Scientific Study Reveals Conspiracy Theorists The Most Sane Of All!

a reply to: Astyanax

I think it's your turn to prove how "Conspiracy theorists"
propagate lies? I've already shown you how the 93 wtc bombing
was a conspiracy dead to rights by one of your own heros Dan
Rather. And the government ratted it self off by admitting
conspiracy in the JFK issue. My job is done doesn't matter what
you do. And the committee findings stand tall and reach long.
No conspiracies Phff, you're a funny man besides being WRONG!
I say again the rose colored glasses. The world you believe in
isn't real.

a reply to: Astyanax

Iran-Contra was another conspiracy uncovered, not a conspiracy theory that was proven true.

Never mind the fact that you are taking up position
and riding the leg of enough money and power to keep
the truth hidden.

Ride that leg.

And a theory of conspiracy never begins without questions.
It's only when the questions aren't answered adequately or
at all, that people begin to fill in the blanks. From there it's
evidenced most of the time by the ensuing cover up as an
obvious response to those questions. It's really comical.
Not at all unlike the stupidity involved in the current ebola
game. But you won't see anything funny go'in on until you
have it I guess.

God forbid!

Maybe not even then.

a reply to: OneManArmy

(Conspiracy theorists) provide theories. And by definition NOT proven.

Theories are answers. And proven or not, conspiracy theorists cling to their theories like barnacles to the hull of a sunken ship. There is no substance to either their beliefs or their arguments.

No, (the vaccine) wasnt safe, they knew it wasnt safe, and still introduced it. Because it was cheaper.

First, the paper you linked me to was about a different vaccine, not the Urabe strain which caused the controversy.

Second, even the risk of meningitis associated with the Urabe strain was lower by far than the risk of getting it by actually catching mumps.

Third, the NHS continued to use Urabe because there was no evidence that any other strain was safer. As soon as an even safer strain of vaccine was identified, the NHS adopted it for use in place of Urabe. The paper you linked me to is actually about this replacement strain.

The claim that 'the vaccine wasn't safe and they knew it' is hogwash. The claim that 'they' stuck to it because it was cheap is double hogwash; they stuck to it because at the time there was no evidence that other strains were any safer. And please don't forget that the conspiracy theorists were (and are) claiming that MMR causes autism, not meningitis. That makes the MMR conspiracy theory triple hogwash as far as I'm concerned.

If you want to read the facts about the issue, as opposed to the wild allegations, see here.

The rest of your post is the usual parade of conspiracy-theorist allegations, which I shall not trouble to address. You have not been able to provide conclusive evidence that even one popular conspiracy theory has been proven correct. KrazySh0t, who doesn't even believe in conspiracy theories, did better than you; he was able to identify the Edward Snowden leaks as bearing out generalized, free-foating paranoia about US government surveillance of its citizens. But free-floating paranoia is not a conspiracy theory, and as far as I know, not a single pre-existing conspiracy theory has been borne out by the Snowden revelations.

There: I'm offering a hostage to fortune. All you have to do now, to prove me wrong, is find even one widely prevalent conspiracy theory for which the Snowden papers offer conclusive evidence. 'The government spies on people' doesn't count, by the way. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact long known.

a reply to: randyvs

I think it's your turn to prove how "Conspiracy theorists" propagate lies?

It is proved every day on Above Top Secret. Every conspiracy theory discussed on this site is either unprovable — and therefore negligible — or has been proved false not once but many times over.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is the real benefit to humanity from ATS: it's a popular forum where conspiracy theories are debunked, to the benefit of the general public. Never saw it that way before, did you?

The fact that ATS conspiracy theorists go on clinging to their debunked theories doesn't make any difference at all. The uncommitted see our responses to your theories, and they get the message.

I've already shown you how the 93 wtc bombing was a conspiracy dead to rights by one of your own heros Dan Rather.

You showed nothing of the kind. There were no conspiracy theories associated with WTC93 apart from the one floated by officials looking for excuses to attack Iraq. And that conspiracy theory was as false as any other.

And the government ratted it self off by admitting conspiracy in the JFK issue.

A Congressional committee is not the government — far from it. And a Congressional committee whose findings have been disproved has no standing in argument whatsoever.

The world you believe in isn't real.

You haven't the faintest idea what world I believe in. You seem to think I worship some American chat-show host — is that what Dan Rather is? I don't live in the USA and I don't watch television.

I will refrain from responding to your bumptious and obscene second post, except to say that I'm very pleased to have got up your nose to the extent that you were provoked into posting it.

*

For people still interested in the actual topic of this thread, here's an interesting, non-demanding article on the subject of why conspiracy theories are believed in by otherwise sane people.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: randyvs

I think it's your turn to prove how "Conspiracy theorists" propagate lies?

It is proved every day on Above Top Secret. Every conspiracy theory discussed on this site is either unprovable — and therefore negligible — or has been proved false not once but many times over.

