Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,182
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 719
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 05:09:27 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The Chemtrails Conspiracy (Or "How I Became a CIA Shill")

Started by 23 Daves, January 03, 2014, 01:57:09 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: thraxx on January 04, 2014, 01:53:24 PM
There is no hidden conspiracy - the skyjews and skymuslims have put their differences aside and are flagrant in their poisoning of the skies.
I am sharing a room with a Jewish person right now...I just asked, they looked oddly at me, whispered something into their wrist and left the room.

23 Daves

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 04, 2014, 12:13:30 PM
What do people think they spend all those billions of funding on? They'll have fake twitter and facebook accounts

I don't doubt this at all, and I'd be surprised if anyone else did, especially if we're talking about monitoring (potential) terrorist or radical groups. But that the CIA are investing time and effort into covering up the existence of Chemtrails for websites with about 500 readers, and that more specifically I'm one of the CIA spooks - inevitably those are the bits I have trouble with. 

More to the point, any group who believes that any individual asking questions of their theories must be CIA is going to have a very hard time getting their numbers up.

thraxx

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on January 04, 2014, 02:05:01 PM
I am sharing a room with a Jewish person right now...I just asked, they looked oddly at me, whispered something into their wrist and left the room.

Did he hover when he left the room?  If not then you might be living with an earthjew, or even a technojew if he's using some kind of wrist transponder.  Be careful.

biggytitbo

Quote from: 23 Daves on January 04, 2014, 02:26:36 PM
I don't doubt this at all, and I'd be surprised if anyone else did, especially if we're talking about monitoring (potential) terrorist or radical groups. But that the CIA are investing time and effort into covering up the existence of Chemtrails...


Inventing the existence of Chemtrails is what I'm suggesting.

mothman

People want to feel important. Thinking they know something no-one else does gives them that feeling.

biggytitbo

Quote from: mothman on January 04, 2014, 06:17:37 PM
People want to feel important. Thinking they know something no-one else does gives them that feeling.


It's a theory, but not a very convincing one. I'm going to stick with my theory that they actually believe it.

If they really believe that their efforts to spread the 'Twoof' about this, that and the other are being monitored by the CIA or whoever, why do they think they are allowed to carry on? Why do they think they are immune?

If I were in the secret services, I would have had them all shot by now.

George Oscar Bluth II

Quote from: heretical error on January 04, 2014, 07:16:01 PM
If they really believe that their efforts to spread the 'Twoof' about this, that and the other are being monitored by the CIA or whoever, why do they think they are allowed to carry on? Why do they think they are immune?

If I were in the secret services, I would have had them all shot by now.

That's exactly why the authorities allow them to do what they do, so you come to that conclusion. Ahhhhhh.

Absorb the anus burn

Quote from: heretical error on January 04, 2014, 07:16:01 PM
If they really believe that their efforts to spread the 'Twoof' about this, that and the other are being monitored by the CIA or whoever, why do they think they are allowed to carry on? Why do they think they are immune?

I really hate the twoofer crap. It's the bottom of the barrel in insults really... Strikes me as desperate want for a better jibe. The idea of wanting the truth about any subject isn't something that deserves to be mocked... It's Orwellian newspeak in action. [nb]Usually applied to 9-11, of course[/nb]... I'm firmly with Biggy on this. People have strange belief systems and oblique interests. Chemtrail nuts come from all walks of life are not one type of person. The idea that all conspiracy theorists think the CIA are watching them is more BS meant to shape perceptions. Repeat the media mantras... "They stink... They're mentally ill... The post crap on forums at four am...They're social misfits..." All borrowed from The X-Files' Lone Gunmen / Plague in Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, of course.

It's a dangerous game the media is playing. They would like to narrow minds and perceptions. They want you to pick up their sneery tone, and also carry around a safe psychological rubbish basket to dump theories / concepts that every now and again genuinely demand your startled fucking attention... Some things are just nonsense, disinformation and phantastic shite, but anybody who goes on a Chemtrails forum to troll is a cunt, and may as well slide into the mire and insult five year olds on a My Little Pony dot com.

Zetetic

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 04, 2014, 06:51:53 PM
It's a theory, but not a very convincing one. I'm going to stick with my theory that they actually believe it.

