It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Conspiracies and evidence

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 07:23 AM
I have for a long time been reading and researching several aspects of conspiracy theories and the one thing that vexes me the most is peoples ability to make up conspiracies. Conspiracy theories usually start with one imaginative person who thinks that an official explanation does not hold up to scrutiny. This is in my opinion absolutely right and proper, we must question our governments and their departments and scrutinise their motives and evidence. What however is not right and proper is the attachment of any old story to any old theory in supposed furtherance of the cause.

It seems that people do not have enough quality control when presenting evidence, as usually when the evidence is scrutinised it turns out to be made up or thoroughly circumstantial, to such an extent that it is increasingly difficult too move for all the crap that is written, published, put on the net etc. There is of course a specialist type, almost a professional in their field, this is of course the source. The source by his nature is an impeccable witness, you do not who he is, can not verify where he works and even better must accept everything he says because everything he says is so earth shattering that it demands your complete attention and why would a guy like this make it up? The science spouted by the same sources and authors can also wow the impressionable. Quite often things which are said to be fact by these sources that are quite impossible and should not even be entertained by a rational intelligent human, the hollow earth theory is an excellent example of this. It seems like we have reverted to medieval peasantry when some topics come up with a lack of proof and a hysteria like the devils coming to get you. The need to discuss and debate what evidence there is, is crucial to understanding what is being hidden from us but we must be more discerning in the way evidence is approached.

Most conspiracy theories go well in Tom Clancy type novels and if not you could find room for most of them in any SciFi section in a book shop. This is where they should stay because they have about as much tangible evidence as the books in a Fiction section.

posted on Feb, 16 2003 @ 08:02 AM
And thus... the problem.

Some twenty or so years ago, conspiracy research tended to take on the aspect of the academic, rather than fantastic of today's discussions. The Internet has opened up the concept of alternative explanations for fantastic events to millions of people. To these people, the popular conspiracists if you will, these topics have become entertainment. It doesn't matter if facts support their theory, as a matter of fact, basing a new theory on fact is mundane and tedious any more.

Yes... anyone with a limited grasp of research technique, science, and history can pull ideas out of the air and construct websites. And those of even lesser cognitive ability can locate these sites and assume the content must be true (after all, it's on the web). One example on this forum is a very active member somehow contriving that 666 is not a decimal number and really equals 111 in decimal, the A.D. year of the real Biblical Beast.

Indeed... fact finding and scientific method have become mundane nuisances to be ignored.

Now we shall wait for the responses that shall certainly come that bash us as untollerable skeptics.

[Edited on 16-2-2003 by Winston Smith]

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 02:19 AM
"And those of even lesser cognitive ability can locate these sites and assume the content must be true.

Winston glad you agree. I tend to do any serious research well away from the web and only regard stuff on the web as interesting but unlikely. Where it comes to a scientific/mathmatic understanding on a complex issue I would most cetainly seek to check through convential means if it was true.

There are too many people with overactive imaginations and a government and military with a vested interest in disinformation.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 02:31 AM
The net - if approached with the degree of caution and intellectual rigour that one would bring to printed text - has great potential.
The core of the problem is that everyone is published; everyone is in print, and -on the face of it, at least -it's all free.
All manner of filters tend to act on printed material so that, on balance, what we buy in the bookshop or borrow from the library will have been through a process of editing, reviewing, publishing, marketing, categoriasation by genre, and so on. Net-content effectively takes a short-cut.
This means that the net demands extra care and effort: by and large I can trust a non-fiction book to be what it says it is. I can take almost nothing on the net as gospel.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 01:25 PM

A conspiracy theory is feuled by the gov withholding information.

Take UFO sightings.

We all know that about 80% of the sightings can be explained by (Black Projets).

We all know Area-51 existed why did they continually deny it's existence.

The gov can't provide the information we need to satisfy our curiosity, and come up with an intelligent informed opinion because, it would be a risk to national security.

Hence the wild speculation, which is only feuled by the governments (No- Comment) Approach.

Which IMO is understandable.

Lets take the Warren Commision.

A blind man could see that was a bogus commision, with the outcome pre-determined even before it began.

What i can't handle is the gov intentionaly misleading and lying to the people as it did with the warren Commision.

That was a blatent coverup, and needed to be exposed.

posted on Feb, 17 2003 @ 04:49 PM
The problem with conspiracy research is the sketchy evidence that you can locate...After all, by definition, conspiracies tend to cover up, eliminate or discredit any *real* evidence, therfore leaving the researcher with very little to go on other than circumstantial evidence & speculation in probabilities...

posted on Feb, 18 2003 @ 06:01 AM
"After all, by definition, conspiracies tend to cover up, eliminate or discredit any *real* evidence"

Interesting point on the discrediting of "real" evidence. I would disagree most strongly with you, people who present "real" evidence only for it to be discredited are far to often forgers and attention seekers who have faked evidence and are extremely disgruntled with being found out and seek to discredit the discrediters.

I do believe there is a within the governments and some corporations a desire to keep information from us and you may call it a conspiracy. This seems obvious from the way that enquiries are met and when obvious disinformation is put forward. However if we believe things like the alternative three plan are real we will, when the house of cards fall over be left with an even worse understanding than before. Since our understanding will be based on misguided principles and knowledge.

", therfore leaving the researcher with very little to go on other than circumstantial evidence & speculation in probabilities"

if this is all that can be offered then nothing should be offered at all. We can not and should not base what we take as fact in rumour. I for one would rather wait chase sources down get proper evidence etc and base what I write in what I know.

Too many people are scaremongering with sinister plots of aliens taking over to the planet being wiped out by secret cabals. There is no evidence for any of this. At most it seems likely the military is keeping its mouth shut over possible alien contact and is covering up its development programs. There is nothing to support those of the David Icke kind and the suppossed evidence they have is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the information, and in some cases it is just plain made up and can be shown as so (at which point they discredit you for discrediting them). They are served by pseudo-science and effing ignorance.

top topics


log in