Anti-Conspiracy Bashing

One thing I've noticed a lot recently on these boards is many members talking down on those who actually believe the official stories given out. Maybe this is old news, but for me it seems to be increasingly common.

There's a post in one of the London Bombing threads that "inspired" this rant, although it in no way is the only one that I've seen of this nature. To keep from sounding like I'm bashing a particular member, I'll merely paraphrase by saying it claims most moderators here will stick to the official story in spite of anything possibly inconsistent, while not believing what others say due to lack of proof.

I've noticed a lot of members--moderators included--who will go firmly against any theory because there's nothing to back it up. What exactly is wrong with that? Just because someone's guess--no matter how logical--as to how something happened fills the holes, there's no reason to give it any more credence than the official story. And given some of the stretches that some members make to get all of the blanks filled, it's no wonder there's a lack of belief.

Has anyone ever considered the fact that maybe the official story is true, or as close to the truth as those investigating it can get? I understand this is a conspiracy-based community, but come on; not everything has to have a conspiracy behind it. Just because you see hoofprints in the desert doesn't mean there's zebra walking around--it's most likely just a regular horse.

We may very well be under the control of a reptilian puppet-master society. Bush may have pulled the strings for 9/11, maybe even has something to do with 7/7 and today. There may be stuff going on behind the scenes that no one here has ever even dreamed of and we've all got the wrong idea. But I personally have yet to see anything other than speculation and circumstantial evidence for any of the theories around here.

That's fine. I have no problems what so ever with speculation, theories, whatever. But that's all that it is, and no offense to anyone on here but I have yet to be given any reason why any member's speculation is more based in truth than what the powers that be hand us. You think Blair is behind the London bombings? Fine. State your case, maybe you're right, and maybe you've got a great argument for it. But unless you have a new-and-improved Downing St. Memo to back it up and can post a scan of it, don't give anyone any flak for not believing your story over CNN.

Am I a "sheeple" because I don't think your story is more reliable than the government's? Think what you want; I don't think so. If you can back yours up better than they can, you got my vote. Just because you sit there and say "A=B and B=C so it stands that A is a criminal mastermind because C wants oil" does not in any way prove that something is going on behind the scenes.

Originally posted by MCory1
Has anyone ever considered the fact that maybe the official story is true, or as close to the truth as those investigating it can get?

1. How can you discern what is the "official" story? Is it the soundbites released through complicit media as events unfold, that are varied from day to day to muddy the waters? Or is it the result of an Official Enquiry 10-15 years after the events? "Official" doesn't really stand up unless you are happy to assemble a series of often contradictory facts.

2. Citing the "official story" about why the Bush administration-infected US led a "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq, are you happy that it was to protect the national security of the United States from the imminent threat of immediately deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction?

In certain cases, "official" will in probability on too many things be a package of ostensible lies.



[edit on 21-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

What you speak of is nothing more than a justifiable reaction to the massive influx of members who aim to ridicule and discredit the conspiracy theorists among us. Even those who merely entertain ideas like those you mention are trampled down by closed minded skeptics.

This has been going on in the real world for years, and has now encroached on a website originally intended as a safe haven where conspiracy theories could be taken seriously by those who took an interest in them. AboveTopSecret.com was, and is, a conspiracy site. And the conspiracy theorists have every right to "talk down" to those who invade their territory with malicious intent.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
1. How can you discern what is the "official" story? Is it the soundbites released through complicit media as events unfold, that are varied from day to day to muddy the waters? Or is it the result of an Official Enquiry 10-15 years after the events? "Official" doesn't really stand up unless you are happy to assemble a series of often contradictory facts.

You're right, often the "official" story doesn't hold up against everything. And I'm not saying that it's always the truth, or even close to the truth. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those who give the story are hiding the truth per se. Just because someone has a badge doesn't mean they can't make mistakes; how many people have been wrongfully commited because the evidence at that time honestly pointed at them? An innocent conviction doesn't mean the DA had it out for that guy. He very well might have, but it's circumstantial.

2. Citing the "official story" about why the Bush administration-infected US led a "coalition of the willing" to invade Iraq, are you happy that it was to protect the national security of the United States from the imminent threat of immediately deployable Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Again, I'm not saying that the official is always the truth, and I'm not saying that it's even the best explanation. I'm also not saying that people who go against the official explanation are in the wrong. In the example you mention, the official explanation is crap in my opinion, always has been.