"Actually believing it" isn't distinct from "Believing it because it satisfies some drive to improve self-esteem".

However I don't think there's any evidence of this specific claim, and anyway it's dangerously close to psychodynamic bullshittery[nb]Is the claim that people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to have high self-esteem - boosted by their belief in the theories or that they have low self-esteem - meaning they have to seek a boost in the theories? It dodges any sort of testability.[/nb].

And I largely agree with
Quote from: biggytitbo on January 03, 2014, 08:04:48 PM
It's an irony usually lost on the 'conspiracy theorists just want to believe they're in a special club that knows special things the regular cunt in the street doesn't' theorist that they're the exact mirror image of that person they have imagined.

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 03, 2014, 06:21:29 PM
A belief in a conspiracy theory doesn't need psychological bagging and tagging, because conspiracy theorists aren't all one type of person.
I've done all this before, but nevermind: Some people belief in a conspiracy theory and some people don't, even when both sets of people are presented with much the same evidence regarding the theory. Furthermore, belief in one conspiracy theory is strongly correlated with belief in other conspiracy theories. (And, yes, we have to struggle with definitional issues that may well have to involve invoking the mainstream view on an issue rather than being clearly just about the theories themselves, but this is not to say that widely believed conspiracy theories are irrelevant.)

This suggests that individual differences are highly relevant to belief in conspiracy theories. Yes, this is rarely good grounds to entirely dismiss a theory, just because it's being presented in a certain way by certain people. On the other hand you can't expect people to ignore obvious biases on the part of other people trying to convince them of something - however we may well exaggerate this effect more than is useful. Looking at it the other way, a psychological analysis of belief and disbelief of conspiracy theories is important for anyone trying to convince others of their views - whether that's in favour of a conspiracy theory or not.

23 Daves

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 04, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
anybody who goes on a Chemtrails forum to troll is a cunt, and may as well slide into the mire and insult five year olds on a My Little Pony dot com.

Very few people have been trolling them - most have been making reasonable points and asking reasonable questions so far as I can see, and their comments have been deleted nonetheless. If a Chemtrails website is going to pay to advertise their page on Facebook, I would say it's inevitable that they'll get people visiting them to ask questions about possible holes in their evidence.  This is a website that's begging for money for its research - they're not going to get that cash unless they can present a reasonable case.  Anyone presenting themselves as an organisation dependent on public donations is ripe for scrutiny.

Also, is anyone in the media really constantly spreading the belief around that all conspiracy theorists think the CIA is watching them? The only people I've ever heard talking about that have been the theorists themselves (including two acquaintances of mine, one of whom handed me a 9/11 truth booklet in a shady, undercover way in a bar, asking me to keep quiet about the fact I had it).  I don't think the media could really much care less about them (the less coherent ones, that is). The theorists who may have half a point are probably treated as useful contacts for future stories, the others produce slightly bemused and sarcastic news stories because there's no other angle available.  Picture this example - you're a journalist following some Chemtrail people around.  You have to write a 2,000 word article, but everything's inconclusive, nobody is making any rational points, there is no hard evidence, and everyone seems a bit intense.  What are you going to write?  There is no story apart from "These people seem a bit strange, and there is no evidence".  They're going to seem (at best) clownish in the final copy because there's nothing else to say. 

Absorb the anus burn

Quote from: Zetetic on January 05, 2014, 12:06:30 AM
Furthermore, belief in one conspiracy theory is strongly correlated with belief in other conspiracy theories.

No. I disagree. It makes as much sense as saying "supporting one football team is strongly correlated with supporting other football teams". I don't imagine anybody does the full rainbow of conspiracies - it's just a cheap way of linking every conspiracy (real and imagined) with an unbalanced, obsessive and wayward mind.

I happen to think the official 9-11 narrative has more holes than a swiss cheese, but I don't believe in a stage set moon landing, robot Paul McCartney or that the Boston marathon was faked. There isn't a conspiracy theory type person no matter what you insist. I know this from personal experience - from growing up in Liverpool around the time of Hillsborough and hearing people from all walks of life (of political persuasion / varying economic background / posh to trashy postcode) saying it was a cover up and the police / journalists / government were lying. These people were not conspiracy theorists, but collectively believed in a radical conspiracy theory.

