View Full Version : When do conspiracy theories change and simply become conspiracy fact?
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 09:29
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?
When there is evidence that stands up to scrutiny, not just wild speculation.
Barry Dragon
02-08-16, 09:50
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
02-08-16, 09:56
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.
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
02-08-16, 10:03
We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...:hehe:
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 10:06
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'?
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
02-08-16, 10:17
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?
Which then begs the question, what previous conspiracy theories have you changed your mind about?
Hillsborough I suppose is one.
Savile.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 10:33
Hillsborough I suppose is one.
Savile.
How about Janner, Lockerbie, 7/7?
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 10:50
We're two City supporters Barry, not Thelma and Louise...:hehe:
You said we were Thelma & Louise last night :hehe:
Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes :biggrin:
How about Janner, Lockerbie, 7/7?
It really depends what about those things you are asking whether i believe.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 11:45
You said we were Thelma & Louise last night :hehe:
Things don't become facts until they are on Snopes :biggrin:
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.:hehe::hehe::hehe:
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 11:50
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.
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
02-08-16, 11:58
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/Nice-terror-truck-had-bullet-resistant-windshield
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 12:01
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.:hehe::hehe::hehe:
Were you drunk or what? I thought it a little odd when you said "We'll do the Thelma and Louise thing tomorrow.." :hehe:
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 12:20
Were you drunk or what? I thought it a little odd when you said "We'll do the Thelma and Louise thing tomorrow.." :hehe:
I'm looking into the possibility that someone mixed blood with my alcohol levels...that's all I'm saying...
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 12:46
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/home-news/lord-janner-sent-a-christmas-card-to-police-officer-who-investigated-child-sex-abuse-allegations-10205988.html
Come across this video this morning :shrug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmokIGGvSrw
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.
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
02-08-16, 13:02
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.
Nice: How many ice cream trucks do you know come with bullet resistant windshields?
http://www.debka.com/article/25551/Nice-terror-truck-had-bullet-resistant-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?
Come across this video this morning :shrug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmokIGGvSrw
In the hierarchy of conspiracy theories presented here today I find the twin towers ones the least convincing.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 13:49
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?
I don't believe for one minute that there was a bullet resistant windshield fitted to a rented ice cream truck. No sane person would. Which begs the question why would a global news agency put that story out and weeks later still not retract it?
Then when you start looking at other random pieces of information connected with this incident it becomes apparent that there is a disconnect between what msm narrative claims and what they've left out about it which would cause people to think differently.
The 'bullet resistant windshield' nonsense is to create an impression that this was not some lone nut, but a well planned, well financed and well organised, terrorist cell in France, capable of retro-fitting bullet proof glass to any vehicle.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 14:01
There's a lot more coming out on Nice including the cameraman being at the Munich incident some days later as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9W9JbrozS8c
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 14:48
Come across this video this morning :shrug:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmokIGGvSrw
Here's an update to accompany the video of 9/11.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/5303012
Here's an update to accompany the video of 9/11.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-911-reader-the-september-11-2001-terror-attacks/5303012
"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."
Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love :hehe:
"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."
Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love :hehe:
It also says that Bin Laden can't have had anything to do with the attack, as he was in hospital on that day.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 15:11
"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."
Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love :hehe:
I actually prefer looking at evidence until logic and rational thinking dictate a conclusion. As the evidence slowly builds, it becomes less and less logical to stick to a view which increasingly relies on belief of a narrative, rather than simple facts and logic.
It also says that Bin Laden can't have had anything to do with the attack, as he was in hospital on that day.
Oddly enough some years ago splott bin david recommended watching a documentry on al jazeera about bin liner,according to his close associates he had no long term health problems :sherlock:
I don't believe for one minute that there was a bullet resistant windshield fitted to a rented ice cream truck. No sane person would. Which begs the question why would a global news agency put that story out and weeks later still not retract it?
Then when you start looking at other random pieces of information connected with this incident it becomes apparent that there is a disconnect between what msm narrative claims and what they've left out about it which would cause people to think differently.
The 'bullet resistant windshield' nonsense is to create an impression that this was not some lone nut, but a well planned, well financed and well organised, terrorist cell in France, capable of retro-fitting bullet proof glass to any vehicle.
Which global news agency put this story about?its the first time i've heard about it.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 17:20
"9/11 was an important landmark for Global Research. Our website was launched on September 9, 2001, two days prior to 9/11. Our coverage of 9/11 was initiated on September 12, 2001."
Rather ironic as this is the kind of coincidence that conspiracy theorists love :hehe:
Possibly so, but my interest is in the area of conspiracy facts.
I don't believe for one minute that there was a bullet resistant windshield fitted to a rented ice cream truck. No sane person would. Which begs the question why would a global news agency put that story out and weeks later still not retract it?
Then when you start looking at other random pieces of information connected with this incident it becomes apparent that there is a disconnect between what msm narrative claims and what they've left out about it which would cause people to think differently.
The 'bullet resistant windshield' nonsense is to create an impression that this was not some lone nut, but a well planned, well financed and well organised, terrorist cell in France, capable of retro-fitting bullet proof glass to any vehicle.
