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.

 

Some conspiracy theories need rethink

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Very few people would have failed to realise the explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet. ATS itself has CT as its "raison d'etre ". My intention is to appraise the progress that has been made as a result of open discussions. I would also like to discuss whether , in some cases, we should balance the argument with the notion that there may not be a conspiracy after all. This is seldom done.

So far it has all been one-sided. For example, one conspiracy states :" Man never walked on the moon". A large number of people (millions) accept that notion and become followers. Those who do not accept this simply walk away from the debate , having made their point. They do not then go on to create an anti-conspiracy website to promote their view and to get a following. Consequently their opposition to the theory goes through a quick death whilst the conspiracy theorists' view snowballs into a mammoth presence .

This seem to happen to most conspiracy theories. They become like a religion, due to the massive amount of 'preaching'. This would be OK if most conspiracy theories were substantiated. However many are not but they are just religiously accepted. It is my belief that in years to come Conspiracy Theories will be the 4th largest religion in the world.

If we are able to balance the arguments about conspiracies, by adding new angles to the debate, we could make very good progress in understanding what is really happening. But the way it is going, it looks like we will be saying exactly the same thing 50 years from now and we will be completely unable to stop the world from becomming more oppressive.

For example, with the NWO notion, we need to understand ourselves better and realise that oppression is the order of things. Democracy and civil liberties are relative new concepts and are illusionary. Even the Magna Carta is relatively new. If you look at civilisation over a long time-scale you will find that a feudal system was always the norm with citizens being nothing more than subjects. The pressure now is on returning to that system which makes us nothing more than 'subjects'. Powerful people unite to make this happen. To stop this happening, we would need a few countries to keep out. Unfortunately , the UN, NATO, World bank , Bilderberg Group, etc become a tool for world leaders to plot together and stop rogue countries from developing real freedom.

My view here is that those power-obsessed leaders come from our own ranks - citizens. We are all equal but some are more equal (power-hungry) than others. Therefore , rather than the notion of a reptilian Elite seeking to control us it could simply be a case of some of us wanting to control all others. And while the general public go about life tasting all its aspects, these individuals focus only on one thing - power. Inevitably they do rise in political ranks very quickly. When they do achieve power then they seek to collaborate with their opposites in different countries to achieve ultimate security and maintain their status.

Now, my viewpoint above could be intergrated into the NWO conspiracy . After all its seems plausible. But it will be brutally rejected by the conspiracy theorists because it is slightly 'blasphemous' to the (generally accepted ???????) concept of reptilian bloodline .















[edit on 15-5-2010 by crowdedskies]




posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
The notion of reptilian bloodlines is far from being generally accepted, look at this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Royal bloodlines however, they're all related, they've always controlled our society and did I mention they're all related.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLaughingGod
 


I was being sarcastic when I said "generally accepted". Thanks for the link.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLaughingGod


Royal bloodlines however, they're all related, they've always controlled our society and did I mention they're all related.


That is exactly what I was trying to explain. There are other possibilities. Here you discard the reptilian concept but you bring in a very plausible argument - the royal bloodline. Yes, I am aware that there is a strong royal bloodline connection around the world.

Perhaps more should be writen on this subject. I know some have done it already but I would like to see a family tree. It would be useful.


[edit on 15-5-2010 by crowdedskies]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   
There are no conspiracies.

According to the a core group of posters on this site,

9-11 was done by some guy in Afghanistan, that used to be (but is no longer) on CIA payroll.

OKC Bombing was done by a lone nutjob, and there were no other explosions.

TWA800 was brought down by a spark in the fueltank, even though jet fuel has too high of a flashpoint to explode from a spark, for a reason.

Chemtrails are perfectly natural.

Acidification of oceans, bees missing, birds dying, trees dying, mercury in all US waterways is all perfectly natural, and noone is instagating anything, other than maybe the 'useless eaters'

We need the Federal Reserve, and the Fiat Banking system, to have a stable
economy.

The Gulf Spill was an accident, and the flow will not hurt the Gulf at all.

and of course, reptilians are simply a figment of you imagination.



Last but not least, you are to be considered a loon for thinking there is ANY conspiracy. Job well done, debunkers.






[edit on 15-5-2010 by Soular System]

[edit on 15-5-2010 by Soular System]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Soular System
 


Thanks for the response. I tend to agree with most of what you say although I would have preferred it if the US dollar was printed by the government rather than the Federal Reserve. (no, I am not starting the JFK conspiracy again)

But what about the rest of the posters. They do the opposite and propagate and perpetuate the conspiracy theories.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Soular System
 


Oh, just noticed that you joined today. Therefore I expect a backlash from the regulars



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by crowdedskies
reply to post by Soular System
 


Oh, just noticed that you joined today. Therefore I expect a backlash from the regulars


Is there a certain time limit to become credible. Don't need an account to read the threads.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System

Originally posted by crowdedskies
reply to post by Soular System
 


Oh, just noticed that you joined today. Therefore I expect a backlash from the regulars


Is there a certain time limit to become credible. Don't need an account to read the threads.


Don't think there is. It is just that once you are registered comments can then be posted in direct reply to yours. As this is predominantly a conspiracy website I would expect a heavy retaliatory response.

