What do you guys believe?
- Thread starter gsm1988
- Start date
Nick Terry
Illuminator
But the default position is a sensible one. Absent the production of a plausible scenario or some hard evidence, then conspiracy theories remain conspiracy theories. The assumption that CTs are paranoid nonsense is a very well grounded empirical observation. This places an enormous burden of proof on anyone advancing a conspiracy claim.
This said, I think Lockerbie is now silently recognised by many on this forum as an entirely plausible conspiracy claim, in no small part due to your own efforts, and because the claim does not violate the parsimony principle. It is entirely conceivable that such a conspiracy could have been orchestrated, as it would not have involved infinitely multiplying entities. Moreover, claiming a miscarriage of justice in a terrorism case in the UK has ample precedent.
Where perhaps scepticism kicks in to trigger an ignore reaction is the current lack of definitive evidence to prove the conspiracy. There's only so much speculation the average person can or indeed should tolerate.
This said, the reasons why people respond to some topics and not others is often grounded in other factors than scepticism. Chief among them are the identities of the posters. You have taken an interest in Lockerbie because it affected Scotland quite dramatically. Most other members lack that kind of personal motivation/inspiration.
Finally - it should be noted that some of the pro-Lockerbie conspiracy posters are by any normal definition, actually conspiracy theorists. They might be like the proverbial stopped clock on this one, but their presence partially nullifies the good work you have been doing to argue for the conspiracy case. The fact that one of the board's most notorious trolls has been haunting the threads in question doesn't help, either.
KoihimeNakamura
Creativity Murderer
I admit it, I ignore the Lockerbie threads due to lack of interest in general. I do see some of the proof you post as compelling but it's just not something I'm not interested in.
Ausmerican
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 3,490
Check out the allegations surrounding the deaths of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. Note that I don't believe in the *Clinton Death List*. Just those two deaths. You can browse for threads and posts on them by me here at JREF.
Also, check out Chinagate, Filegate, Rapegate ... all associated with Clinton or the Clinton adminstration . For some reason, many so called *skeptics* here at JREF simply dismiss those allegations out of hand. I wonder why?
See gsm1988? There is BaC doing his Colbert level parody of a CTer to show you what the looney, not backed by evidence Cter acts like. Take heed and avoid and you should be fine.
BaC, great job as usual. Like I said in another thread, love your act!
Rolfe
Adult human female
Actually I think you're right, to a large extent. The reason I commented was the disconnect between the effusive declarations of willingness to change one's mind, and the actual situation, which I likened to strolling off, hands in pockets, whistling nonchalantly.
Well, actually there is definitive evidence to prove a conspiracy to convict Megrahi. The speculation starts with, WHY??? The problem is that one has to keep on repeating the basic stuff on how we actually know he didn't do it (because "it" didn't happen, where "it" is a suitcase with a bomb in it being sent as unaccompanied baggage from Luqa airport in Malta), and more detailed examination of the conspiracy to get him convicted anyway thus has to take a back seat. But that bit did happen, without a doubt.
Rolfe.
Nick Terry
Illuminator
You were quite right to bold my use of 'silently'. I would wager that dozens of CT forum regulars have read through the Lockerbie threads and been swayed. Many more, indeed, than have been swayed by the car-crash Amanda Knox threads, anyhoo...
But yeah, I can also see how silence is dispiriting and probably makes you wonder, especially when there is a faction who will dismiss the work as 'just' a conspiracy theory.
Just to give you my read on things: judging from the discussions on other threads, I would say the balance of probabilities going on to clear and convincing evidence is in favour of a conspiracy. But there is as yet no definitive, case closed, smoking gun revelation/admission/apology to make it crystal clear to everyone that there was a conspiracy, beyond all reasonable doubt. And there may well never be such a revelation.
So in this sense, there is no definitive evidence in favour, certainly not to compare with the definitive evidence proving Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.
Let me say first of all that I appreciate everyone's respectful responses to my questions. Thank you. Also, I am not a repeat poster, and I did not come here to cause trouble. I just discovered this board the other day, and I signed up yesterday. I am here for legitimate discussion.
