Are Conspiracy Theories more widely popular than they used to be?

[Conway_Stewart]

I agree. The only difference I see in today's world is that the cranks now have a ready platform with the internet.

I agree with this too. Back in the day, if I was a crank with some offbeat, crazy idea about something I would be relegated to the fringe of my community where I'd pace about in isolation muttering to myself until my idea died a natural death.

Today, I can log into Facebook or Twitter and instantly connect with a community of people who are probably even crazier than I am and who will share and support my views unquestioningly.

Someone earlier on in this thread compared the phenomenon to an echoe chamber and I think that's a good analogy. The idea just keeps getting louder and bigger the more often it gets repeated...and then more people hear it and get drawn into it...and it just keeps growing...and as the number of people who believe it grows it gains more credibility...Cuz if a lotta people believe it then it must be true, right?

 

[Conway_Stewart]

...

And as said, Galileo wouldn't be a conspiracy theorist. He was a scientist and his work was based on measurable data available to anyone; pretty much the opposite of a conspiracy theorist.

True...but but in Galileo's time, the idea of using science and data to advance an idea was a somewhat subversive concept.

Prior to and during the Renaissance era, our understanding of the world was based on The Bible and the church held tremendous political power. The problem that Galileo ran into was that his theory contradicted biblical scriptures which taught that the earth was the centre of the planetary system, not the sun.

Galileo's theories were thus seen as dangerous and heretical because the church feared that if people started disbelieving one part of the Bible then they might start questioning other parts and that the whole belief structure upon which their political power was based would crumble. He was thus tried and convicted of heresy.

For his part, Galileo was actually a devoutly religious man and had no quarrel with the church. He just believed that God reveals different ways of understanding the world as mankind is ready to hear and understand them. However, the Catholic Church at the time was hearing none of that shit- they banned Galileo's books and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life.

So...I think the powers at the time would have viewed Galileo as a "conspiracy theorist" in that his ideas and how he proved them did not conform to mainstream thinking and were subversive to the existing power structure. However, he also turned out to be right.

In contrast, conspiracy theorists today tend to use the same kind of reasoning process that people use to support religious beliefs: ie it somehow "feels" true or it meets some sort of need to believe that it is true so I'll believe first and ask questions later. Kinda like the Catholic Church used in Galileo's time.

 

[benstt]

I suspect it is because George Bush Senior is still alive. He was the Director of the CIA when Kennedy got whacked.

You may want to fact check the dates. Bush was director in the 70's.

 

[Aardvark154]

You may want to fact check the dates. Bush was director in the 70's.

It was John McCone a Kennedy Appointee who was the Director of Central Intelligence from 1961 until 1965. By the way quite presciently he told President Johnson that expanding the war in Vietnam would arouse national and world discontent, long before the North Vietnamese regime was defeated.

 

[basketcase]

True...but but in Galileo's time, the idea of using science and data to advance an idea was a somewhat subversive concept.....

Subversive and heretical sure. Conspiracy theorist, not even close.

Maybe we have different definitions but in my view the main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is reliance on faith despite evidence otherwise.

 

[Conway_Stewart]

Subversive and heretical sure. Conspiracy theorist, not even close.

Maybe we have different definitions but in my view the main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is reliance on faith despite evidence otherwise.

True...I think I'm just kinda arguing over semantics. I agree with the way you define a conspiracy theory.

 

[CapitalGuy]

These days I generally assume that people who buy into conspiracy theories have never had to do anything complicated in their lives. And by complicated I mean activities that involve myriad other people, other agencies. Unless you are a 0.5 percenter making a deal on a golf course with one of your Bilderber buddies and can issue a top-down directive, there are simply too many other people involved in actually getting anything done. It's simply too hard to keep everyone quiet, or to ensure everyone's stories are not scrutinized. Challenge functions, audits, third party reviews, etc, prevent that 99.99999% of people from keeping something quiet. Conspiracies are impossible, in the real world.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yes, I think they are, as a short answer.

The term was institutionalized by the CIA in their declassified memo calling on CIA assets to discredit opponents to the Warren Commission.

