Ah yes, because of course the World Trade Center was destroyed by secret government lasers.

Let's face it, the vast majority of conspiracy theories are nuts. Conspiracies can and do happen, but most of what we see loudly proclaimed on the Internet are not based on factual research. And often, they're not based on reasonable thinking.

I would expect so, considering the assassination was public knowledge. Kinda hard to cover that up!

I've got news for you: conspiracy theories have been around a lot longer than that. It's just that they started getting published a lot more frequently around that time.

Based on the information they had at the time, that seemed reasonable. After decades of study, and now that we have the help of better forensic techniques & computer analysis, it seems more and more likely that there was only one shooter: Oswald.

Maybe someone did encourage him to do it. The trick is, there's zero evidence of a conspiracy to have Pres. Kennedy killed, much less have him killed by an unstable man who had already defected to the USSR and come back when he found out it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

That said, we're getting off the subject here. This isn't a thread debating the Kennedy assassination, it's about why people believe in conspiracy theories. Perhaps they believe it's The Truth, but without evidence, what do they have?

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

What's more, the JFK assassination, like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, are not related to space or astronomy and are therefore inappropriate topics on this forum.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

This is an example of what I’m talking about.
You have created a ridiculous concept (a straw man argument) for a ‘conspiracy theory’ and then imply the vast majority of people who believe in any conspiracy as being ‘nuts’ because of how silly your idea is of “secret government lasers.”


“Zero evidence”? Is this your trick?
There is actually a lot of very real evidence of a conspiracy in this case. The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations did find enough evidence to conclude that the assassination was probably as a result of a conspiracy. Later unproved studies do not change all the findings but help cloud the real issue.

Actually the Topic of JFK has been discussed already, in length, on this forum.
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-8420.html
It is not my intension to argue the case for and against JFK in this thread, (there are whole sites that do that) as this thread is about “WHY people believe in conspiracy theories.”


Against The Mainstream theories are similar to Conspiracy theories in that anyone can make one up and they can be as zany as one’s imagination. As always the burden of proof is with the person presenting the theory.

But there is a big difference between ‘Against the Mainstream theories’ and ‘conspiracy theories’.
When evidence is presented for an ATM theory everyone can examine the evidence for a flaw or error. Once one error is found the ATM is proved false and can be dismissed. The presenter then needs to revise his ATM or admit it’s flaw.



But with a Conspiracy theory, the opponents are trying to hide the real facts and the best place to hide the ‘truth’ is in a pile of lies. It is easy to dismiss a ‘conspiracy’ when so much false evidence has been presented which is obviously false. Pile on enough lies and straw men while mocking those that believe in the theory and you will have effectively destroyed the credibility of any conspiracy theory.

As an example only and without arguing about the case itself: In the JFK assassination conspiracy various theories present the conspirators as being The FBI, The Cubans, The Mob, The Soviets, The CIA, The John Birch Society, The Secret Service, LBJ, Nixon, The Dallas Police, etc. False evidence can and is manufactured, people are presented as false witnesses and then exposed as frauds discrediting the whole idea that anyone is actually hiding anything. The conclusion is ‘They are all nuts’ and the facts are buried.

In science we can look for evidence of dark matter but not actually see the dark matter. So we look for it’s effects and you can conclude there is dark matter in the universe.

We can look for evidence of a conspiracy and not actually know who plotted to kill JFK. But when you look at all the facts presented and evidence destroyed you can conclude that there is a conspiracy in this case.

That was prior to the change in the rules so JFK, 9/11, and any other non-space or science related conspiracy theories are no longer welcome here.

__________________
Girl: Mister Darwin! The stupid people are breeding and taking over the planet!
Charles Darwin: Tut tut, little girl, don't worry! I'll take care of them with my CHAINSAW OF NATURAL SELECTION! Ahahahahahhaha!!!!!!
-QUeen of Wands 12/08/2003

Opinion polls are meaningless here. What does the science say? You realize, of course, when writing this that you have to take H.L. Menken's comment into account. And then you give us this beauty.

Oh yeah. Garrison. A real voice for the truth. He wouldn't have known it if it had bitten him on the ankle.

In my opinion you can summarize most conspiracy theories from Pearl Harbor, to Kennedy, to Apollo, to 9-11 with one line...

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

As a Menckenphile, I must point out that particular "quote" is very likely apocryphal. It appears to be a variation on what H. L. actually wrote
But your point remains valid.

As well as the points made that Robert TG and his non-space and astronomy CTs have no place here.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

“What's more, the JFK assassination, like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, are not related to space or astronomy and are therefore inappropriate topics on this forum.”

“ Robert TG and his non-space and astronomy CTs have no place here”

Ok, I'm sorry. I’m new here and did not realise that non-space or astronomy conspiracy theories could not be discussed.

Especially since a Moderator (To Seek) in the first post uses a reference to JFK. novaderrick also mentioned JFK in his post. I did do a search and found the JFK topic had been covered already and have not realise that there has been some rule changes that ban non-space topics.

