Re: New Conspiracy Group on Yahoo
tomnln
#1. The HSCA already Proved Conspiracy.
#2. Can't keep Secrets? Tell us who killed Hoffa??
> <booklov...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1147398710.0...@q12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> RicBi...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Hi Ernie,
>>>
>>> I realize that you didn't write this article, but I'm going to comment
>>> on it anyway, especially in light of your first post on this thread.
>>>
>>> ernie1241 wrote:
>>> > I don't agree with all the statements in this article but it does
>>> > address the inherent flaws within most "grand conspiracy" arguments
>>> > and, consequently, supplements my previous messages on this topic.
>>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> >
>>> > Out of the Matrix
>>> > Come Back to Reality: Most conspiracy theories are just plain wrong
>>> >
>>> > by Steven Novella - March 23, 2006
>>> >
>>> > http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:148666
>>> >
>>> > There are no shortage of conspiracy theories in the halls of
>>> > pseudoscience and pseudohistory, not to mention pop culture
>>> > mythology. According to a 1992 New York Times survey, 77 percent of
>>> > Americans hold the silly belief that the JFK assassination was the
>>> > work of a conspiracy. Others believe there are conspiracies to
>>> > suppress a cure for cancer or hide knowledge of cold fusion or
>>> > other "free energy" sources. There are those who say that the AIDS
>>> > virus was created in a government lab specifically to target the gay
>>> > community, or that vaccines are a government program designed to
>>> > cause illness. The biggest conspiracy theories contend that the
>>> > entire world is secretly run by a shadowy organization of
>>> > megalomaniacs, like the Iluminati or the Men in Black.
>>>
>>> It is odd that you say your newsgroup is going to be mainly concerned
>>> with right-wing conspiracy theories, and then you post an article that
>>> mentions only left-wing conspiracy theories. Although the Illuminati
>>> and the MIB are most likely non-partisan. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> > So what is the appeal of such conspiracy theories? For one, humans
>>> > have a well documented propensity for pattern recognition. We seek
>>> > out patterns as a way of making sense of the complex world around us.
>>> > Sometimes we see patterns that are not there. Humans also have a
>>> > natural, and evolutionarily adaptive, paranoia.
>>>
>>> Paranoia is defined as "1. A psychotic disorder characterized by
>>> delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously
>>> defended with apparent logic and reason.
>>> 2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others." [SOURCE: dictionary.com]
>>>
>>> Psychotic disorders, delusions and extreme, irrational distrust are not
>>> "natural" or "evolutionarily adaptive", and human beings are not
>>> naturally paranoid.
>>>
>>>
>>> >It's good to be wary
>>> > of potential harm or abuse, otherwise we would be easily victimized
>>> > or deceived. But like all adaptive mental tendencies, paranoia in
>>> > some individuals can be too strong, even overwhelming.
>>> >
>>> > Hard-core conspiracy theorists tend to have a cartoon view of the
>>> > world, one in which all people fall into one of three groups: the
>>> > conspirators, the crusaders, and the dupes.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, is the evidence for this? A survey of conspiracy
>>> theorists somewhere? If 77% of the American people believe the JFK
>>> assassination was a conspiracy, does that mean 77% of Americans think
>>> they are "crusaders" on this issue. If that were true this newsgroup
>>> would be a LOT bigger.
>>>
>>>
>>> > The conspirators are portrayed as evil and powerful, seeking control
>>> > for its own sake.
>>>
>>> Yes, we all know that "powerful people" never seek "control for its own
>>> sake". That could NEVER happen. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> >They are often granted unimaginable cleverness and
>>> > resources, and their reach knows no bounds. At the same time, they
>>> > are ascribed unbelievable stupidity for how else could their
>>> > conspiracy be uncovered? The crusaders are the believers themselves.
>>> > They feel they are a small band of freedom-fighters saving the world
>>> > from incredible malfeasance. The dupes are everyone else.
>>> >
>>> > But grand conspiracies (and that's what we're talking about here)
>>> > would require the cooperation of countless people over long periods
>>> > of time and across many institutions. This is the first major fault
>>> > with grand conspiracy theories: They tend to collapse under their own
>>> > weight.