However, instead of your Wikipedia definition (which can be edited by the CIA or anyone else for that matter), I like this one better:

Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity.

http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm

I don't believe in all conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 (although I believe that 9/11 was used as a pretext for a bullshit war), but I do believe that the JFK Assassination is the result of a conspiracy.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded:

The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

There are many serious researchers, investigators, scientists, etc. that have examined and studied the facts surrounding the assassination, especially with the release of thousands if not millions of pages of declassified files after the passage of the JFK Records Act, following the controversy after Oliver Stone's movie JFK. The remaining files ares supposed to be released in October 2017 (yes, this year) unless President Trump has a very good reason not to, as prescribed by the legislation.

Now if anyone believes that Lee Harvey Oswald, a "lone nut", killed President Kennedy, then why the fuck did they classify so many intelligence files?!? The last files to be released, include some of the CIA's most important spooks, who are all dead now. Will we ever find out the whole truth? Probably not, but the plethora of circumstantial evidence that has surfaced or been uncovered since the days of the Warren Commission most certainly would've resulted in an acquittal of Lee Harvey Oswald if he had been brought to trial today (back then, a lot of info was buried - even by J. Edgar Hoover).

There's ample evidence to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald was a low-level intelligence operative and FBI informant. As an example, a call placed by him from the Dallas jail to a John Hurt of Raleigh, N.C. is just one of many, many items of circumstantial evidence that calls into question the findings of the Warren Commission. There was a John Hurt who was a retired Army Intelligence Officer. According to Victor Marchetti, former CIA agent and author of the book, The CIA & The Cult of Intelligence, the CIA had a fake defector program in N.C. and that this John Hurt was likely a "cut-out", someone who acted as an intermediary between Oswald and his true CIA handler, as a means of preserving plausible deniability. (Oswald was seeking help, and when he didn't get it, that meant he was on his own, and probably a dead man after that).

Does anyone in their right mind truly believe that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald and expose himself to the death penalty in order to prevent Mrs. Kennedy the agony of going through a trial? The White-Wash Commission, er I mean, the Warren Commission, said that Ruby had no connections to the Mob, but the HSCA said otherwise - that Jack Ruby had SIGNIFICANT underworld connections. A report by an undercover FBI Agent, now declassified, has Carlos Marcello admitting to having JFK murdered. It's been postulated, based on available evidence, that the Mob with anti-Castro exiles and rogue CIA agents may have killed JFK but that the government covered this up.

Sorry for my rant, but my point is, that not all conspiracy theories are bullshit, but alternative explanations to major events, and that those who propose them, are not all lunatics.

 

[GPIDEAL]

These days I generally assume that people who buy into conspiracy theories have never had to do anything complicated in their lives. And by complicated I mean activities that involve myriad other people, other agencies. Unless you are a 0.5 percenter making a deal on a golf course with one of your Bilderber buddies and can issue a top-down directive, there are simply too many other people involved in actually getting anything done. It's simply too hard to keep everyone quiet, or to ensure everyone's stories are not scrutinized. Challenge functions, audits, third party reviews, etc, prevent that 99.99999% of people from keeping something quiet. Conspiracies are impossible, in the real world.

Bullshit. Why does the criminal code have laws against conspiracies if they weren't real?

Not all conspiracies can be kept as perfect secrets but that doesn't mean they will fail, just that people may not care or take you seriously. In the case of the Kennedy Assassination, there were many people that talked or who knew special information. Guess what? A lot of them died, some if not many under suspicious circumstances. Some people were discredited or others tried to discredit them. Also, and more importantly, if you really know something about a murder conspiracy, it might mean you're an accessory. There is no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. Would you brag or talk if you could be prosecuted years later? You know who bragged about the Kennedy Assassination? This guy did => Dave Sanchez Morales But he didn't live to a ripe old age. Anyways, people do talk but it doesn't hit the head lines. The MSM treat the JFK assassination like the plague.

 

[Conway_Stewart]

Yes, I think they are, as a short answer.

The term was institutionalized by the CIA in their declassified memo calling on CIA assets to discredit opponents to the Warren Commission.

However, instead of your Wikipedia definition (which can be edited by the CIA or anyone else for that matter), I like this one better:



http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm

I don't believe in all conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 (although I believe that 9/11 was used as a pretext for a bullshit war), but I do believe that the JFK Assassination is the result of a conspiracy.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded:



https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/summary.html

There are many serious researchers, investigators, scientists, etc. that have examined and studied the facts surrounding the assassination, especially with the release of thousands if not millions of pages of declassified files after the passage of the JFK Records Act, following the controversy after Oliver Stone's movie JFK. The remaining files ares supposed to be released in October 2017 (yes, this year) unless President Trump has a very good reason not to, as prescribed by the legislation.