Let me guess how it turns out.
It wasn't a French muslim who did this but actually setup by some sort of Jewish people?
Let me guess how it turns out.
It wasn't a French muslim who did this but actually setup by some sort of Jewish people?
Shocking accusation
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 18:36
Let me guess how it turns out.
It wasn't a French muslim who did this but actually setup by some sort of Jewish people?
That's not very nice Trueblue. You're intelligent enough to look at evidence and make your own mind up.
I've posted the news release clearly dated and distributed globally by Debka. You may have wanted to research who Debka are and their background for yourself. Then you might have asked why they put out a fabricated false news story.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 18:44
Let me guess how it turns out.
It wasn't a French muslim who did this but actually setup by some sort of Jewish people?
If you can explain to me how a professional cameraman just happened to be on the spot camera in hand at the exact time that the truck started to come down the road and explain how the same man was at the Munich incident some days later then I'll be satisfied.
That's not very nice Trueblue. You're intelligent enough to look at evidence and make your own mind up.
I've posted the news release clearly dated and distributed globally by Debka. You may have wanted to research who Debka are and their background for yourself. Then you might have asked why they put out a fabricated false news story.
Humour me, how close is my guess to where you are directing this thread?
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 19:55
...and so it begins.
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 20:04
Humour me, how close is my guess to where you are directing this thread?
Did I create the Debka news article? I just researched it. You do know who Debka are do you?
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 20:16
Humour me, how close is my guess to where you are directing this thread?
This is Debka, now ask yourself why they put out a news report about a bullet-resistant windshield for what was, just a rented ice cream truck.
Behind the Headlines
Who killed Massoud Ali-Mohammadi?
Jan 15, 2010
We don't know, and may never know for sure: but all indications point to Israel, and it's no wonder that even Debka, the Israeli web site with links to Mossad, practically claimed credit for the act on Tel Aviv's behalf.
Now would you be suspicious if you found out that the cameraman, the same one who popped up at two 'terrorist attacks' was linked to Mossad?
...and so it begins.
at least this shit is in the boondocks :hehe:
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 20:24
Humour me, how close is my guess to where you are directing this thread?
The evidence is what should guide you. I'm just a pawn in the game of life.
This is the guy who just happened to be at Nice and Munich 'terror attacks.'
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/22/nice-munich/
This is his wife
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdSkFmqTrLY
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 20:26
...and so it begins.
In fairness the thread was not about the best central defenders that we've ever seen at City...
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 20:31
at least this shit is in the boondocks :hehe:
What are boondocks? :hehe:
In fairness the thread was not about the best central defenders that we've ever seen at City...
Who would you say if it was?
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 20:45
What are boondocks? :hehe:
Who would you say if it was?
Personally, for me it would be Pontin and Dwyer who were probably a little before your time.
Wales-Bales
02-08-16, 22:50
The evidence is what should guide you. I'm just a pawn in the game of life.
This is the guy who just happened to be at Nice and Munich 'terror attacks.'
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/07/22/nice-munich/
This is his wife
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdSkFmqTrLY
Why don't you just go the whole hog and introduce the daughter too? Rumour has it that fella was also interviewing people outside the Bataclan on the evening it happened. Don't quote me on this, I don't do conspiracies :hehe:
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 22:57
Why don't you just go the whole hog and introduce the daughter too? Rumour has it that fella was also interviewing people outside the Bataclan on the evening it happened. Don't quote me on this, I don't do conspiracies :hehe:
Cough cough liar :hehe:
Splott Dave
02-08-16, 22:57
Why don't you just go the whole hog and introduce the daughter too? Rumour has it that fella was also interviewing people outside the Bataclan on the evening it happened. Don't quote me on this, I don't do conspiracies :hehe:
Now there is an interesting bit of information that has emerged about the Bataclan as there was with Charlie Hebdo. But I have no wish to turn this conspiracy thread into a thread about conspiracies...
Wales-Bales
02-08-16, 22:59
Cough cough liar :hehe:
I prefer to deal in facts :thumbup: :hehe:
Mrs Steve R
02-08-16, 23:26
I prefer to deal in facts :thumbup: :hehe:
Facts that are not always in main stream media are conspiracies to everyone else. :biggrin:
Wales-Bales
02-08-16, 23:59
Facts that are not always in main stream media are conspiracies to everyone else. :biggrin:
More fool those who continue to suck on teat of the BBC and their MSM pals :hehe:
Splott Dave
03-08-16, 08:37
[QUOTE=Mrs Steve R;4655205]You said we were Thelma & Louise last night :hehe:
That was before the unfortunate incident in your new hot tub...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dIfP1QjPME
Ainsley Harriott
04-08-16, 21:00
In fairness the thread was not about the best central defenders that we've ever seen at City...
Who would you say if it was?
Dekel Keinan NQAT
Splott Dave
05-08-16, 21:54
Facts that are not always in main stream media are conspiracies to everyone else. :biggrin:
Here's one for those still interested in Dallas and the grassy knoll...
http://www.rense.com/general96/missingframes.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.