That, as far as I'm concerned, is the real benefit to humanity from ATS: it's a popular forum where conspiracy theories are debunked, to the benefit of the general public. Never saw it that way before, did you?

The fact that ATS conspiracy theorists go on clinging to their debunked theories doesn't make any difference at all. The uncommitted see our responses to your theories, and they get the message.

I've already shown you how the 93 wtc bombing was a conspiracy dead to rights by one of your own heros Dan Rather.

You showed nothing of the kind. There were no conspiracy theories associated with WTC93 apart from the one floated by officials looking for excuses to attack Iraq. And that conspiracy theory was as false as any other.

And the government ratted it self off by admitting conspiracy in the JFK issue.

A Congressional committee is not the government — far from it. And a Congressional committee whose findings have been disproved has no standing in argument whatsoever.

The world you believe in isn't real.

You haven't the faintest idea what world I believe in. You seem to think I worship some American chat-show host — is that what Dan Rather is? I don't live in the USA and I don't watch television.

I will refrain from responding to your bumptious and obscene second post, except to say that I'm very pleased to have got up your nose to the extent that you were provoked into posting it.

*

For people still interested in the actual topic of this thread, here's an interesting, non-demanding article on the subject of why conspiracy theories are believed in by otherwise sane people.

How can your prove a conspiracy theory when the govt utilizes all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth?

OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

How can your prove a conspiracy theory when the govt utilizes all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth?

This is known as assuming what you are trying to prove. The belief that governments 'utilize all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth' is a conspiracy theory. The facts are far otherwise, and besides, governments — even the world's most oppressive tyrannies — have very little power in this regard.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OrionsGem

How can your prove a conspiracy theory when the govt utilizes all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth?

This is known as assuming what you are trying to prove. The belief that governments 'utilize all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth' is a conspiracy theory. The facts are far otherwise, and besides, governments — even the world's most oppressive tyrannies — have very little power in this regard.

Mind firmly closed....correct.

Like I said if the truth sat on your face, you would still find some pathetic excuse or technicality to wriggle away from the obvious fact. Or just simply deny the evidence. Well done, pat yourself on the back, you are wrong. Spectacularly.

How many times do I have to point out that there have been conspiracy theories about an elite paedophile ring in Westminster for decades, and the evidence coming out right now is PROVING IT TO BE TRUE!!!!

Bloody hell, talk about avoid the facts. Or avoid painful truths by arguing about something totally irrelevant to the point being shown.
Ignorance is bliss, I bet you are very happy.

As for a world dominating cabal, David Rockefeller even admits it....

David Rockefeller's book 'Memoirs' admits secretly conspiring for a NWO
In David Rockefeller's book 'Memoirs' he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a new world order.Here is the direct quote from his book, pg 405:
| Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it |
| David Rockefeller |
| We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government.The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries |
| David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991 |

But hey, lets not let details get in the way of preconceptions eh?

a reply to: Astyanax

Thread vindicated in the most unprovoked and obvious way.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OrionsGem

How can your prove a conspiracy theory when the govt utilizes all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth?

This is known as assuming what you are trying to prove. The belief that governments 'utilize all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth' is a conspiracy theory. The facts are far otherwise, and besides, governments — even the world's most oppressive tyrannies — have very little power in this regard.

Mind firmly closed....correct.

Like I said if the truth sat on your face, you would still find some pathetic excuse or technicality to wriggle away from the obvious fact. Or just simply deny the evidence. Well done, pat yourself on the back, you are wrong. Spectacularly.

How many times do I have to point out that there have been conspiracy theories about an elite paedophile ring in Westminster for decades, and the evidence coming out right now is PROVING IT TO BE TRUE!!!!

Bloody hell, talk about avoid the facts. Or avoid painful truths by arguing about something totally irrelevant to the point being shown.
Ignorance is bliss, I bet you are very happy.

As for a world dominating cabal, David Rockefeller even admits it....

David Rockefeller's book 'Memoirs' admits secretly conspiring for a NWO
In David Rockefeller's book 'Memoirs' he admits he is part of a secret cabal working to destroy the United States and create a new world order.Here is the direct quote from his book, pg 405:
| Some even believe we [Rockefeller family] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - One World, if you will.If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it |
| David Rockefeller |
| We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government.The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries |
| David Rockefeller to Trilateral Commission in 1991 |

But hey, lets not let details get in the way of preconceptions eh?

Awesome, awesome, awesome post. Mind firmly closed hits it on the nail. Even when proof of a conspiracy is provided...the mind stays firmly closed. Sometimes you can lead a horse to water...but you cant make it believe in anything, even with proof clearly being presented.

OG

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No need to be obtuse, you know what I mean, no magnets in these cases.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No need to be obtuse, you know what I mean, no magnets in these cases.