Now if anyone believes that Lee Harvey Oswald, a "lone nut", killed President Kennedy, then why the fuck did they classify so many intelligence files?!? The last files to be released, include some of the CIA's most important spooks, who are all dead now. Will we ever find out the whole truth? Probably not, but the plethora of circumstantial evidence that has surfaced or been uncovered since the days of the Warren Commission most certainly would've resulted in an acquittal of Lee Harvey Oswald if he had been brought to trial today (back then, a lot of info was buried - even by J. Edgar Hoover).

There's ample evidence to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald was a low-level intelligence operative and FBI informant. As an example, a call placed by him from the Dallas jail to a John Hurt of Raleigh, N.C. is just one of many, many items of circumstantial evidence that calls into question the findings of the Warren Commission. There was a John Hurt who was a retired Army Intelligence Officer. According to Victor Marchetti, former CIA agent and author of the book, The CIA & The Cult of Intelligence, the CIA had a fake defector program in N.C. and that this John Hurt was likely a "cut-out", someone who acted as an intermediary between Oswald and his true CIA handler, as a means of preserving plausible deniability. (Oswald was seeking help, and when he didn't get it, that meant he was on his own, and probably a dead man after that).

Does anyone in their right mind truly believe that Jack Ruby murdered Oswald and expose himself to the death penalty in order to prevent Mrs. Kennedy the agony of going through a trial? The White-Wash Commission, er I mean, the Warren Commission, said that Ruby had no connections to the Mob, but the HSCA said otherwise - that Jack Ruby had SIGNIFICANT underworld connections. A report by an undercover FBI Agent, now declassified, has Carlos Marcello admitting to having JFK murdered. It's been postulated, based on available evidence, that the Mob with anti-Castro exiles and rogue CIA agents may have killed JFK but that the government covered this up.

Sorry for my rant, but my point is, that not all conspiracy theories are bullshit, but alternative explanations to major events, and that those who propose them, are not all lunatics.

GP: I can't respond to everything in your post but let me just say a couple of things. I think it's great that you try to support what you're saying with facts and include references to back them up. That being said, have you taken the time to look at the web site you referenced?

http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm

The article that contains the conspiracy theory definition that you quoted is on a page with a link to a bunch of strange books with titles like: "The High Strangeness: The Truth about Hyperdimensional Beings and Alien Abductions"

As for the rest of the site, it's kinda muddled and hard to follow. It contains stories and articles about "conspiracy theory" topics on everything from the Kennedy assassination to flu vaccines to weird stuff about planets?

Then I clicked on a link called Cassiopaea which brought me to this:

The Cassiopaean Experiment
Welcome to the Cassiopaean Website, the repository for the work of scientific mystic, Laura Knight-Jadczyk. Laura is married to theoretical/mathematical physicist Arkadiusz Jadczyk who introduces his wife’s work in the following extract:
The name “Cassiopaea” was given by a consciously “channeled source” which Laura accessed in 1994 after two years of experimental work. The source identified itself by saying “we are you in the future.” Modern physics does not provide us with practical means for this type of communication, and theories on this subject are not well developed; they are, in fact, inconclusive and controversial.

GP: I'm not saying all conspiracy theorists are lunatics...but these ones certainly are. The people who run this site are obviously out of their fucking minds...and if you associate yourself with them by referencing their links and articles then it kinda makes you look that way too.

If you want to cite facts and data to make an argument then you have to use credible sources. If you associate yourself with people like this then it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Sorry man but I'm just being honest.

 

[GPIDEAL]

GP: I can't respond to everything in your post but let me just say a couple of things. I think it's great that you try to support what you're saying with facts and include references to back them up. That being said, have you taken the time to look at the web site you referenced?

http://www.sott.net/signs/conspiracy_theorists.htm

The article that contains the conspiracy theory definition that you quoted is on a page with a link to a bunch of strange books with titles like: "The High Strangeness: The Truth about Hyperdimensional Beings and Alien Abductions"

As for the rest of the site, it's kinda muddled and hard to follow. It contains stories and articles about "conspiracy theory" topics on everything from the Kennedy assassination to flu vaccines to weird stuff about planets?

