Just as many things in our life, the term Conspiracy Theory is thrown around far too often, and as a result has become an ambiguous social anchor in
our mind. Anyone you talk to, when the term comes up, or if you are describing to them, something socially deemed a “conspiracy theory” causes our
brain to launch associative triggers. Based on our past experience, what we've been taught and how we feel about the topic, our mind will immediately
trigger the anchor. Depending on who you are, this anchor could bring you feelings of doubt, feelings of anger or disbelief, or as a conspiracy
theorist, it may have your mind running in circles trying to draw links between what you know, and what you are hearing.
But first I think it necessary to discuss why we use the term, what it means, and how it has ultimately become the conspiracy of all conspiracies.
Additionally, I am going to show how the past years Mainstream Media's, snuggle fest (with CT'ers) is extremely detrimental to any true conspiracy,
and further, how they (MSM) have pulled the bait and switch to influence what we believe. I will also show how this word, or term, has been and is
being used as a tool to discredit and belittle people such as you and I, all in an effort to stop us from asking real questions and instead debating
useless theories which create division.
(If you enjoy, star and flag, and REPLY with your opinion)
con·spira·cy (kən spir′ə sē) – noun
1.- a planning and acting together secretly, esp. for an unlawful or harmful purpose, such as murder or treason
Lets look at that for a second, because I know that this important detail is almost always overlooked by the masses. Planning and acting secretly.
This is the root of the problem, because essentially every single major thing that the president, or his administration, the CIA, the FBI, etc etc.
does, is all done secretly. The public is most often absolutely oblivious to what goes on behind closed doors.
Furthermore, it is not like the history of this country has not had it's “extraordinary events”, namely, multiple assassinations, Gulf of Tonkin,
Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, and 911. This is no where near a complete list, but for demonstration purposes it serves its purpose.
Now when we look at any one of those events, all of them, whether you believe in the official version of events, or the opposite, it does not matter
because it does not make them any less
a conspiracy. These are conspiracies, bottom line. At some point, fitting the definition completely.
theo·ry (t̸hē′ə rē, t̸hir′ē) – noun
1.- a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done.
So now, we have a conspiracy. No one can debate that any of these events are a conspiracy. Because, secret meetings, planning and actions, were
discussed and executed without public oversight. They all fit the definition.
But theory, is where the entire thing becomes a mess. For a moment, I want you to think of your personal life. And I want you to think of a time, in
which you were initially lied to about a situation or event, and then later discovered the truth.
Some interesting things you will note when you ponder this:
- You are initially told about a situation or event. Since the 'teller' is trying to make you believe their version of events, they have made a
fairly reasonable story which they believe you will buy into – additionally, the teller also believes they have encompassed all aspects of the
- But then, as you begin to slowly learn about specific details of the initial events, usually from someone other than your initial source, you begin
to realize the story fails to add up.
- So now, you do not have a story that adds up. So you go back to the initial source, perhaps they have made a mistake, perhaps they did not mean to
lie at all. Surely they had just forgotten, or were unaware of that detail when they discussed it with you initially.
- This is where the situation goes one of two ways. Because if it was an honest mistake, the initial source can correct details of their story, and
once again you should have a story that makes sense and follows a practical, logical, order that explains all discrepancies.
- They give you more details and they still do not add up, or they could just refuse to provide more details outright.
- It's when you experience these two latter scenarios, that you begin to realize that you are being lied to. If you were not being lied to, the story
would add up, there is no room for inconsistencies in the truth. The truth always works, is always logical and always includes ZERO inconsistencies.
(Note: Sometime's truth is stranger than fiction, if this is this case, definitive answers and evidence should, (and would) be presented so that,
though the truth may seem anomalous, the evidence supports it, and the story flows logically.)
I want anyone reading this to seriously take a second to think about a personal situation, and go through the progression of it. You will find that it
always plays out the exact same as outlined above. Only a lie needs to be revised, just think about that for a second because it is one of the few
absolute truths of our reality.
Conspiracy + Theory
Referring back to our personal situation, we now have a inconsistent story, and the person who has told us that story, either:
A. Refuses to provide additional, definitive answers or explanations.
B. Continues to provide explanations which still do not fit with the verifiable facts of the events
But, this story or event matters to us. So we want to know what truly happened, but if the 'teller' is refusing to add, or revise their story so it
works, as a 3rd party spectator, we are now forced to “speculate on how something may have been done”.
This is the most critical part. Because now instead of focusing on the fact that we are clearly being lied to, everyone now focuses on the
“theory”. But, if you stop to think about the situation for a second, ultimately any theory is irrelevant. What matters is that we have an
official version of events, that does not add up, and the provider of that version is continually failing to properly divulge how the series of events
was possible. Whats worse, is we rely on these people, that are apparently lying to us, to keep us safe. Since this may be hard to grasp for some,
let's use examples.
JFK – Case in Point
We know that there were 4 shots. We also know, that it is impossible that one person made all the shots. We know
since we have definitive video
proof, that one of those shots, the final fatal shot, could not have come from behind
JFK, because the bullet blew his head backwards (opposite
of the alleged trajectory)
So lets apply what we've gone over. We know the indisputable facts, and we know the official story of the event which states that, Oswald, stationed
the car in the depository, shot 4 bullets that ultimately executed the President.
Now anyone who watches the film, can clearly see his head go backwards, and must then come to the conclusion that at least one shot was not from
behind (where Oswald would have been).
So is anyone here about to debate that the official story of the JFK assassination is a fabrication? We can tell it is a lie because it does not, and
cannot add up with only one shooter, especially a shooter, placed behind the president. AKA, we are clearly being lied to.
How the entire thing is then turned into a circus
Using the JFK example, no one with an IQ higher than their limb count, can dispute the fact that the official version of events does not add up. But,
as I said, this is a story that matters to people, and they want to come up with possible “theories” (speculative ideas on how something was done)
that would explain all of the verifiable facts (4 shots, last shot trajectory, inability to unleash 4 shots in that period of time).
These alternative theories, ironically, though not accepted by the masses most often actually encompass more of the verifiable facts of the event than
the official story itself.
So now, instead of attacking the person who initially lied to us, we now attack the “OUTRAGEOUS CONSPIRACY THEORY” (sound familiar?). For
instance, lets look at what Wikipedia says about CT's
The term is therefore often used dismissively in an attempt to characterize a belief as outlandishly false and held by a person judged to be a
crank or a group confined to the lunatic fringe. Such characterization is often the subject of dispute due to its possible unfairness and inaccuracy.
It is this exact statement that characterizes my entire thread. Because this is what Mainstream Media has anchored to the term “Conspiracy Theory”
in the minds of the majority of Americans.
So as soon as the mainstream media labels ANYTHING a conspiracy theory, subconsciously the minds of hundreds of millions of people instantly trigger
the anchor that this is “a belief that is outlandishly false, and held by a person judged to be a crank or a group confined to the lunatic
Through ignorance, and the use of that anchor, people are forced into their tiny little box. Where they question little, and demand answers for even
less. People are ignorantly refusing to ask for answers to legitimate questions, that would resolve the official version of events – so that
conspiracy theories are not necessary.
That's the bottom line, if someone walks up to the president, pulls a gun a shoots him in broad day light. THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR CONSPIRACY
THEORIES. The entire version of events would add up, and no one could debate the logical facts. I agree this is a simplified example, but it
highlights my point.
[edit on 9-9-2009 by king9072]
[edit on 9-9-2009 by king9072]