I have never denied climate change. I believe that climate change is real, but that it is overblown, and that governments are using it to influence policy in other areas.
I don't question whether or not the Holocaust happened, but I do question the accepted fact that six million people died, and I do question some of the more outrageous stories of the Holocaust, such as "Zyklon B" and "soap for lampshades". I don't think that there is undeniable fact that the Holocaust happened exactly the way that the accepted facts claim it did.
On the topic of the Federal Reserve, I do not believe that it is a legitimate banking institution, I believe it to be unconstitutional, and I do believe that most Americans are ignorant about how it really works, and that Fed proponents and supporters do lie about its real intentions.
On the topic of 9/11, I believe for sure that 1. We do not really know what happened that day, and 2. The government has not been honest about all it knows about the attacks. I do not endorse claims of controlled demolition, nor do I desire to take the time to look into all of the evidence for and against it. That to me is a moot point. I do believe that there is much more than meets the eye about 9/11, and that 9/11 allowed a lot of things to happen that would not have happened otherwise (Patriot Act, two wars in the Middle East, etc)
I believe that there is a lot of hubris and conceitedness on both the skeptic side as well as the CT side. Both sides are so sure of themselves that It's sickening.
I will get a negative reaction for saying this, but I think that many of you simply parrot people like Mr Randi and Mr Shermer, repeating what they have to say about everything. That is no different than followers of Alex Jones and other people you love to criticize. If James Randi says something is bull, you automatically listen to him. If Michael Shermer says something is true, don't question it. Do you ever think for a moment that these guys may be deceiving you about anything?
What about the countless people throughout history who have claimed various things and have had plenty of reasons for believing what they believe? Are we supposed to discredit every single one of these people because a group of people who are fortunate to make up even 10 percent of the world population devote their lives to debunking everything people hold near and their to their hearts? In other words, do the whatever small percentage of the people who fancy themselves to be skeptics consider themselves to be smarter than everyone else, being the only people in the world that do not "believe" in the stupid stuff that the masses believe? I am a college student, and I have read works by Shermer and other skeptics. I know that Shermer has a book explaining why people believe in strange things. I also think that the man acts like a self appointed God who knows more than all of the stupid people of the world. That said, he has a ton of great material, and skepticism itself is not a bad idea.
I can't wait to read your responses.
I have never denied climate change. I believe that climate change is real, but that it is overblown, and that governments are using it to influence policy in other areas.
I don't question whether or not the Holocaust happened, but I do question the accepted fact that six million people died, and I do question some of the more outrageous stories of the Holocaust, such as "Zyklon B" and "soap for lampshades". I don't think that there is undeniable fact that the Holocaust happened exactly the way that the accepted facts claim it did.
On the topic of the Federal Reserve, I do not believe that it is a legitimate banking institution, I believe it to be unconstitutional, and I do believe that most Americans are ignorant about how it really works, and that Fed proponents and supporters do lie about its real intentions.
On the topic of 9/11, I believe for sure that 1. We do not really know what happened that day, and 2. The government has not been honest about all it knows about the attacks. I do not endorse claims of controlled demolition, nor do I desire to take the time to look into all of the evidence for and against it. That to me is a moot point. I do believe that there is much more than meets the eye about 9/11, and that 9/11 allowed a lot of things to happen that would not have happened otherwise (Patriot Act, two wars in the Middle East, etc)
I believe that there is a lot of hubris and conceitedness on both the skeptic side as well as the CT side. Both sides are so sure of themselves that It's sickening.
I will get a negative reaction for saying this, but I think that many of you simply parrot people like Mr Randi and Mr Shermer, repeating what they have to say about everything. That is no different than followers of Alex Jones and other people you love to criticize. If James Randi says something is bull, you automatically listen to him. If Michael Shermer says something is true, don't question it. Do you ever think for a moment that these guys may be deceiving you about anything?