>>>
>>> Two words: Manhatten Project. Granted, there weren't "countless"
>>> people who worked on it (although there were quite a few), but it was
>>> "over long periods of time" and "across many institutions". It always
>>> amazes me that anti-conspiracy theorists don't believe that large
>>> secrets can be kept. They can.
>>
>>
>> What amazes me is that CTs fail to see the difference between the
>> Manhattan Project and the (imaginary) JFK assassination conspiracy.
>> Not comparable at all. If you learn about the Manhattan Project, you
>> realize that the "patriotic thing to do" is to keep the secret (and the
>> Manhattan Project was known about by many more people than you probalby
>> think). Plus, you know that in a fairly short time, there's no secret
>> anyway, because the result is a bomb.
>>
>> On the other hand, if you find out about a JFK assassination
>> conspiracy, the "patriotic thing to do" is to tell about it. So why
>> have no credible people told about a conspiracy? Because there wasn't
>> one.
>>
>> These two things are entirely different, and to talk about one as if it
>> proved something about the other is an entirely false analogy.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > The problem is explaining how the conspirators are able to maintain
>>> > secrecy and control.
>>>
>>> How did they manage it for the Manhatten Project if it's so impossible?
>>>
>>>
>>> >If the U.S. were hiding UFOs and aliens over
>>> > decades, the number of people involved would need to be huge. How do
>>> > they keep them all silent? How do they get the funding and the space
>>> > to run such an operation?
>>>
>>> How did they manage it for the Manhatten Project if it's so impossible?
>>>
>>>
>>> >Have all the presidential administrations
>>> > since Roswell been involved? How do they prevent leaks, say, the
>>> > kinds of leaks that recently outed the government's domestic spying
>>> > program? Wouldn't other governments have discovered the presence of
>>> > aliens? Are they, too, involved? In order to answer these questions,
>>> > more and more power and scope must be ceded to the conspirators,
>>> > until you have to believe that they run the world.
>>> >
>>> > The second, and more insidious, problem with conspiracy theories is
>>> > that they quickly become a closed belief system. Why is there no
>>> > evidence for a conspiracy?
>>>
>>> It's quite an assumption to imply that all conspiracy theories have "no
>>> evidence" to support them. Just the skeletal facts of the JFK
>>> assassination would lead a reasonable person to conclude there MIGHT
>>> have been a conspiracy: A man who defected to the Soviet Union at the
>>> height of the Cold War comes back to this country and blows the
>>> President's brains out. Two days later he himself is killed - in
>>> police custody. Hmmm....
>>
>> Correct. The "skeletal facts" of the JFK assassination seem to lend
>> themselves to conspiracy speculation. It's when you look at the
>> details that you see that there is no evidence of a conspiracy.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >Because the conspirators have hidden all
>>> > the evidence. Why is there evidence that the conspiracy is wrong?
>>> > Because the conspirators fabricated and planted that evidence. How
>>> > could they have done that? Because they have frightening power and
>>> > reach (which brings us back to the first problem).
>>> >
>>> > Therefore, there is no amount or type of evidence that can convince a
>>> > conspiracy theorist that he's wrong, which means that his (or her)
>>> > beliefs are comfortably unhinged from reality.
>>> >
>>> > The alternative, alas, is to live in reality. Reality can be
>>> > frightening, with questions that are difficult to answer and problems
>>> > that are hard to solve. But in the real world, at least there are no
>>> > all-powerful cabals, controlling us from behind the scenes.
>>>
>>> Wow, all of a sudden we go from people controlling evidence to them
>>> controlling us! Let's take a poll of the people on this newsgroup:
>>>
>>> How many of you who believe in conspiracy think there is an
>>> "all-powerful cabal... controlling us from behind the scenes"?
>>>
>>> Not many, I'll bet.
>>>
>>> Here's my problem with anti-conspiracy theorists: Conspiracies exist.
>>> It's why we have laws against them. It's why people go to jail for
>>> committing them. It's why Jack Abramoff is going to jail. It's why
>>> several people from Enron pleaded guilty. It's why Richard Nixon had
>>> to resign.
>>>
>>> So, the only REAL question is: which conspiracies are real and which
>>> aren't?
>>
>> Correct again. Conspiracies exist. But damned few -- if any -- of
>> them at the level of a JFK assassination.
>>
>> You've got to prove that a conspiracy exists. You can't.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - /< /\ /> -
>>
>
>