Who was right?

There are conspiracies. Some are real. Some or not........... Real or imagined conspiracies can be supported or rejected by many different types of people for a wide range of reasons.

Zetetic

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 05, 2014, 01:34:20 AM
No. I disagree.
Why?

I am not making the claim that a belief in a conspiracy theory entails a belief in all conspiracy theories. I am meaning exactly as I say - that there is an incomplete correlation.

QuoteIt makes as much sense as saying "supporting one football team is strongly correlated with supporting other football teams".
I think you've probably picked the wrong analogy if you're hoping this will help me understand your point.

QuoteReal or imagined conspiracies can be supported or rejected by many different types of people for a wide range of reasons.
And yet, we find evidence of common factors, at the level of individual differences, behind endorsing or rejecting different conspiracy theories.

Yes, clearly the background behind any particular individual's belief in a theory is likely to be very complex - nevertheless we can talk meaningfully about why different people are more or less prone to believing in different theories, according to the nature of those theories (as well as evidence made available about them).

As I have said, surely this is equally of interest to people trying to convince others to seriously consider one or many particular conspiracy theories? Surely they would want to know why other people reject theories in the face of substantial evidence - evidence that was enough to convince them of the theory's validity?

Pepotamo1985

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 03, 2014, 06:44:15 PM
I'd suggest the big majority of this group ascribe to the theory because they actually believe it, not because of the ropey old pseudo psychological nonsense you suggest.

The question, though, is why they believe it.

I detest the pseudopsychology employed by cunts like Aaronovitch and Posner to trivialise or 'explain' why people are drawn to conspiracy theories, and yes, it's usually a bunch of contemptuous nonsense about how people are weak minded and want to believe in the fantastical.

However, there's a kernel of truth in that diagnosis - it's just that twats (such as the aforementioned) who have a vested interest in rubbishing alternative viewpoints concertedly apply it to anyone with a view that differs from the accepted (and, in many cases, governmentally mandated) version of events. I've witnessed firsthand people of this exact ilk both online and IRL, whose behaviour is completely baffling and exceedingly infuriating by any routin emeasure, but is fairly understandable in the terms Daves has described and others have expanded upon in this 'ere thread.

Several forums I've posted on over the years have been visited by odd people who join, try to turn each and every thread into a diatribe about ancient astronauts/9-11/JFK/Illuminati/NWO/chemtrails/etc./all of these things and clog the boards with threads about alien abductions and blood drinking reptiles, before kicking off with rants about how their assertions have smashed the tiny minds of dissenting posters and how everyone else is brainwashed and stupid when people try to engage them in rational debate[nb]I might point out that the JFK thread is conversely, to my mind, an example of a gang of posters turning their guns on an alternative hypothesis and being pretty unpleasant to people propagating said view[/nb].

This is not to say that everyone who believes in JFK assassination conspiracy theories or whatever is attracted to that/those belief(s) because it's self-aggrandising and privileging to be so. Generally, it's adherents of Jones/Icke who believe in an omniconspiratorial reading of all history and events who appear to demonstrate these traits - and the explanation might be as simple as thickos who need validation and approbation are drawn to anything which makes them feel superior, and conspiracy theories are just one of several/many routes such people adopt to reach that goal.

Neil

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 04, 2014, 06:51:53 PM
It's a theory, but not a very convincing one. I'm going to stick with my theory that they actually believe it.

Surely you're smart enough to know/admit it's more than that though, even if it implicates you. It's so odd to see your objections on this topic, given what you (jokingly) offer about your life.

They're more likely to be/feel alienated - agree with that?

Edit: i mean, without wishing to be all shouldersy-stomachy sneery or anything, I remember when you first turned up on CaB, and people immediately pegged you as a "planes don't eat buildings" poster. That's a type, isn't it? The same way obsessive (comedy/music) fans like me are a type. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with thinking people who are routinely skeptical of an official narrative are a type? As Zetetic said, having one such belief tends to indicate a lot more of them being held. "That's just because they believe them all, The End" is a copout.

biggytitbo

It's not about me, it's about people attempting to make spurious generalizations.