What about the countless people throughout history who have claimed various things and have had plenty of reasons for believing what they believe? Are we supposed to discredit every single one of these people because a group of people who are fortunate to make up even 10 percent of the world population devote their lives to debunking everything people hold near and their to their hearts? In other words, do the whatever small percentage of the people who fancy themselves to be skeptics consider themselves to be smarter than everyone else, being the only people in the world that do not "believe" in the stupid stuff that the masses believe? I am a college student, and I have read works by Shermer and other skeptics. I know that Shermer has a book explaining why people believe in strange things. I also think that the man acts like a self appointed God who knows more than all of the stupid people of the world. That said, he has a ton of great material, and skepticism itself is not a bad idea.
I can't wait to read your responses.
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 29,691
I suggest you do 2 things.
1) Google "James Randi Climate Denial" to find out if we'll really just accept anything he says.
2) Read these threads:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80609
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203814
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,862
An example of things I believe that are different from the "official story":
I believe OJ probably did kill Nicole.
I believe that Israel has nuclear weapons.
I believe that lobbyists use money to steer legislators towards their own interests, though the legislator invariably insists that the law will benefit their constituent voters.
I believe we went to war in Iraq while knowing that the evidence for WMD's was not as solid as presented to the public.
I believe OJ probably did kill Nicole.
I believe that Israel has nuclear weapons.
I believe that lobbyists use money to steer legislators towards their own interests, though the legislator invariably insists that the law will benefit their constituent voters.
I believe we went to war in Iraq while knowing that the evidence for WMD's was not as solid as presented to the public.
Caustic Logic
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 4,494
That's good. And, you know, I wouldn't be surprised. Governments and pretty much everyone manipulates whatever they can for their own benefit. Sometimes they have to conspire, in fact, to make the most of the manipulation.
(I'm essentially a conspiracy theorist, by the way, but a pretty rational one, I think)
Don't let the knee-jerk people here goad you into knee-jerkism yourself and keep nice and limber, you might do okay. Oh, and be willing to listen and change your mind where that's warranted, and so on.
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,831
You’re wrong.
You’re wrong.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty3.html
You’re right about that part, though not in the way that you think.
So I’m part of the conspiracy? Awesome.
Could you point me to Randi’s opinions on the Federal Reserve conspiracies?
See, I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory. I would simply call that a belief that there might be a conspiracy by some in government to exaggerate for political purposes.
The claimed number of Jews killed during the Holocaust is more accurate than you might think. There are reliable estimates of Jewish populations in many of the European countries at the time. The population of Jews in Europe immediately after the war was about 65% less than pre-war population. Some were lucky and immigrated away or escaped. The vast majority were not so lucky. As for the other claims, I admit that I have not researched history to that great of an extent to say that those are exaggerations or not.
Here is where you touch on one of my particular areas of expertise. I can definitely GUARANTEE that the Federal Reserve is Constitutional. Those who claim otherwise simply do not know or understand the Constitution. ETA: That includes a few U.S. Representatives and Senators.
While there are more than a few different arguments made claiming the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, one of the most common involves Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 which states, in part, "NO STATE...shall make anything but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;" This clause is not a limitation on the federal government but rather a limitation on the states from infringing on specific federal powers. See Julliard v. Greenman 110 U.S. 421 (1884).
I agree that many Americans are ignorant as to the functioning of the Federal Reserve and central banking in general. However, most anti-Fed proponents, that believe they know how the Federal Reserve works or how it is structured, are also ignorant on those same points and simply do not understand it. These same people will gladly spout whatever nonsense that Ron Paul, G. Edward Griffin, Gary Kah, Glen Beck, or Alex Jones tells them instead of reading the law and other reliable sources for themselves. To me, that is the epitome of ignorance.
Some bad men hijacked some planes in order to attack the U.S. in support of their religion. It is that simple. Did the government do some things (like pass the Patriot Act) that many people do not like after the attacks happened? Sure, I can agree with that. Did the government "plan" the attacks or played some sinister role to increase the damage? No and the belief that the government did is just nonsense.
There is a difference though. Reality can often be supported by science and/or law. Many conspiracy theories ignore or distort science and/or misinterpret or ignore law.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do not "parrot" anybody. If someone comes up to me and says, "the income tax is unconstitutional", I ask for their proof. I will read enough of that proof to get an idea as to how they based their opinion. Then, I look at the law and any referenced court cases for myself. The difference with me is that I do not allow any preconceived opinions to cloud my research.