I was not trying to prove the CT correct or incorrect. I was trying to show that there could be a legitimate reason ‘Why people believe in a conspiracy theory’. If I had known of the rule change, I could of used a space-based conspiracy theory for my examples.

Would the ‘Roswell Conspiracy theory’ be OK to use as an example?
If it is I could use that as an example.

Again I would not be trying to prove the CT correct or incorrect but just offering an example of 'WHY people would believe in a CT'.

I agree that MOST conspiracy theories are bunk, as are most of the Against the Mainstream theories. Everyone should be sceptical. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.

What makes a person believe in a conspiracy theory? What makes a person believe in an Against the Mainstream theory? Perhaps they have a lack of understanding and perhaps they don’t know all the facts or maybe they are all a just bunch of nuts.
But sometimes events prove that there was some sort of conspiracy, and sometimes an ‘Against The Mainstream theory’ gets proved and finds acceptance by the mainstream.

The main point I would like to make is that just because a theory is called a ‘conspiracy theory’ or an ‘ATM theory’ doesn’t make it false.

The person who presents the theory must prove the theory with evidence. This can be much harder to do if there is actually a conspiracy to undermine the facts by manufacturing false facts and mocking those who believe in the alternative theory.

Robert TG, I am not a moderator (nor do I play one on TV) but I've been around quite a while on this board and its predecessors.

Since the rule change, discussion of non-Astronomy and non-Space conspiracy theories has been considered off-topic. This thread skirts the borders of that ban, because it's about CTs and CT-believers in general. It can be hard to avoid reference to those off-topic subjects in a thread like this because most CTs (including some very popular ones) fall outside those guidelines.

I believe the moderators would say it's okay to refer to those OTCTs (hey, new acronym!) in a general way in this thread as an illustration of some point about CT-believers, but not to delve into details about those CTs. But even that can be a problem if it leads people to respond to your general point with specific rebuttals. Best to steer clear if you can.

Roswell should be in bounds, I would think.

__________________
Bring back Firefly!

"It is quite clear that Occam's razor does not sharpen in your pyramid." (Nicolas)

"Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." (Paul Simon)

All true. But the burden still has to be on those who expound those theories to at a minimum show how the mainstream theory does not explain the evidence. At that doesn't mean some handwaving explanation that fits your CT, but basically shows your lack of understanding of real physics and engineering. And this minimum has to be a starting point that eventually becomes a true theory, that explains all available data better than the mainstream theory. Most advocates of CTs and ATM theories don't want to do the work.

I would also agree that Roswell would be an acceptable topic (though I'm not a mod, so that's not an official opinion). But I would suggest, if you want to discuss it, to start a new thread particular to that.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

I'll be taking Donnie B.'s advice...
"Best to steer clear if you can."

I remember when the North Vietnamese mounted antiaircraft guns on the rooftops of hospitals and schools. For the propaganda effect of making the US Military look bad.

I have a feeling that the terrorists use similar tactics.

Being contrarian is hip. Much like the counter culture of the 60s, disagreeing with the "establishment" is an identity thing, a way of trying to make a difference. Whether it's effective, or even reasonable, is not of consequence.
It's easy to make claims against a technical and scientific acheivement based on common sense and appearances. Add a political agenda to add "credence" to your arguments as icing on the cake. (being anti USA is kinda accepted today).
Then throw in a healthy dose of basic ignorance. TV and the internet give us tastes of many experiences..spaceflight, crime investigation, crabbing. We take that tiny exposure and assume we have a real good grip on how these thing really work, how it's done. We don't recognize the lens as distorted, and not all encompassing.
So, now that we "know it all", we can develop various viewpoints and assumptions, and arguments about the subject. The fact that we really aren't "experts", or even very knowledgable on the subject, doesn't matter. We saw it on TV, the Interner, the Movies.
Real knowledge, developed in an education somewhere beyond highschool and Liberal Arts, doesn't count to the shallow thinker. The intricate, detailed knowledge and experience base of the experts is seen as superfluous in the argument.
Some things require a decent knowledge base to argue, and many just don't wish to gain it. Some know little if any, and assume that what they know, or can "see", is sufficient.
There seems to be no stigma against blatent, proud ignorance these days.

This would be true had "secret government lasers" been invented by Kesh for the purpose of this conversation. Sadly, as so many of us know, that isn't the case. There are, I swear to you, CTs who believe it. There are CTs who believe stupider things. We've all encountered them.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The more confusing uncertain things get, the more people look for easily understood, emotionally satisfying explanations.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

That's kinda what I was getting at in my first post, although rather wordily. If they don't know the answer, and it's too difficult to understand, or requires too much effort, there's no limit to the lengths people will go to to invent an easier way to reach an answer.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"

Yes. Most people want "truthiness", not truth. And rationalizing is easy, everybody does it.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort

Truthiness. I love that word. If I were to go back in time and sign up for BAUT again, I think I'd make that my handle.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

"A long time ago, yet somehow in the future"