reply to post by GoodOlDave
I never said I was defining the word, "conspiracy". You're inventing a whole other alternative interpretation of what I said all on your own. I
*said* that from now on you may presume whenever I refer to conspiracies I'm referring to these alternative theories rather than the actual
conspiracy perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists. If I really need to explain such an elemental thing then let me know now so I'll know that
further discourse with you will be a waste of my time and yours.
Right, I guess grouping them all into the term “conspiracy” would defeat your purpose. I don't like to play with words – especially
discounting the 'actual' MSM/government account from the grouping of 'conspiracy' when it is the original conspiracy. I shouldn't have to
explain why it would be a bad thing to do – but I guess I will have to for debate purposes.
Once you remove the original context of a conspiracy you no longer have a conspiracy. If you want to talk about and debunk alternative theories, you
have no basis to formulate your arguments because of your alternative explanations without thought or premise of the original account.
You can not refer to alternative theories without first recognizing the actual conspiracy... this goes for both ends of the spectrum – 'debunker'
Al Qaida *IS* the party accused of being responsible, and there *IS* evidence they were responsible whether you happen to accept the actual validity
of the evidence or not, so the rest of your statement is irrelevent.
But yet, I never said they were not did I? So again, doesn't that make my statement relevant?
I never said Al Qaeda wasn't the responsible party, you are reading way to much into my words without realizing their meaning. Also, I never stated
that I did not accept the actual validity of the evidence or not... You don't know where I stand on the issue
– so please, don't put words
in my mouth.
The moment these professionals step outside their established areas of expertise to postulate something, (a physics teacher trying to be a chemist, a
religious studies professor trying to be a materials engineer, an economist being an architect, a doctor trying to be an MIT engineer, etc) it ceases
being a professional opinion and it becomes a personal opinion, and is no more valid than your personal opinion or mine. Presenting a personal
opinion as if it were a professional opinion is being disingenuous.
Sure, I will agree – unless they have been exposed to an element in their research or profession. Physics teachers could know a lot about the
chemical make up of certain elements to promote their theories about how certain things react in a physical manner... There are a lot of people who
have doctorates at MIT, who are engineers, there are a lot of 'investors' that are architects. Now, if I was strictly an electronics major – I
would never give my opinion about human biology in a professional manner because it wouldn't be relevant. People who have an opinion and use their
credentials to further their opinion – it all depends on what credentials a person has. Stanton Friedman is a Nuclear physicist, and talks about
UFOs. Sure he states opinions – but yet he has worked on advanced propulsion systems...
I am only going by your statement that, "Conspiracies happen when governments are not transparent with their public.". The NASA space program has
been one of the most well documented and transparent gov't programs there are to the point where hobbyists even knew what radio frequencies the
astronauts were using and were listening in on them...and yet there are still people who insist the moon landing was faked. The lack of transparency
has absolutely nothing do do with it.
But the counter claim to that is that NASA hasn't been transparent. Sure, they have documented a lot of data – but who is to say they have
released everything to the public? Do you actually believe that if you had access to all of NASA's documentation, that you wouldn't find anything
they have never released?
Chris Horner filed the FOIA request that NASA didn't comply with until he threatened to sue them.
"NASA did not give an estimate of the volume of the documents being withheld"
In the following document titled:
Charles F. Bolden, Administrator,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
In which FOIA documents were requested about the X-38 project, and infringed on patents.
Transperancy? I think not.
Conspiracies are NOT because of lack of transparency, but out of paranoia and ignorance. Whenever a monumental event is instigated by something
otherwise ordinary sounding, someone, somewhere, will have a pathological need to embellish the cause into being some sinister thing equally as
monumental as the event itself. Princess Di really wasn't killed by something as boring as her driver being drunk, it was all a secret plot by the
SAS to protect the crown from scandal. JFK really wasn't killed by something as boring as a radical Communist sympathizer, it was all a secret plot
by LBJ so that he could assume the presidency. The 9/11 attack really wasn't soemthing boring as a terrorist attack by islamic fundamnetalists, it
was all a secret global plot by Mossad to frame muslim countries. The AIDS epidemic in Africa really isn't caused by somethign as boring as stone
age social traditions to rut like rabbits, it's all a CIA plot to invent AIDS to kill off all the black people in Africa. And so on and so forth.
Iran/Contra was because the public was paranoid and ignorant?
911 was because the public was paranoid and ignorant?
Stauffenberg Assassination attempt was because the public was paranoid and ignorant?