In the JFK case I know people from every possible social background, every kind of political affiliation who all believe there was a conspiracy. Trying to pin some kind of psychological explanation for their belief is straight from a CIA memo designed to discredit critics of the Warren Commision, so it's slightly annoying to see the same old bullshit still being used 50 years on.


They simply believe in the conspiracy because of their evaluation of the evidence, not because of impaired minds. And if you believe the CIA killed the president, it puts other evidence for other conspiracies in  a different light. So I believe in other conspiracies like RFK and Watergate because they're related and have similar types of evidence, not because I have a psychological affliction that makes me more susceptible to believing in conspiracies.


I'd imagine people who believe in Chemtrails do tend believe in some other conspiracies but not because they have psychological issues, but because they're related to each other and it's only logical if you believe one you'd believe the others.

Zetetic

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
They simply believe in the conspiracy because of their evaluation of the evidence
Quotebecause of their evaluation of the evidence
Quotetheir evaluation of the evidence
Quotetheir evaluation

And people evaluate evidence (and the theories intended to make sense of the evidence) in different ways, do they not?


QuoteI'd imagine people who believe in Chemtrails do tend believe in some other conspiracies but not because they have psychological issues, but because they're related to each other and it's only logical if you believe one you'd believe the others.
It's a good answer, and it must be factor, but...

Wood et al. (2012) Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories
QuoteIn Study 1 (n = 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n = 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2).
(Wood & Douglas (2013) might also be considered particularly relevant.)

suggests - I wouldn't go beyond that at this point - that's it's not a sufficient explanation. (Furthermore, I'd say many of the other studies - involving entirely conspiracy theories entirely made up by the experimenters - suggests that it's not just because the theories are logically intertwined.)

It does become slightly... unsteady if you're talking about stuff as high-level as "distrust of authority and official accounts" - which would be a clear cognitive bias (but plausibly a very sensible one!) but one that's developed as someone has learnt about Watergate, or MK-Ultra, or JFK, or Diana, or Iran-Contra, or Jimmy Savile etc.

Which emphasizes the idea that it's not a straightforward matter of 'crackpots' or 'impairment' or 'psychological affliction'. Biases that lead you towards or away conspiracy theories are broadly trading errors of one kind for another (and at that point it's a matter of deciding which errors are more costly...).

Zetetic


biggytitbo

If we're talking about people's ability to evaluate evidence, why the fixation on conspiracy theories when that ability applies to everything? Most of the variation is perfectly legitimate anyway, just down to people seeing stuff differently for a whole variety of reasons, social, political etc.

The extremes at both ends that might represent genuine impairment are probably very small.

The chemtrails stuff, don't know much about it but it's no a priori, inherently implausible. The US government  has at one time or another tested all sorts of stuff on unwitting victims, from radiation to biological toxins, syphillis, nerve gases, the plague, LSD, mind control, the list is very very long.

I'm sure the chemtrails stuff is without merit, but I can understand someone aware of the above may come to make a reasonable evaluation of the evidence that there's something in it.

Replies From View

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
not because I have a psychological affliction that makes me more susceptible to believing in conspiracies.

How would anyone know this of themselves, truly?  Many people are very sure of it.

Pepotamo1985

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
In the JFK case I know people from every possible social background, every kind of political affiliation who all believe there was a conspiracy. Trying to pin some kind of psychological explanation for their belief is straight from a CIA memo designed to discredit critics of the Warren Commision, so it's slightly annoying to see the same old bullshit still being used 50 years on.

Well yes, absolutely - however, you're missing my point. I was careful to add the caveat that not everyone who believes in a conspiratorial reading of history/events is loopy, paranoid, feeble in the bonce etc. - far from it.

I do believe, however, that there's a significant chunk of people who are drawn to a grand conspiracy reading of events (or even particular conspiracy theories), because they're a bit thick, believe the exclusion implied by belief in alternative viewpoints lends them a degree of intellectual superiority to non-believers, and find this separation quite comforting. Just to stress again, this is not the only reason why people believe in conspiracies - and it may not even be the sole motivation behind belief in a theory or theories for a select bunch of people - but I deffo reckon it's a palpable motivating force for a significant number of people.