Then I clicked on a link called Cassiopaea which brought me to this:



GP: I'm not saying all conspiracy theorists are lunatics...but these ones certainly are. The people who run this site are obviously out of their fucking minds...and if you associate yourself with them by referencing their links and articles then it kinda makes you look that way too.

If you want to cite facts and data to make an argument then you have to use credible sources. If you associate yourself with people like this then it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Sorry man but I'm just being honest.

I'm only referring to the specific essay or article in question (it has a great definition or explanation for conspiracy theories).

Did you read this that followed the particular article, at the bottom?

The article above is being hosted by Signs of the Times and is presented "as is" and with the permission of the author, be it explicit or generally granted. In hosting this article, Signs of the Times aligns itself with the specific content of the article only and NOT with any other writings or associations of the author in question.

Meaning, the Sign of the Times liked the particular article because it bolsters their site, but it doesn't necessarily align with the author in anything else.

Frankly, I never checked around that site to tell you the truth. As I said, I don't believe in all conspiracy theories, and have even been accused of being a CIA troll on discussion boards about both JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories when I injected some critical thinking.

However, you have done exactly what that article covered - labeling a conspiracy theory as kooky or discrediting anyone who proposes a conspiracy theory by relying on a generalization or unrelated association, without delving into the particular case and studying the facts (which takes a lot of thinking).

I think what JFK said is apropos here:

“For the greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie
– deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent,
persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the
clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated
set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without
the discomfort of thought."

Addendum: Ha ha, the quote above can also apply to the unwarranted belief in conspiracy theories.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Subversive and heretical sure. Conspiracy theorist, not even close.

Maybe we have different definitions but in my view the main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is reliance on faith despite evidence otherwise.

Nope. Some conspiracy theories are based on circumstantial evidence and the faulty evidence of the prevailing theory or explanation of an event (perfect example is the Kennedy Assassination, eg. Lone Nute/Single Bullet Theory vs. 2nd/Multiple Shooters).

 

[Conway_Stewart]

I'm only referring to the specific essay or article in question (it has a great definition or explanation for conspiracy theories).

Did you read this that followed the particular article, at the bottom?

The article above is being hosted by Signs of the Times and is presented "as is" and with the permission of the author, be it explicit or generally granted. In hosting this article, Signs of the Times aligns itself with the specific content of the article only and NOT with any other writings or associations of the author in question.

Meaning, the Sign of the Times liked the particular article because it bolsters their site, but it doesn't necessarily align with the author in anything else.

Frankly, I never checked around that site to tell you the truth. As I said, I don't believe in all conspiracy theories, and have even been accused of being a CIA troll on discussion boards about both JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories when I injected some critical thinking.

However, you have done exactly what that article covered - labeling a conspiracy theory as kooky or discrediting anyone who proposes a conspiracy theory by relying on a generalization or unrelated association, without delving into the particular case and studying the facts (which takes a lot of thinking).

I think what JFK said is apropos here:

“For the greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie
– deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent,
persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the
clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated
set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without
the discomfort of thought."

I stand corrected. The article was not written by the authors on the Sign of the Times site. The article was originally published on Facebook for a group calling itself The American Resistance Movement. The author goes by the handle:
Jolly Roger
slicingthroats@yahoo.com

You're actually kinda making my point. This is a perfect example of one kooky, fringe guy connecting with another kooky, fringe guy and the two bounce off one another in the internet echoe chamber.

Now...am I committing the crime you accuse me of here?

However, you have done exactly what that article covered - labeling a conspiracy theory as kooky or discrediting anyone who proposes a conspiracy theory by relying on a generalization or unrelated association, without delving into the particular case and studying the facts (which takes a lot of thinking).

Yup! Guilty as charged! And I am completely unrepentant!

Jolly Roger sounds to me like he's kinda sensitive about being called a kook. Wanna know why? It's because he gets called that a lot in his life.

I know guys like Jolly Roger. I've worked with guys like Jolly Roger. They're these wild eyed crazy fucks that you wouldn't wanna sit next to on the subway cuz if you do they'll talk your ear off relentlessly with their conspiracy theories and crazy because bs about the Kennedy Assassination, pharmaceutical companies, etc. They're like religious zealots who won't stop prostheletizing about their faith until they've converted you.

So no...I have zero time for those guys. Be careful not to associate yourself with them or you lose automatically lose credibility.

