

[JayUtah]

I was thinking of something much simpler when I wrote that.

ndeed one Birther did actually check the microfilm libraries of the local Hawaiian papers and, lo and behold, there was the birth notice.

That's embarrassingly inept, I agree. And for my part, I was coming from where people pretend to be experts in space science, but when they finally get around to demonstrating their skill and knowledge, it's comically simplistic and wrong. I guess that's why they have two feet to shoot themselves in.

 

[marplots]

Over the course of many years, I have several times confessed to assassinating JFK. Yes, I did it. I’m the culprit. I’m guilty. Me. I was in the window of the book depository with my mail-order 6.5 Carcano.*

So big deal. Old stuff. The question is, why don’t the JFK conspiratoids – and they’re like spiders, you’re never more than eight feet from one – ever believe me? I mean, jeeze you guys, what more do you want than a bald-faced confession?

Answer: They don’t want any solution at all, no confession, no perpetrator, no revelations, no uncovered conspiracy. They’ve built their revolting little playhouse, and nobody, by God nobody, is ever going to knock it down. They’re havin’ fun! Bleah! Giddadda yere!

But there’s also a second answer: I never present an iota of evidence to bolster my confession. I do nothing to convince anybody that I’m telling the truth.

There's a third answer as well.
They know you are innocent because one of them did it.

 

[jakesteele]

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com...derstanding-the-people-behind-the-skepticism/

 

[JayUtah]

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com...derstanding-the-people-behind-the-skepticism/

People who want to make money as "psychics" dislike skeptics. What a shocker!

 

[turingtest]

https://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com...derstanding-the-people-behind-the-skepticism/

Superfical, self-serving pop psychology from a handyman. That's almost as convincing as your fake quotes in the "Woos ponder how to rally world against non-existant organization" thread.

 

[jakesteele]

Superfical, self-serving pop psychology from a handyman. That's almost as convincing as your fake quotes in the "Woos ponder how to rally world against non-existant organization" thread.

Fake quotes? So that's how the debunker does it. Anything that threatens your world view is either denied, diminish, minimize and without even doing any research determines my quotes are fake. That shows me that you really are afraid of thinking of the implications of those people's learned and experienced viewpoints. Try looking up "conspiracy quotes" and see what's there. If my quotes are fake, proof it.

 

[jakesteele]

People who want to make money as "psychics" dislike skeptics. What a shocker!

The Debunker's Law of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Did you read what he had to say? No, I thought not. Try it some time.

 

[JayUtah]

The Debunker's Law of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Did you read what he had to say? No, I thought not. Try it some time.

Oh, boo hoo. If you want to be taken seriously, don't quote Craig Weller. His article is an unsubstantiated laundry list of reasons why he thinks skeptics are inferior, with a side dish of opinion polls. When that happens, the messenger is the message.

 

[turingtest]

Fake quotes? So that's how the debunker does it. Anything that threatens your world view is either denied, diminish, minimize and without even doing any research determines my quotes are fake. That shows me that you really are afraid of thinking of the implications of those people's learned and experienced viewpoints. Try looking up "conspiracy quotes" and see what's there. If my quotes are fake, proof it.

Have you even bothered to look at the other thread? I did the research, and found that four (at least) of your quotes were either spurious or un-sourced (one was from a novel, for crying out loud). It's not for me to "proof" they're fake anyway- since they're your quotes used to support your worldview, it's up to you to prove they're real. I suspect you won't; folks like you are a dime-a-dozen, all mouth.

 

[JohnG]

Anything that threatens your world view is either denied, diminish, minimize and without even doing any research determines my quotes are fake. That shows me that you really are afraid of thinking of the implications of those people's learned and experienced viewpoints.

Do all you believers read from the same script? You are projecting. Again.

Try looking up "conspiracy quotes" and see what's there. If my quotes are fake, proof it.

Still haven't wrapped your noggin around the whole "burden of proof" thing, have you? Speaking of "proof", your posts could certainly do with a little proofreading.

 

[carlitos]

Proof by fake quote is pretty standard conspiracy fare. We even have a member here with a fake quote in their signature.

 

[jakesteele]

Have you even bothered to look at the other thread? I did the research, and found that four (at least) of your quotes were either spurious or un-sourced (one was from a novel, for crying out loud). It's not for me to "proof" they're fake anyway- since they're your quotes used to support your worldview, it's up to you to prove they're real. I suspect you won't; folks like you are a dime-a-dozen, all mouth.

Famous Quote from Benjamin Disraeli
"For you see, the world is governed by very different personages
from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."



Benjamin Disraeli quotes:
The governments of the present day have to deal not merely with other governments, with emperors, kings and ministers, but also with the secret societies which have everywhere their unscrupulous agents, and can at the last moment upset all the governments’ plans.

Edward Bernays, Conspiracy quotes:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the [public] is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.'

William Colby, Conspiracy quotes:
The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

Rowan Gaither, Conspiracy quotes:
[The task is to] covertly lower the standard of living, the whole social structure, of America so that we can be merged with all other nations.

Carroll Quigley, Conspiracy quotes:
For the first time in its history, Western Civilization is in danger of being destroyed internally by a corrupt, criminal ruling cabal which is centered around the Rockefeller interests, which include elements from the Morgan, Brown, Rothschild, Du Pont, Harriman, Kuhn-Loeb, and other groupings as well. This junta took control of the political, financial, and cultural life of America in the first two decades of the twentieth century.

Carroll Quigley quotes:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960's to examine its papers and secret records. … I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

If you think these are somehow made up quotes or something like that is typical debunker mentality. Folks like you are a dime-a-dozen, all mouth and no brain.

 

[JayUtah]

If you think these are somehow made up quotes or something like that is typical debunker mentality.

How does simply repeating the alleged quotes establish their authenticity?

 

[jakesteele]

Proof by fake quote is pretty standard conspiracy fare. We even have a member here with a fake quote in their signature.

Got some sources for that claim that they are fake? Even though it's new ground that's rarely trod by your ilk, why don't you get up out of your Bark-o-lounger, walk upstairs and tell your mom you're going "outside" and do some real field work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example "All bachelors are unmarried"). Galen Strawson has stated that an a priori argument is one in which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. You don't have to do any science."[1]

 

[JayUtah]

Got some sources for that claim that they are fake?

You're the one citing them. It's your responsibility to provide accurate references and, by so doing, establish that they are legitimate and suitable quotations.