Many CTers and tax deniers start with a preconceived opinion and then try to find evidence to support said opinion. They will pick and choose data and quotes that support their opinion even if they have to take it out of context. Any decent researcher will tell you that is NOT how you do research. When researching a subject, you start with a hypothesis and then attempt to prove the null of that hypothesis.
I believe that ignorance should be countered. Especially if it is blatantly false ignorance. However, not all conspiracy theories are what I would call blatantly false ignorance. For example, I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald most definitely did kill President Kennedy. However, I do know that I cannot categorically prove that to 100% certainty. In my mind, there is a SLIM possibility that someone else may have made the shot from the repository or another location. OTOH, I know for a fact that the Apollo missions put people on the Moon and brought them back. The evidence supports that 100% and anyone who believes otherwise needs to be countered to correct their ignorance.
Last edited:
Nick Terry
Illuminator
I've bolded where you have said you are a college student. May I ask what is your major?
If you really are a college student, then sooner or later you'll have been, or will be, taught how to research. The principles are pretty much the same irrespective of the discipline. And even if you're a freshman then you'll have had papers graded and returned to you, some of which no doubt tested your ability to marshal several sources of information. But hey, maybe you do math and you don't have to write essays.
Point being - whether you like it or not, there are procedures in this world for determining what is and isn't fact, and for determing the most probable explanations for events, especially human events. And those procedures dictate that whoever wants to make a claim better back up their claim, with sources and evidence. They also dictate that whoever wants to make a claim better know what the hell they are talking about.
Now I appreciate you may not like all your professors, and probably I'm coming across like a boring old fuddy-duddy saying the above. Well, that's because I'm a university history lecturer. So when you say the following:
I quite naturally cringe, because:
1) the accepted figure among historians who specialise in researching the Holocaust is nearer 5 than six million
2) Of the slightly more than 5 million who died, 20% - nearly 1 million - were killed with Zyklon B, the rest by other means. Zyklon B is not a myth, it is quite lethal and was demonstrably used.
3) nobody, but nobody, of any consequence believes that Jews were turned into soap or lampshades; those are populist misconceptions based on isolated incidents involving non-Jewish victims if at all, which became mythologised after the end of the war
And yes, I know this is an internet forum and you're not writing a term paper for me to grade. But picking on the Holocaust as an example of a conspiracy is a monumentally dumb idea. You ought by now to have realised that the overwhelming majority of people who deny the Holocaust are racist antisemites. Genocide denial is grossly offensive anyhow, and genocides are not parlour games to be debated casually as what-ifs like whether there were poltergeists.
Besides which, if you were serious in questioning anything, whatever it might be, then you ought by now to know that the only acceptable way to go about it is to learn the subject. There are no get-out clauses on this score, none whatsoever. But, you know, I understand that reading all those books in the library, however crappy that college library might be, is a lot of work. Really, I do.
So you plunge on to another talking point, 9/11.
Again: same principles apply. If you really are a college student and if your 1988 is your birth year then you weren't more than 13 years old when 9/11 went down, and barely much older when the Iraq War happened. I know for a fact that about 3 years ago, college students started looking blank when I asked them about the Iraq War. These just aren't events in your truly conscious living memory, any more than I remember understanding stuff that happened at the start of the 1980s even though I was alive then.
You're flat-out wrong to say "we do not really know what happened that day". The events of 9/11 have been reconstructed just about as well as any other event in recent history has been or can be. We know whodunnit, how it happened, and why. There are shelves of proper books on the subject, and one of the titles that people around here recommend a lot is called The Looming Tower.
You're right to wonder if the Bush administration was entirely honest about what it knew beforehand. Plenty of commentary at the time charged the Bush administration and federal agencies like the FBI and CIA with dropping the ball. You could do worse than to start by reading the memoirs of the incumbent director of counterterrorism at the time, Against All Enemies, by Richard Clarke. Clarke was an insider but witheringly critical of the failures that led to 9/11, and doesn't pull his punches about how America got from 9/11 to Iraq.