 

[GPIDEAL]

I stand corrected. The article was not written by the authors on the Sign of the Times site. The article was originally published on Facebook for a group calling itself The American Resistance Movement. The author goes by the handle:
Jolly Roger
slicingthroats@yahoo.com

You're actually kinda making my point. This is a perfect example of one kooky, fringe guy connecting with another kooky, fringe guy and the two bounce off one another in the internet echoe chamber.

Now...am I committing the crime you accuse me of here?


Yup! Guilty as charged! And I am completely unrepentant!

Jolly Roger sounds to me like he's kinda sensitive about being called a kook. Wanna know why? It's because he gets called that a lot in his life.

I know guys like Jolly Roger. I've worked with guys like Jolly Roger. They're these wild eyed crazy fucks that you wouldn't wanna sit next to on the subway cuz if you do they'll talk your ear off relentlessly with their conspiracy theories and crazy because bs about the Kennedy Assassination, pharmaceutical companies, etc. They're like religious zealots who won't stop prostheletizing about their faith until they've converted you.

So no...I have zero time for those guys. Be careful not to associate yourself with them or you lose automatically lose credibility.

The article stands on its own and makes a valid point about how a conspiracy theory may arise (when an explanation for an event is called into question by the facts).

You just said BS about the Kennedy Assassination now, even after I quoted you the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations from the U.S. National Archives, stating it was the result of a conspiracy.

So what BS are you referring to? Have you studied this case or do you just believe in the Warren Commission Report with religious fervor? If so, you are in the minority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-plot-killed-kennedy/?utm_term=.2a58e085958a

http://ap-gfkpoll.com/featured/our-latest-story-3

The point that I'm making is that you can't generalize. Not all conspiracy theories or theorists are the same. Do your homework too.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Bullshit. Why does the criminal code have laws against conspiracies if they weren't real?

There are no criminal code laws against conspiracy. There are laws against some activities that circumvent some regulated codes of behaviour. What you define as conspiracy, most people define as planning. Group planning is not illegal. Corporate insiders agreeing to withhold announcement of a business action until they've sold their shares is illegal. It's not the conspiring that is illegal, it's the act of withholding information on the planned business action.

Yes people can conspire, but it's impossible to pull it off, today, as I said. Not in 1962.

I suppose you should be happy you've never had to do anything complicated in your life.

 

[frankcastle]

Conspiracy theories have always been around but it seems to me that they are more commonly believed and accepted now than they used to be. Maybe in part in the wake of 911...Maybe with the advent of the internet and social media...I dunno...But it just seems to me that people on both sides of the political aisle have become far more inclined to believe some pretty crazy shit that in decades gone by would have been summarily dismissed.

Wondering what others think.

Tough to say there's always been urban legends which are kind of like conspiracy theories. Before the internet it was tough to verify.

Now with the internet it is also easy to make something look legitimate (e.g. the moon landing was a hoax movie looks pretty credible.... even though I don't believe it was a hoax)

 

[Conway_Stewart]

Tough to say there's always been urban legends which are kind of like conspiracy theories. Before the internet it was tough to verify.

Now with the internet it is also easy to make something look legitimate (e.g. the moon landing was a hoax movie looks pretty credible.... even though I don't believe it was a hoax)

Yeah...I think urban legends are kinda similar to conspiracy theories...they're these crazy, far out stories that somehow capture a feeling or fear that resonates with people.

 

[basketcase]

Nope. Some conspiracy theories are based on circumstantial evidence and the faulty evidence of the prevailing theory or explanation of an event (perfect example is the Kennedy Assassination, eg. Lone Nute/Single Bullet Theory vs. 2nd/Multiple Shooters).

And you reinforce my point.

A Conspiracy theory is a pre-existing belief, not a conclusion based on evidence. They do not examine the evidence and see where it leads them but rather sort through the evidence, rejecting everything that does not fit their faith. They don't look at evidence to support their faith but simply try to find ways to discredit the rational result of the evidence.

From a scientific view, they try to pretend that any missing information is somehow proof of their unsupported claims; for example saying that if they don't know how the pyramids were built then it must have been aliens (even if other people know how).

 

[basketcase]

Yeah...I think urban legends are kinda similar to conspiracy theories...they're these crazy, far out stories that somehow capture a feeling or fear that resonates with people.

But it happened to a friend of a guy I know.

 

[Conway_Stewart]

But it happened to a friend of a guy I know.

Hahahahahahahahahaha