The plot to overthrow and assassinate Chaves was because of public paranoia and ignorance?
There would be no conspiracies if governments were transparent with their people. People wouldn't have theories if we had 100% access to the
documentation of any event in history.
What, you don't think your government has secrets?
So, wouldn't hiding information from the public make the public more paranoid and ignorant?
I understand these conspiracy theories betetr than you do. The question is, do *you* understand them? The last I checked, there isn't any lack of
transparency on drunk driving causing accidents or unsafe sex leading to AIDS.
No, you only understand one side of them – I look at both perspectives and identify logical theories and motives.
Drunk driving is not a conspiracy unless a group of people plot to do it for a motive.
Unsafe sex is not a conspiracy unless a group of 'infected' people plot to do it for a motive.
Sure, you can attest that you understand these “theories” better than I, but yet you don't even know my stance on any type of conspiracy, not
even mentioning conspiracy theory... so wouldn't that be a bit ignorant for you to assume? Aren’t you doing the same exact thing that you seem to
be trying to fight?
Aren't you jumping to conclusions without proof? Where have I taken a stance on any type of conspiracy in this thread? Keep looking for it... it
just isn't there. Matter of fact, go to my profile and read what I have written, the only thing I have really written about are UFOs and Government,
and Humanity. I take a scientific approach to everything, calling out skeptics and believers.
Don't be an idiot. The "willingness to obey" as you put it has absolutely nothing to do with it. I base my opinion on the preponderance of the
evidence. When a NYFD deputy chief testifies the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and were causing massive structural deformation in the
side of the building, it adds credibility to the NIST claim that the fires brought the building down. When I see with my own eyes how water splashes
out of milk jug toward the direction the bullet came from after being shot by a high powered rifle, it adds credibility to the Zapruder film showing
the mortal shot came from above and behind, More importantly, it detracts credibility from the people claiming WTC 7 was brought down by secret
controlled demolitions or that JFK was shot from the front.
Okay. You state that you base your opinion on the weight and importance of evidence, so taking that into account and using your 'base' I could
logically 'assume' that since there is a preponderance of evidence that the US government has released on UFO's (through FOIA) that it weighs in
favor of a conspiracy to cover the information up. I could go through every conspiracy and find a preponderance of evidence either pro or con to
justify a 'theory' based on what your opinions are.
But yet, you call me an idiot? Interesting assumptions.
With other conspiracies, such as Bush allowing the terrorist attack to proceed or that there were additional assassins besides Oswald, I will keep an
open mind becuase there is little evidence either way. The conspiracy peopel put little faith is such conspiracies becuase they're simply not
sinister sounding enough for their tastes. They always have to brign in these dumbass "lasers from outer space" and "the Zapruder film was faked"
Who are these 'conspiracy people'? Because, wouldn't you be contributing to the insanity one way or another? How can you educate people when
people have a belief? That would be like you, going into any faiths church/temple/whatever and telling the people that their God didn't exist
because your beliefs differ from theirs. Sure, you can use your scientific formulations that would be countered by their scripture – the argument
would be circular and non-productive, neither side attaining any ground or convincing anyone but themselves at whose side is in the right.
I guess, this is my main point.
You can try to convince people – but you convince no one because the argumentation is circular, always
coming back to the exact same point of where you started in the first place with no new understanding of the topic. The only person you convince is
yourself, and the opposition still remains true to it's cause, and perhaps even feels stronger about it's own justification.
Where have I ever made any mention one way or another about shipping jobs overseas or rising food prices? You are misrepresenting my position and you
then proceed to make an accusation based upon misrepresentation. This is the definition of, "strawman argument".
It's clear you really aren't here to discuss anything. You're here simply to hear yourself talk and you'll continue to see whatever it is you
want to see regardless of what I actually say. You really have no credibility.
You again missed my point. See how circular this is getting? You keep bringing up points about 911, terrorists, JFK -etc. I am talking generally
about all conspiracies rather than a singular conspiracy.
As for my “strawman” argumentation: where is my “attacking” of your beliefs a distortion? I am merely pointing out that you are just as bad
as the theorists you detest because of the circular argumentation you use that is neither progressive nor does it attribute more knowledge to the
As for credibility: What is your worth? Why is it more than mine? Who are you to state such a fantastic assumptions when you have absolutely no clue
about my beliefs on nearly every conspiracy?
Don't you think that again – you are assuming without facts? Isn't that something you supposedly detest?
If you assume I have no credibility without a factual basis of what my beliefs are, how can you attain any for yourself?