What I'm talking about is, using that same example of the Iraqi war, someone tells me that the Iraqi war is a conspiracy for the propagation of the reptilian NWO--more oil for them to control means more power they have over the rest of society. I say in return "You don't have any proof." They return with something that boils down to "You're an idiot because you won't believe me." Is it wrong to want proof for something?

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
What you speak of is nothing more than a justifiable reaction to the massive influx of members who aim to ridicule and discredit the conspiracy theorists among us. Even those who merely entertain ideas like those you mention are trampled down by closed minded skeptics.

Those skeptics--and I include myself as one to a degree as well--would most likely change their point of view with proof, something concrete to back an idea up with. I'm not talking about defending yourself against someone who is berating you personally for your ideas, I'm talking about belittling those who are asking for proof.

This has been going on in the real world for years, and has now encroached on a website originally intended as a safe haven where conspiracy theories could be taken seriously by those who took an interest in them. AboveTopSecret.com was, and is, a conspiracy site. And the conspiracy theorists have every right to "talk down" to those who invade their territory with malicious intent.

If I'm not mistaken, the ATS motto is deny ignorance. Yes, it is based in conspiracy theories, and my understanding is that the goal is to remove--or at least reduce--the ignorance of the people towards the actions of those people with more power than the average person. If I require proof for you to convince me that I have been ignorant of certain things going on, shouldn't you want to give that proof? Shouldn't you want to try and convert me, instead of crying foul? Wouldn't it make your theory stronger if you found something that backed it up?

There's lots of concepts that can't be physically proven, they need some sort of admission from a higher up or something. But all of the logical (or semi-logical) conclusions drawn still don't add up to much more than a good story without something to base it on. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, but just because you came up with it doesn't mean you're right.

"Deny Ignorance"? Don't get me started on that. I have a few issues with the deny ignorance campaign and the "Skeptic" behind it, which I would rather not get into here...

That motto - which by the way, was only introduced fairly recently in the history of this website - has made it virtually unacceptable to present an idea on ATS without absolute proof, even though by their very nature conspiracy theories cannot by proved as long as they remain theories.

People should be able to express there ideas and opinions without being subject to abuse and ridicule. You don't need absolute proof to entertain an idea. "Deny Ignorace" stifles creative thought. And the motto sounds stupid.

People should be able to express there ideas and opinions without being subject to abuse and ridicule. You don't need absolute proof to entertain an idea.

You're absolutely right, but a lot of people don't just come off as though they're entertaining an idea. They present their theory as unabashed fact, and condemn anyone who thinks differently.

I've learned a lot from my relatively short time on this site, and I thank whatever Gods there may be that I stumbled across it. Even those ideas that seem really out there I try and determine the plausibility of it. If someone posted on here that the sky is really red, but we've been brainwashed to think that it's blue, I'd consider it. If they have proof, then I'll believe it, if they don't then I'm going to keep it just at the theory level. Simple as that. I don't think it's right that I should be thought less of just because I don't believe their story.

I'm all for creative thought. Some of the best things we have in life now are because someone had the guts to think out of the box. Newton and Einstein are the first names that come to mind; they both had extremely "out-there" theories. But they were able to back them up, they were able to demonstrate how those theories explained what they were supposed to explain, and that the theories were the best--if not the only--possible explanations.

Even in science, there's lots of theories/hypotheses that do a great job of explaining things, but can't be proven or aren't necessarily the only possible explanation. That doesn't make them straight up false, and it doesn't make those that came up with them liars or less of a scientist than the next guy. But it shouldn't be wrong for their peers to ask for more evidence before they put all their stock into that theory.

Maybe I came to this site with the wrong mindset. I came here looking for truth, I came here looking to see what might really be going on behind the scenes. I came here under the impression that most--if not all--of the other members were doing the same thing. While speculation and creative ideas are great, that's still all they are; they aren't the truth, and they shouldn't be treated as such. I know it's hard to accept criticism of an idea--I'm a musician, I know that all too well. But criticism is the only way to improve an idea.

When someone pokes a hole in your idea, if you're really wanting to find the truth then you'll fill in the hole as best as you can. If it takes too much to fill in the hole, then you scrap the design and start over from scratch. You learn from what you did wrong, and your next design is better. It gets holes, and you repeat the process until you have something that cannot be broken, or at least will still float if it does take a couple of hits.

That's what I was taught anyways, and that's been my goal since coming here: to help others improve their ideas when possible and to find others to help me improve whatever ideas I may come up with. Like I said, maybe that's not how I should've approached this site.