When do conspiracy theories change and simply become conspiracy fact?

[Splott Dave]

Ignoring the latest round of controversial 'terror attacks' I am researching well known 'conspiracy theories' and presently looking at the assassination of JF Kennedy in Dallas, in light of some fairly new information which has appeared on the internet recently.

It did get me thinking and this board is a reasonable barometer of current trends of thinking on all sorts of issues. So my question is when do conspiracy theories change?

[Rjk]

When there is evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not just wild speculation.

[Barry Dragon]

If you or Mrs R say it they are wacko theories. If most other people say it then it's true.

There is no firm way. I would say conspiracy theories don't become facts. conspiracy facts turn into theories. The problem comes when people start looking into it and then talk about it. Facts are changed and merged and factual theories become lunacy. It then becomes wacko theory.

[Splott Dave]

If you or Mrs R say it they are wacko theories. If most other people say it then it's true.

There is no firm way. I would say conspiracy theories don't become facts. conspiracy facts turn into theories. The problem comes when people start looking into it and then talk about it. Facts are changed and merged and factual theories become lunacy. It then becomes wacko theory.

I would have thought that the very absence of facts is one that lends itself to theory, but the very presence of facts in and of themselves surely leans towards theories being proven. After all that's what scientists are doing all of the time. First establishing a theory then spending time proving the theory in the light of more factual information about it coming to light.

[Rjk]

I would have thought that the very absence of facts is one that lends itself to theory, but the very presence of facts in and of themselves surely leans towards theories being proven. After all that's what scientists are doing all of the time. First establishing a theory then spending time proving the theory in the light of more factual information about it coming to light.

When challenging a scientific theory is usually try to disprove it, not look for supporting evidence.

[Splott Dave]

We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...

[Splott Dave]

When challenging a scientific theory is usually try to disprove it, not look for supporting evidence.

I agree but it works both forwards and backwards as it is after all the same process. but my original question related to that of conspiracies. Do you think that with fresh information on one you are more likely to change your views and regard what you previously thought of as a 'conspiracy theory,' to one where you were persuaded could be 'conspiracy fact'?

[Rjk]

I agree but it works both forwards and backwards as it is after all the same process. but my original question related to that of conspiracies. Do you think that with fresh information on one you are more likely to change your views and regard what you previously thought of as a 'conspiracy theory,' to one where you were persuaded could be 'conspiracy fact'?

Of course, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny.

I've done this kind of thing before and the evidence I've been presented with was really quite weak when not viewed with a large dollop of confirmation bias. Often those who think themselves as more open to these things seem completely unable to assess a document in its individual merits if it happens to sit well with their general view of the world, just as much as people who believe everything in the papers and on the tv

[Splott Dave]

Of course, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny.

I've done this kind of thing before and the evidence I've been presented with was really quite weak when not viewed with a large dollop of confirmation bias. Often those who think themselves as more open to these things seem completely unable to assess a document in its individual merits if it happens to sit well with their general view of the world, just as much as people who believe everything in the papers and on the tv

Which then begs the question, what previous conspiracy theories have you changed your mind about?

[Rjk]

Which then begs the question, what previous conspiracy theories have you changed your mind about?

Hillsborough I suppose is one.
Savile.

[Splott Dave]

Hillsborough I suppose is one.
Savile.

How about Janner, Lockerbie, 7/7?

[Mrs Steve R]

We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...

You said we were Thelma & Louise last night


Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes

[Rjk]

How about Janner, Lockerbie, 7/7?

It really depends what about those things you are asking whether i believe.

[Splott Dave]

You said we were Thelma & Louise last night


Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes

I said a lot of things last night which I won't be saying again and I did a lot of things last night that I won't be doing again.

[Splott Dave]

It really depends what about those things you are asking whether i believe.

Janner: The police now admit that they wanted to prosecute him on three separate occasions and didn't because of interventions.
Lockerbie: Fresh information came to light showing that Libya was not responsible for the sabotage of the Pan Am flight.
7/7: Attack known about six minutes before the first attack took place? 'Bombers' purchased return tickets.

[Rjk]

Janner: The police now admit that they wanted to prosecute him on three separate occasions and didn't because of interventions.
Lockerbie: Fresh information came to light showing that Libya was not responsible for the sabotage of the Pan Am flight.
7/7: Attack known about six minutes before the first attack took place? 'Bombers' purchased return tickets.

I've always had my doubts about Lockerbie, but can't really comment on the other two

[Splott Dave]

Of course, if the evidence stands up to scrutiny.

I've done this kind of thing before and the evidence I've been presented with was really quite weak when not viewed with a large dollop of confirmation bias. Often those who think themselves as more open to these things seem completely unable to assess a document in its individual merits if it happens to sit well with their general view of the world, just as much as people who believe everything in the papers and on the tv

Nice: How many ice cream trucks do you know come with bullet resistant windshields?
http://www.debka.com/article/25551/N...ant-windshield

[Mrs Steve R]

I said a lot of things last night which I won't be saying again and I did a lot of things last night that I won't be doing again.

Were you drunk or what? I thought it a little odd when you said "We'll do the Thelma and Louise thing tomorrow.."

[Splott Dave]

Were you drunk or what? I thought it a little odd when you said "We'll do the Thelma and Louise thing tomorrow.."

I'm looking into the possibility that someone mixed blood with my alcohol levels...that's all I'm saying...

[Splott Dave]

I've always had my doubts about Lockerbie, but can't really comment on the other two

Janner: Police had three opportunities to prosecute but cases dropped because too ill with dementia to appear in court. That didn't stop him from driving around London though, as he just had court dementia.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-10205988.html

[Heathblue]

Come across this video this morning

[lardy]

Janner: The police now admit that they wanted to prosecute him on three separate occasions and didn't because of interventions.
Lockerbie: Fresh information came to light showing that Libya was not responsible for the sabotage of the Pan Am flight.
7/7: Attack known about six minutes before the first attack took place? 'Bombers' purchased return tickets.

I know nothing more than what you have written here, but does it prove anything if the 'bombers' purchased return tickets? Seems a fairly sensible precaution if they needed to abort.

[Rjk]

I know nothing more than what you have written here, but does it prove anything if the 'bombers' purchased return tickets? Seems a fairly sensible precaution if they needed to abort.

The guys in accounts at Al Qaida are right officious bastatds though, they would never have signed that off.

[Splott Dave]

I know nothing more than what you have written here, but does it prove anything if the 'bombers' purchased return tickets? Seems a fairly sensible precaution if they needed to abort.

I agree entirely that the purchase, or non purchase of return tickets by people who allegedly knew they were going on a suicide mission was on its own, proof of nothing at all. It's when you look at all of the other available information that investigators have come across and piece it all together, that you can see that what happened, how it happened, as msm narratives claim, simply could not be true.

[Rjk]

Nice: How many ice cream trucks do you know come with bullet resistant windshields?
http://www.debka.com/article/25551/N...ant-windshield

Its almost as though the terrorist knew people would be shooting at him?
If there was any bulletproof glass and there doesn't appear to be much evidence of it, I'm not sure if that would imply any conspiracy?
Also wasn't he shot multiple times through the glass, ultimately killing him?