Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on December 11, 2009, 06:57:35 PM
-
I never saw this, it aired in 2001. From Fox lol... I guess belief in the theory shot up after this aired.
-
They also did a report on israeli spy/9-11 conspiracy
-
Playing to their audience.... :D
-
They also did a report on israeli spy/9-11 conspiracy
i saw those. and believe a good portion of it. Israel has gotten away with this stuff for a long time. when they do catch their spies, they're always released after a short detainment. only county that gets a free pass to spy on America.
-
i saw those. and believe a good portion of it. Israel has gotten away with this stuff for a long time. when they do catch their spies, they're always released after a short detainment. only county that gets a free pass to spy on America.
I didn't watch any of them. But Israelis spys getting released like that doesn't surprise me.
-
I didn't watch any of them. But Israelis spys getting released like that doesn't surprise me.
i'm not surpised either. it's disapointing, but not shocking.
-
Myth busters did a program on the Moon landing hoax myth, they busted it
-
Myth busters did a program on the Moon landing hoax myth, they busted it
Some in here, are far smarter and knowing than them or the main stream scientific community.
-
Some in here, are far smarter and knowing than them or the main stream scientific community.
There are those (cough samson coungh) that have never met a conspiracy they didn't like
-
There are those (cough samson coungh) that have never met a conspiracy they didn't like
so basically.....there are those (cough basement boy cough) who are CT Sluts?
-
so basically.....there are those (cough basement boy cough) who are CT Sluts?
Well you will have to tell me who basement boy is, before I can confirm.
-
Well you will have to tell me who basement boy is, before I can confirm.
Cough, the same one you talked about, cough.
-
it's funny when people will believe some CTs but mock others who subscribe to others.
I believe we orbited the moon, but I don't think we landed and walked. Just too many logistics, radiation and temperature, and a lot of issues with the pics and video that don't make sense. Plus that moon rock that got tested ended up being wood, right? ;)
I'm called a "moonbot" and a nut by people who believe Obama is a kanyan whose job is to bring down the american empire and crash the dollar. Go figure.
-
it's funny when people will believe some CTs but mock others who subscribe to others.
I believe we orbited the moon, but I don't think we landed and walked. Just too many logistics, radiation and temperature, and a lot of issues with the pics and video that don't make sense. Plus that moon rock that got tested ended up being wood, right? ;)
I'm called a "moonbot" and a nut by people who believe Obama is a kanyan whose job is to bring down the american empire and crash the dollar. Go figure.
I treat this conspiracy like I do all others. I looked at as much info from both sides as I could and tried to see if there was anything to be found proving it one way or the other. Doing this through the years leaves me believing in some conspiracies and feeling that other conspiracies are just not true. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just means I believe in some and in some I don't. What kind of person would I be if I were only willing to argue the conspiracies I believe in?
Not one person here could explain or was even willing to try to explain what I researched myself and posted on here: Maybe you would care to give it a shot 240?
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=301074.0
-
it's funny when people will believe some CTs but mock others who subscribe to others.
I believe we orbited the moon, but I don't think we landed and walked. Just too many logistics, radiation and temperature, and a lot of issues with the pics and video that don't make sense. Plus that moon rock that got tested ended up being wood, right? ;)
I'm called a "moonbot" and a nut by people who believe Obama is a kanyan whose job is to bring down the american empire and crash the dollar. Go figure.
I think some conspiracy theories are plausible while others are just down right stupid. I never knew you were a moonbot 240. :D
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
-
Oz,
Do you believe in life beyond earth, and do you believe our govt is keeping it secret?
-
Oz,
Do you believe in life beyond earth, and do you believe our govt is keeping it secret?
I believe that if there is intelligent life beyond Earth and we have been contacted that the government COULD or WOULD keep it from us. Now have they? I don't know.
I do believe there is life on other planets, quite possibly as close as Europa.
-
I believe that if there is intelligent life beyond Earth and we have been contacted that the government COULD or WOULD keep it from us. Now have they? I don't know.
I do believe there is life on other planets, quite possibly as close as Europa.
No. 5 is why i have yet to see on 9/11 CT that makes any sense at all.
-
No. 5 is why i have yet to see on 9/11 CT that makes any sense at all.
Me too. When you look at the whole picture, there are gaping holes that make no sense in the CT. That's one of the reasons i put that CT in the non-plausible category.
-
you guys are so black and white. maybe bush and condi just wiped their ass with the 911 memo because it would allow the new pearl harbor that the bush admin had written about in PNAC.
33, you had no clue what pnac even was, so you're still 3rd grade on this 911 stuff man.
-
you guys are so black and white. maybe bush and condi just wiped their ass with the 911 memo because it would allow the new pearl harbor that the bush admin had written about in PNAC.
33, you had no clue what pnac even was, so you're still 3rd grade on this 911 stuff man.
240 - how many people saw the memo before it got to Bush?
-
240 - how many people saw the memo before it got to Bush?
Another thing 240 - how many times did I ask you for the best evidence of a 9/11 CT?
Nothing has been put forward by you.