Im sorry but I must post this every time I hear the word obtuse:

Speaking of propagating lies, how about WMD's? "Sexed up dossiers"? Blatant propaganda involving the "yellow cake" to make nukes, or dirty bombs?

Millions of people could see through the lies that led us into Gulf War 2. They were called conspiracy theorists.
Oh look, they were right.

What of the lies propagated that led us into Gulf War 1?
"Babies thrown out of their incubators and left on the cold floor"? Really? No, not really, it was more lies.

Then we have the faked videos of Osama Bin Laden, they werent created by conspiracy theorists.
But those that called them out were called conspiracy theorists.

Its seems that anyone that can see through the extremely blatant propaganda, because they have the intelligence to be able to put pieces of information together, then they are automatically derided as a "conspiracy theorist".

Knowing something to be a lie, and imagining wild fantasies are 2 different things.
Being able to see a contradiction that doesnt makes sense, isnt a mental illness.
Having observed in my lifetime the total bullsh*t propagated by politicians and the press, I would be mentally ill if I trusted them.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Again you've hit the nail on the head, starred.
OG

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Astyanax

Thread vindicated in the most unprovoked and obvious way.

thread vindicated yet again via another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

if this does not show the clear bias of certain debunkers i don't know what will.

OG

a reply to: OneManArmy

How many times do I have to point out that there have been conspiracy theories about an elite paedophile ring in Westminster for decades?

Rumours are not conspiracy theories. We've already discussed this at length. One last time: kiddly-fiddling politicos are not the stuff of conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories are about children being used in various sex-saturated ceremonies performed by members of a secret cabal of powerful (often all-powerful) initiates.

It is well known that the British political establishment, particularly the Tory portion of it, has a weakness for recondite sexual practices. Google 'Christine Keeler' (if you need to) for lots of juicy stuff (though no paedophilia). And rent-boys talk. So there was no need to speak of conspiracy theories; there were leaks and rumours, not conspiracy theories.

David Rockefeller's speech, which may or may not have been the origin of the term 'new world order', is often cited by excitable conspiracy theorists. However, the 'quote' you offer is inauthentic, not something Rockefeller actually said. It's a fake. Rockefeller, did, however, say this:

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

If you think that's a conspiracy, then count me in as a conspirator. I'm all in favour of a world in which everybody has the same rights, and in proportion, the same responsibilities. If a world government is what it takes to bring that about, it has my support for one. But the real trouble with a single world government is that it would probably find it impossible to govern.

*

reply to: randyvs
Because I said governments don't 'utilize all their power to degrade and obfuscate the truth'? Well, they don't, unless you're talking about Nazi Germany or some place like that.

a reply to: Astyanax

We could really use your presence in the other thread you started, I think its related since you linked this thread to that one in your op, and you have shown on that thread the clear absurdity of your biased beliefs that appear to be very closed minded indeed.

Since you are making the same argument over and over here, perhaps returning to your own thread and joining that discussion will help you understand what many members are trying to convey to you on this thread as well.

OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

If I am making the same arguments over and over again, it must be because you're not listening, or not getting it.

Don't you worry about the other thread. I will take care of it in my own good time.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OrionsGem

If I am making the same arguments over and over again, it must be because you're not listening, or not getting it.

Don't you worry about the other thread. I will take care of it in my own good time.

Until you accept their beliefs, they'll never listen to your logic. There is a conspiracy on these forums, a conspiracy to avoid the honest truth.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: OrionsGem

If I am making the same arguments over and over again, it must be because you're not listening, or not getting it.

Don't you worry about the other thread. I will take care of it in my own good time.

i think it's clear you don't get anything that anyone here tries to tell you. .. just like you refused to listen to any evidence, except that which fit your completely flawed OP on the other thread. ..and well it looks like someone wasn't having it and decided to care of that thread for you. and spared the rest of us critical thinkers from your absurd posts in the process. Thank god for that.

You are doing the same here, its as if im talking to the wall when I try to present you refuting evidence, that disproves your claims. Either you are truly blind or you are purposefully skipping over any evidence that you find inconvenient....

Which leads me to the question: are you trolling this thread as well?

OG

a reply to: OrionsGem

I don't care to speculate on the site owner's motives for closing that thread. In it, as in every thread I have participated in on Above Top Secret, I have been entirely happy to consider credible documentary evidence when it is adduced to support a claim. I refuse to watch videos, however; it takes too long, and videos — unless they consist of unedited historical footage — can never be anything but secondary sources anyway.

If I had been trolling either this thread or that one, my posts would be worded differently — more aggressively, more provocatively and perhaps less courteously. I categorically reject the accusation.

Now, where's this 'refuting evidence' you claim to have posted? The only links in any of your posts are to the OP article (considered and debunked) and the study referenced in it (considered and shown to disprove your case).