And you're absolutely right, 9/11 allowed a lot of things to happen afterwards, especially the Iraq War. Have you read any of the many accounts of the run-up to the Iraq War, for example Bob Woodward's trilogy? Or Fiasco by Thomas Ricks? There are dozens of great books which will fill you in on all of these pieces of recent history.
Skepticism as practised around here is all about asking: where's the evidence? That applies to any claim, whether it's poltergeists or Bigfoot or cold fusion or conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, asking where's the evidence is depressingly like the studies that you are ostensibly enrolled to pursue. It is not a matter of belief in the conventional sense of the word. It's about knowledge. And that, alas, is something which our civilisation decided a very long time ago to decant into these things called books, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and all the other paraphernalia of the degree course you may well hate.
You're dead wrong to assume that skeptics simply parrot people like James Randi and Michael Shermer. You might be right that a lot of people on here have read Michael Shermer's books. But usually people do not stop at one book if they are seriously interested in a subject. I've read Shermer's book on Darwin and the theory of evolution, for example. But I've also read Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Roger Pennock, Elliott Sober, a book about the Dover trial and several other books on evolution vs Intelligent Design and creationism. Saying that I would get my ideas from Michael Shermer about evolution would be patently untrue.
Ditto with other subjects Shermer writes about. Some might even be critical of him for writing about so many, and not being as expert in all of them as the real specialists. But Shermer knows how to pull together evidence and sources, and what he writes is generally a good reflection of what the relevant specialists and experts think. He is a populariser, and writes introductions to complex subjects with some skill. But he's far from the last word on any subject.
Sorry to rain on your parade like this, but before you dig that hole any deeper, you ought to know what we're like and how we see the world. It's just not as simple as saying 'skeptics believe in Randi'. Sorry 'bout that.
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of evidence. Contrary to popular belief, seeing is not believing, seeing is the end of belief because at the point of seeing belief is no longer required.
We have evidence that Iran Contra, Watergate and the conspiracy by Al Qaida to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on 9/11/2001 took place. Based on evidence which was painstaking collected by very dedicated and disciplined people we can say that in all probability those events took place.
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Actually, it was well over ten million -people- who were systematically slaughtered in the name of Nazism. Slavic people, the Romani people, gays, intellectuals, the "wrong" kind of artists, etc. etc. Sure, of those, more than five million people were Jewish, and they were definitely the biggest single group targeted, but it's a pet peeve of mine that everyone keeps conflating "Jews" with "people" like that*. Especially Holocaust deniers, who obviously does this deliberately because quite often, what they say aloud to others of a like mind is "the Jews weren't killed, but they should have been."
* And worst part is that those of us who do present the evidence about the Holocaust tends to be captured in this little trap when arguing the deniers, as spotted in Nick Terry's otherwise -excellent- post.
Last edited:
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
.
In Nick's defense, not that he's not capable of mounting his own, there is legitimate reason to consider the Holocaust qua Holocaust as a separate thing from the mass murders of other groups of people. I personally disagree, and recently had a discussion on a mailing list to which I subscribe on the subject. Folks seemed fairly evenly divided between the "Jews only" and the "anyone the Nazis rounded up" camps.
I found it mildly bemusing that the actual Jews on the list were far more likely to embrace the latter view..
Sorry to leave on such a negative note, but I will not disown my core beliefs that I have always had and will not accept the explanation that things just "happen" just because you guys say they are not true and claim to have all the "real evidence." Use your "reason" and "science" on other people and continue thinking amongst yourselves that you know better than the rest of us. Best of luck to all.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Surely if you are never willing challenge your core beliefs or examine the evidence that opposes them, you will never actually know if what you believe is real or just your imagination. Is it not better to try and find things that actually disprove your core beliefs than that avoid and ignore anything that doesn't agree with them, and as a result live in a world of fantasy rather than one of reality? If you hold your beliefs up to rigor and testing, then if they survive, you are the better for it, just as you are if they don't hold up.