-
"240 - how many people saw the memo before it got to Bush? "
Doesn't matter - chain of command. But you knew that.
-
"Another thing 240 - how many times did I ask you for the best evidence of a 9/11 CT?
Nothing has been put forward by you. "
Quick-
What is your best evidence that the laws of physics exist? Explain algebra on this bus ride. Also, I'll need you to detail the big bang theory while we're standing at the urinal.
-
"240 - how many people saw the memo before it got to Bush? "
Doesn't matter - chain of command. But you knew that.
And if they thought a crime was being allowed to be committed, you dont think someone would have said something by now?
Are they in on it too?
-
oh brother, here we go again. You go to PRISON if you leak shit that is classified on its way up.
find someone who is new to this CT shit to have this conversation with man. I'll talk palin and obama with you all day. But if you read pnac and knew about all the anomalies of that day and the 29 documented warnings, you'd be the biggest CTer in the bunch. instead, you were in the city and refuse to believe your fear that day was just you being duped by some people trying to get rich.
I'll see ya on the global warming and obama threads :)
-
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Every single one of these fits SAMSON to a tee.
-
so basically.....there are those (cough basement boy cough) who are CT Sluts?
You keep coughing you will develop Pneumonia...
-
You keep coughing you will develop Pneumonia...
Is that another CT or yours? Coughing causes pneumonia?
-
lol
-
Look, I'm up for a good CT any day. But at some point one has to be able to sift through the crap to see what actually makes sense and is plausible and what does not.
With regard to the 9/11 CT's, I simply have not seen a credible CT that holds up. Its not that I doubt people would want to do it, but what has been put forst so far really doesnt hold up.
-
still no takers?
Uhhh...you may wish to review characteristics #3, #6, and #10 of Ozmo's list. :D
-
sorry, no offense but I think Ozmo's list is garbage. It's another implementation of mockery over debate. I concede I'm being ignored on the evidence provided which is disapointing, but I'm not willing to use mockery like Ozmo does.
I'm not sure the list is mockery, but I agree it isn't debate. Nobody could effectively challenge you when you originally posted the thread, so I don't think they'll take you up on it now. Or maybe 240 just needs some time to gather his counter argument.
-
i'm just skimming at the moment, don't have the time to analyze all that hugo. What is your position on the matter? no silly moon CT?
-
I'm not sure the list is mockery, but I agree it isn't debate. Nobody could effectively challenge you when you originally posted the thread, so I don't think they'll take you up on it now. Or maybe 240 just needs some time to gather his counter argument.
it's mockery plane and simple imo. Favorite tool for skeptics and Ozmo excells at it.
-
Hugo, I'm to juiced and I'm taking a break from all this stuff. Sorry buddy :D
Cheers! 8)
-
i'm just skimming at the moment, don't have the time to analyze all that hugo. What is your position on the matter? no silly moon CT?
not sure how you don't know what my position is. It's simply that I believe there is evidence proving we landed on the moon. Someone needs to show the falacy in my findings for me to consider otherwise.
-
Hugo, I'm to juiced and I'm taking a break from all this stuff. Sorry buddy :D
Cheers! 8)
are you depressed?
-
I excel at mockery? Sweet.
So when a CT'er accuses people of being sheep they are not mocking?
I don't think you fully understand what a skeptic approach is. Here's a easy about it:
Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.
Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.
The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:
Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think.
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___________________
Here's another list or group of assertions about CT's:
“Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence”
“Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact”
“Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions... Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators”
“Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators”
“Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning”
“Appeals to ‘common sense’”
“Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies”
“Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review”
“Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of [the] relevant science... Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities. At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.”
“Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative”
“The conspiracy is claimed to involve just about anybody... The conspiracy centers on the ‘usual suspects’”
-
sorry Ozmo, it's true. You've always lay out a big dish of mockery for CTrs here. A hell of a lot more than "sheeple" Also, the sheeple thing is tossed by a lot of people for a lot of reasons. Usually used for people who are unwilling to question anything. A valid criticism since there are people like that. You know the type, if Fox or MSNBC didn't say it, it didn't happen and the type that believes our government would never lie. Now if we start talking about things like suggesting the person is digging a bunker to hide in, tinfoil hat type suggestions, yes you excel at it. Do you really want me to search your posts and start the list? LOL, I will if you really want.
-
but Ozmo, you've been way better with me, when we're talking conspiracy and it's much appreciated so I don't mean to attack you entirely. I do appreciate that you've saved the mockery in our discussions. But you do put it out thick at times for others.
-
I agree I do. Don't go through the trouble. :-[
But usually its for the way out stuff. Initially, (unless its Samson123) I try and give it a chance unless it's just too silly. The mockery is often triggered by like mockery from the other side. But i will admit, I don't wait for it to come from some people. Some of the stuff posted is just way too inflamitory IMO. Obama ceding America's sovereignty? Winchester providing bullets to kill americans? I mean com on.
Most of the time for me, however, it becomes a great opportunity to learn about a given event or subject.
I just figured I'd take default "opposing position" and work it from there most of the time using a skeptic approach as a way of finding the truth.
-
are you depressed?
nope :)
happy to say things are going well.