However if you have been surfing this site for a while , you may know the mood better than me (I first surfed ATS about a month ago)



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Conspiracy theorists are not wired to suspect that the conspiracy may not exist. As you pointed out, there are parallels to religious thinking and conspiratorial thinking; mostly, operation on belief without any tangible evidence.

And it's not just some, but all conspiracy theories need a rethink. In the end, what they actually need is evidence to support them. Without it, the conspiracy theorist employs the most fallacious thinking, including but not limited to confirmation bias, selective reasoning, faulty premises, connect-the-dots games and assembly of disparate facts,etc. Conspiracy theorists are not stupid. They're largely intelligent, however, somewhere along the line their thinking has gone wrong. This, again, points to the lack of evidence to support their theories. If evidence served as a basis for the thought process we'd probably have a healthier world, although maybe not as active a forum on ATS.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



So..your suggesting no one should post a THEORY in a conspiracy THEORY forum without a complete list of facts that YOU deem acceptable?

You should stick to scholarly forums, if your so concerned that every detail be based on fact, and no interjection or imagination is allowed.

It's kinda like me telling you that in your next song, you must use a snare, a top-hat, and a bass drum,

but no cow bells, no bongos, etc, because there are not acceptable percussion instruments, and I won't accept your song if you use them.

How boring life would be, and how arrogant of me, if this were the case?




[edit on 15-5-2010 by Soular System]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



So..your suggesting no one should post a THEORY in a conspiracy THEORY forum without a complete list of facts that YOU deem acceptable?

You should stick to scholarly forums, if your so concerned that every detail be based on fact, and no interjection or imagination is allowed.

How boring your life must be.


Conspiracy theories are technically hypotheses. Theories actually do have supportive facts and tangible evidence.

It doesn't matter which facts I deem acceptable. Theories must be supported by indisputable evidence. Indisputable evidence does not rely on subjective interpretation.

I have no problem with imaginative hypotheses. Many are interesting and worthy of investigation. This is the essence of acquiring knowledge. However, operating on a notion that one's conspiracy theory is correct and true without supporting, indisputable evidence is faulty thinking which must be pointed out.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System
It's kinda like me telling you that in your next song, you must use a snare, a top-hat, and a bass drum,

but no cow bells, no bongos, etc, because there are not acceptable percussion instruments, and I won't accept your song if you use them.


The arts are subjective to one's liking. Conspiracy theories claim truths without supportive, tangible evidence. Your analogy really doesn't make sense. Requiring evidence is not analogous to requiring limited instrumentation in song.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Soular System
It's kinda like me telling you that in your next song, you must use a snare, a top-hat, and a bass drum,

but no cow bells, no bongos, etc, because there are not acceptable percussion instruments, and I won't accept your song if you use them.


The arts are subjective to one's liking. Conspiracy theories claim truths without supportive, tangible evidence. Your analogy really doesn't make sense. Requiring evidence is not analogous to requiring limited instrumentation in song.


Suggesting that theory can only be based on fact, and no opinion, assumption, or interjection is allowed, is indeed like requiring limited instrumentation.

What part of that confuses you?



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Soular System
 


Soular System, please can you clarify your position. In your first post you appear to praise Debunkers. In following post, you defend the conspiracy theorists somewhat.

I think that what you are saying is that is all depends on what the conspiracy is about.

I do not think that traditionaldrummer expects the evidence to be supplied on day 1. I think it is rather a case of looking at all the aspect of the case over a period of time.


[edit on 15-5-2010 by crowdedskies]



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System
Suggesting that theory can only be based on fact, and no opinion, assumption, or interjection is allowed, is indeed like requiring limited instrumentation.

What part of that confuses you?


The part where you use a bad analogy that makes no sense.

I've already explained that a conspiracy hypothesis may be interesting and worthy of investigation. However, when one professes it as truthful they must be called to account for that claim based on their supporting, tangible evidence.

Hopefully this will clear up your confusion.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This is a field where people put in a vast amount of their time and efforts to research subject matter that most of the general public find ludicrous. To back track on a theory is, I am sure, seen by some as an admission of error on their behalf. They should, however, be prepared to accept change and open the eyes and ears to new concepts. Many so-called-facts are now shown to be built of sifting sands but surely that is a product of the modern fast-food age whereby myth and legend now need to be proved tomorrow and sometimes, patience is more appropriate.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
I would suggest that debunkers conspire on this very site to suggest that any conspiracy involving government secrets is completely false, and "crazy"

It's the debunkers that state their information is undisputable fact. That in itself, is the conspiracy.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
It would help if you got your facts right.

There are a few sites on the net debunking the moon hoax ideas.

They are used regularly on this forum.

There are also sites debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Obviously you have not learned enough yet to give an educated opinion about what's going on.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soular System
I would suggest that debunkers conspire on this very site to suggest that any conspiracy involving government secrets is completely false, and "crazy"

It's the debunkers that state their information is undisputable fact. That in itself, is the conspiracy.


That's a sweeping generalization. Most debunkers claim no such thing unless they have indisputable facts or evidence. Mostly, they call for the conspiracy theorist to support their claims with indisputable evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join