It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voodoo Histories - Debunking Conspiracy Theories

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   
ATS'ers, check this out...

news.bbc.co.uk...


David Aaronovitch talks about his book, which debunks conspiracy theories - "Voodoo Histories: The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History". It includes theories about 9/11, Princess Diana, and the moon landing.


Does anybody know the history of this guy? Certainly, he'd have a fight on his hands with some of the threads on here!



[edit on 8-5-2009 by SugarCube]




posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Talk about conspiracy, if anyone doubts if conspiracies exist, have a look at this video of a Fisher Price doll---mfg'd by the biggest toy maker in America---that says "Islam is the light"? www.youtube.com...

Not everything is a conspiracy of course, and in fact only a year ago I didn't believe in such things as hidden agendas, I thought what you see is what you get, but I've had my eyes opened.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Any one here read an old book called gumbo-yaya? its a book about voodoo in the south..



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube

Does anybody know the history of this guy? Certainly, he'd have a fight on his hands with some of the threads on here!



sounds to me like he could have just trawled ATS and used the counter arguments that have been used on here.

the issue i have with these guys making fortunes off books like this is that, generally, they never take into account that these days, other conspiracy theorists will find the flaws before they can in a much more robust and detailed way.

i'ld bet a pound to a penny i could sell a hoax on a non-conspiracy site or to the general public far more easily than i could on a site like this.

if there are flaws in a theory you'll find out what they are ten times quicker talking to a conspiracy theorist than you will from this guys book.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The bbc know all about mind control, being part of the mi5 and mi6 stuff. They put out this stuff for obvious reasons.

They are such con merchants



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


Whooah! That is just plain freaky! It isn't the issue of the doll saying "Islam is the light" that bothers me - dolls have been used for centuries to further social stereotypes - but that the doll isn't marked as "pro Islamic". I'm happy to be objective and accept that Muslims would be offended if they purchased a doll that said "Accept Christ as your Saviour".

This is just plain wrong, better to stay away from religion altogether in the manufacture of dolls.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


meh


A talking Jesus doll is due to go on sale in May, along with versions of Moses, the Virgin Mary and David, as a teddy bear maker tries to find a market with churches and religious families.


jesus doll



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I am happy to be objective and see both sides of the fence but all too often we see publications that, as has been pointed out, consist of material trawled from the research of others and simply slam-jammed into a book. The topics are often banal and as a debunking tool only regurgitate the facts that are known over both sides of the fence anyway. This is not to say that this book falls into this category. I haven't read it so I cannot comment - it is the subject view that I find interesting - debunking!

Conspiracy theories, by nature, tend to predominate within the "minority" of the population. Marketing rules tend to favour sales that are aimed at the "majority" of the population and so we almost always see mainstream publicity for articles and publications that "debunk" conspiracy theories rather than "support" them.

The problem is also concerned with the objects of derision. Inevitably, the theories chosen are often at the tip of the conspiracy iceberg, those events that touched everybody's life in some way and to which there is a clear demarcation of favour between the "crackpot" minority and the "grounded" majority, such as the "moon landings", "the death of Princess Diana", "the events of 911".

Of course, this belies the divisions that exists even within the conspiracy community itself. Here on ATS, we see evidence of people on the one hand believing in fairies at the end of the garden and yet vehemently denying that the moon landings could have taken place. Such topics are subject to the extremes of belief and caution, there isn't much room for sitting on the fence and this makes for good marketing because you are selling to an audience that already wants to believe that conspiracy theories are "bunk".

Admittedly, some theories are bizarre and we each adjudge what we are willing to believe in or not - the point being that the "theorists" tend to have a more open mind to such things. The debunkers seem to like to roll us all up into a single minded group and declare us all as weirdos or fanatics, perhaps imagining all of us wearing the famed tin foil hats. The truth is that there is as much division between the theorists as there is between us and the debunkers.

In none of the mainstream publications do we see a serious attempt to understand "why" conspiracy theories abound. Debunking them is a rather simplistic method of assuring the majority that "everything is OK" and that there is nothing to worry about. Even if the specifics of each conspiracy do not stand up to scrutiny, it is still valid to ask "why?", to question the status quo.

It is much harder to perform a great deal of conclusive research than to amass a large body of interesting titbits. That is the reason we don't see authoritative books on "why" people believe the moon landings were "hoaxed". Why would chemtrails exists? Why is there a fear of a New World Order? The mechanics of the topic are much less interesting than the perceptions and realities of intent.

Debunking can also be seen in a much more insidious light. By deed the purpose of debunking is not only to convince the uninitiated that everything is OK, but also to change the ideas and beliefs of those that do believe! Whether we are right or wrong, we all fear somebody else's attempt to make us believe what THEY want us to believe. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem with all debunking?



[edit on 8-5-2009 by SugarCube]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Yeah I remember when those dolls were sold. I don't think a lot of people warmed up to them, there is something idolistic about them.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join