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
They simply believe in the conspiracy because of their evaluation of the evidence, not because of impaired minds.

In the case of Chemtrails, though, there is absolutely no evidence whatsofuckingever, and trying to engage with a proponent of that belief is like talking to an extremely insulated Christian. There's loads of personal conjecture and speculation, basic misunderstanding of physics and science in general and pictures of vapour trails (or whatever) left in the sky - that's it. It's not like the JFK assassination where you have mountains of mutually supporting stuff which, in the least, casts doubt on the fact Oswald acted alone.

The Christian analogy is worth further consideration, too. I've met more than a few Christians who are clearly attracted to their faith not only because of the promise of heaven, but also the promise of eternal punishment and damnation for unbelievers - and, if that's not the original motivator behind their faith, it's certainly a major bonus and icing on the (unleavened) cake.

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 09:03:27 AM
I'd imagine people who believe in Chemtrails do tend believe in some other conspiracies but not because they have psychological issues, but because they're related to each other and it's only logical if you believe one you'd believe the others.

I'd say when you have people like Alex Jones belting out endless hours of IT'S ALL A BIG NWO CONSPIRACY content each and every week, it's a lot easier to believe most things in life are actually part of a malevolent plot.

Zetetic

Quote from: biggytitbo on January 05, 2014, 10:31:34 AM
If we're talking about people's ability to evaluate evidence, why the fixation on conspiracy theories when that ability applies to everything?
Partly because it's regarding conspiracy theories that individual differences seem to be a major barrier to people convincing each other of their view.

I take your point though. There are plenty of other areas where perhaps more of the discussion about why people disagree should take into account their preferences for different types of theories and different approaches to evaluating evidence.

Often, yes, psychological discussion of belief in conspiracy theories has been turned towards discrediting such theories by association. That's not good grounds for denying that there's meaningful work possible in this area - indeed, you'd be better of taking account of that work, and demonstrating both that you're aware of possible preferences in your own thoughts and able to deal with the preferences of others when presenting evidence and theories to them.

Quote
Most of the variation is perfectly legitimate anyway, just down to people seeing stuff differently for a whole variety of reasons, social, political etc.

The extremes at both ends that might represent genuine impairment are probably very small.
I don't think we strongly disagree here.

biggytitbo

QuoteIn the case of Chemtrails, though, there is absolutely no evidence whatsofuckingever

What I'm arguing is a lot of proponents of the theory are probably using evidence that the US Government has conducted unethical experiments on unwitting victims in the past as evidence for Chemtrails.

I suppose its like 'bad character' or 'previous convictions' evidence in criminal cases. It might be a faulty reading of the facts but its not unreasonable enough to suggest mental impairment.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 04, 2014, 11:46:17 PM
I really hate the twoofer crap. It's the bottom of the barrel in insults really... Strikes me as desperate want for a better jibe. The idea of wanting the truth about any subject isn't something that deserves to be mocked... It's Orwellian newspeak in action. [nb]Usually applied to 9-11, of course[/nb]... I'm firmly with Biggy on this. People have strange belief systems and oblique interests. Chemtrail nuts come from all walks of life are not one type of person. The idea that all conspiracy theorists think the CIA are watching them is more BS meant to shape perceptions. Repeat the media mantras... "They stink... They're mentally ill... The post crap on forums at four am...They're social misfits..." All borrowed from The X-Files' Lone Gunmen / Plague in Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, of course.

It's a dangerous game the media is playing. They would like to narrow minds and perceptions. They want you to pick up their sneery tone, and also carry around a safe psychological rubbish basket to dump theories / concepts that every now and again genuinely demand your startled fucking attention... Some things are just nonsense, disinformation and phantastic shite, but anybody who goes on a Chemtrails forum to troll is a cunt, and may as well slide into the mire and insult five year olds on a My Little Pony dot com.
But what about people (such as most of the posters on this thread, as well as virtually every skeptical journalist and author) who are able to think conspiracy theorists are wrong-headed, for the reasons already stated, while simultaneously keeping an open mind, not thinking everyone on the other side of the debate is a CIA stooge, etc?

