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.

 

The first signs of a conspiracy?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I have been here just a few weeks and have seen lots of conspiracy threads


when you personally hear a story or news/accident/disaster, what makes you then believe/think that it could be think conspiracy first? how do you go after the facts?,
sometimes mainstream media doesn't always add the right info at times esp when it's breaking news.

what are your ways of summing up a theory of a conspiracy into a conspiracy?

we all have our way of weighing the facts so what are your techniques?




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I use my common sense. When you see something and suddenly every media outlet (Radio, TV, Print, Online) all tell you that you saw something else and they do in unison I am automatically suspicious.
When the same media all start using the same talking points to attack someone critical of what they say is truth, I get suspicious.
When I am told by all this media that I am a unpatriotic, crazy and a threat to society for asking a question about what all this media is telling me, I am very suspicious.
It is human nature to question what we do not see as 'correct" especially when it comes form authority.
When the authorities tell you to shut up because they already told you the truth people become suspicious.
Now toss in the track record of authorities lying about everything (From huge to minor (Gulf of Tonkin and the Northwoods Documents, to leaders of anti gay coalitions lying about their sexuality or corporations stealing from the public)) and people just don't trust authority to be truthful right from the start.

So, with the fact that authority does and will lie to protect themselves and their power and they attack any who question what they say is true you only have to look at what they say the loudest. Historically this is where the lie is and when two or more people lie in order to control the outcome of something, this is a conspiracy.

Now if the conspiracy is just two guys covering their asses or a step towards a New World Order by a shadow government this is what Truthers want to know, as well as the truth.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sdocpublishing
 


I agree with you.

When the news is in unison, it is rigged, because as we saw with the Fort Hood incident, and the NYC Car Bomb incident - to name two - the media are not infallible.

When the story is different on every channel, especially when it is breaking news, you can bet your bottom dollar that no one is spoon feeding the media.

The thing that got me about 911, for instance, was how they all had the same video feed, the same information, and almost at the exact same time. One video block was used by every news channel, because it was the only one available in the media pool.

That should have set off alarm bells, as it rightly did at a later point in time.

Inconsistencies in the media are a good thing, IMO, because it prompts one to dig deeper into the issue to find out the real story. Eventually it comes out, but it can be days, weeks, or even months later.

Some people will probably claim the exact opposite - or say do not trust the media at all, but I think inconsistancies prove they are talking to different sources rather than to only one source.

As the days went by following the NYC Car Bomb incident, you can see that a real story came to fruition. Some people may doubt the veracity of it because they are in denial about terrorism and run around screaming False Flag about everything, but if you saw the media play itself out it became clear.

They started out almost immediately with the "white guy in his 40's" and rapidly went to homegrown tea party terrorist. In the end, when certain media groups openly expressed disappointment it was *not* a white tea party terrorist, you can see a job well done as far as the real story coming out.

It does take common sense, but it also takes a lesser degree of paranoia that everything is a flase flag or some secret dirty government conspiracy.

Part of what makes it so fun is the discovery of a conspiracy!



[edit on 16-5-2010 by Libertygal]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Probably the most important "technique" is to think of motives and watch and understand how the elites control debates. See if an issue is represented from many points of view. They make sure they have a lock on all sides of a debate/ issue.

In my mind, it looks like the the tai chi/ yin yang symbol - NOT strictly black or white. For example, the vaccine "debate".

Vaccines are "good" camp.

Vaccines are "bad" camp. Many "natural health" experts that say vaccines are bad are paid disinfo agents (General Stubblebine and his wife come to mind). By having controlled opposition, they can make people with legitimate concerns look like fools to the general populace if they wanted.

Within the "good" camp (analogous to the black seed in the white swoosh) is "vaccines are good but sometimes there are problems and we are working to fix them". Look at all the vaccine "recalls"/ pig virus tainting, convulsions, etc. The anti vax movement seizes on these and says look how dangerous they are! They think that they have caught the elites at something, but really they haven't. The elites allow this and cultivate it to control this portion of the debate.

Within the "bad" camp (analogous to the white seed in the black swoosh) is the Jenny McCarthy type attitude that is promoted. "Vaccines are dangerous, but if Big Pharma was more careful then we would get behind vaccinations".

All aspects are controlled, the general populace gravitates to the important faces that speak for the various factions, and viola, not many minds escape from the trap. By ensuring the debate is not actually the pertinent subject, they will always win. (In this instance, vaccines are framed within a scientific framework and not the more pertinent political/ genocidal framework).




top topics
 
1

log in

join