Absorb the anus burn

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on January 05, 2014, 03:42:01 PM
But what about people (such as most of the posters on this thread, as well as virtually every skeptical journalist and author) who are able to think conspiracy theorists are wrong-headed, for the reasons already stated, while simultaneously keeping an open mind, not thinking everyone on the other side of the debate is a CIA stooge, etc?

It's obfuscation and disinformation... It's a way to paint people 'who think about conspiracy theories' in a negative light with tainted and grubby associations. Let's tick off the list, shall we? The content of every article and forum thread in the topic repeats the same crap.

Conspiracy theorists are loners with inadequate professional and social lives....They think they are important because they have special, inside information.... Conspiracy theorists think they are being watched by the secret services...[nb]conspiracy theorists are all weirdos, losers, loners, immature thinkers and suffering from mental illness..... If you believe one, you believe them all, apparently...[/nb]

The BBC article I linked to in October suggested conspiracy theorists are a threat to democracy... It contained phrases like "swivel-eyed loons," / "poor personal hygiene and halitosis" / "lose the will to live..." I linked to similar articles with the same sneery tone in The Telegraph and US newspapers.

Zetetic can continue linking to studies we read two months ago, but he knows they are so absurdly narrow in scope, sadly not factoring in the simple truth that genuine, real conspiracies have been exposed... Again and again and again......... Tell us all about the psychology of the people who believed in these conspiracies.

Paperclip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Operation Northwoods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Hillsborough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_disaster
Cointelpro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Gulf of Tonkin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Project MK-Ultra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
Mockingbird: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird [nb]Mockingbird is certainly appropriate, as it was an attempt by the CIA to directly influence and eventually control the flow of information in an expanding media age.[/nb]

Replies From View

I can't remember your take on 9/11 - is it that you simply don't accept the mainstream narrative fully (like most intelligent people you are open to questioning official versions of events within reason), or are you a believer in the popular (and easily/frequently debunked) stories of explosives taking the towers down, a missile hit the Pentagon and so on?

MojoJojo

Oh FFS sake. Is Operation Paperclip a conspiracy now? I suppose that means D-Day and Bletchley Park are conspiracies too.
I've just booked a holiday with some friends in the Costa del Sol. I haven't told work about it, posted about it on facebook or painted the news on the side of my house - is that a conspiracy?

Even when trying to present evidence that conspiracies exist[nb]which no is fucking arguing against[/nb], you're fucking it up.

biggytitbo

Paperclip was a conspiracy, and a pretty big one at that. Dulles, McCloy and their cronies conspired behind Truman and Esienhowers backs to bring over war nazi criminals on a vast scale, something expressly forbidden as part of the officially sanctioned plan. They also kept the operation going long after it was meant to have stopped.

Zetetic

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 05, 2014, 09:05:53 PM
The BBC article I linked to in October suggested conspiracy theorists are a threat to democracy... It contained phrases like "swivel-eyed loons," / "poor personal hygiene and halitosis" / "lose the will to live..."
It did, you know.
Quote
"The reason we have conspiracy theories is that sometimes governments and organisations do conspire," says Observer columnist and academic John Naughton.

It would be wrong to write off all conspiracy theorists as "swivel-eyed loons," with "poor personal hygiene and halitosis," he told a Cambridge University Festival of Ideas debate.
Oh.

(And you know, actually, I agree that there's an issue around the connotations of 'conspiracy theory'. And one with a number of facets open to psychological investigation of course.)

Zetetic

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on January 05, 2014, 09:05:53 PM
Zetetic can continue linking to studies we read two months ago,
Thank you - as they remain relevant and valid, I may well do so.

Quotebut he knows they are so absurdly narrow in scope, sadly not factoring in the simple truth that genuine, real conspiracies have been exposed... Again and again and again......... Tell us all about the psychology of the people who believed in these conspiracies.
I don't see what your point is - have I not made it clear that the different biases(, or styles, or evaluatory approaches) involved that predispose people away or towards conspiracy theories are somewhat a matter of trading some types of errors for others?

I think it's equally interesting why people did or didn't believe the local official accounts of - to take two of your examples - the Hillsborough disaster and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.