Top 10 Internet-Fueled Conspiracies

[SunsetDreams]

Monday, Jul 19, 2010 11:16 ET
From JFK to Obama, Roswell to Da Vinci -- the great paranoias all prosper on the Web



In a culture consumed by compelling, daily conspiracies the Web is the buzzing, twitching engine of it all. And despite the hearty efforts of the professional debunkers, the Internet echo chamber has a way of giving even the most laughable conspiracies real longevity. We polled a number of conspiracy watchers and followed our own curiosity down the rabbit hole to compile a list of the 10 conspiracy theories most fueled by the Internet — and their continued chance of survival. Not surprisingly, the biggest -- and most outlandish -- ones tackle some of the most shocking moments of our time. Says Michael Barkun, the author of "A Culture of Conspiracy" and a professor at Syracuse University, "Often a more elaborate, expansive cause is posited when an event has expansive effects."

(there is a slideshow to view at the link)

Here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/19/conspiracies

This is my first time posting in this forum. I may not reply back to this thread, I just thought DU'ers who do come here, might find it interesting. Enjoy :)

[zappaman]

1. I'm sure that we have a couple of poster here

who believe every single one of those "theories".

[sangha 108]

18. And I am sure we have a whole slew of posters here who will debunk every one of them...

Wonder why they are so sure of themselves? You'd almost think...naw, won't go there...

[SDuderstadt]

19. "wonder why they are so sure of themselves"

It's called evidence, reason and Logic. You ought to try it.

Instead, of course, you impugn our motivation, no matter how indirectly. BTW, I embrace my beliefs provisionally, meaning if better evidence emerges, I'm open-minded, just in case you want to admonish me as close-minded for rejecting goofy conspiracy theories.

[zappaman]

20. I wish I could tell you why

but I can't.
this site is monitored.

[CJCRANE]

2. Worth a read just for the comments (on both sides of the argument)

which are generally more nuanced than the article itself.

[defendandprotect]

3. Think American/International "Distrust of Government" might be a more likely headline ...

NOT a "people's" government - but the government which serves power -- mega corporations --

and which is causing interenational and domestic suffering --

[democraticinsurgent]

4. This passage on 9/11 reveals the author's bias

"Among the many, endlessly detailed theories: Controlled explosions brought down the twin towers; a missile, not a plane, hit the Pentagon; a U.S. fighter jet shot down Flight 93 over Pennsylvania. Government experts, academics and the world of science unanimously agree that it is all pernicious nonsense; and the 9/11 Commission report provides detailed explanations for why such theories could never be true."

Regardless of your position on 9/11, this is a stupidly sweeping statement. Unanimous agreement that the official conspiracy story is true. Really? Unanimous? I guess she didn't check out sites like "Journal for 9/11 Science Studies" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"? Also doesn't look like she learned basic journalistic techniques, such as avoiding superlatives, especially when they cannot possibly be supported.

And the 9/11 Commission Report is the bible on this event? Really? Even the 9/11 Commissioners have disowned it.

Who is Natasha Lennard and why is she so incompetent?

Wow, thanks Salon, for continued "objectivity". I remember now why I stopped paying their subscription fee a few years ago.

[LARED]

5. The reality is that the the world of science either ignores

or does not consider the "Journal for 9/11 Science Studies" and "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" to be part of the science community.

To the naive, ignorant or CT'er (is that redundant?) both sites sound and taste great. To just about anyone on the planet that has seen real science and that has read the so called "science" on these web pages the typical response is giggles leading to dismay that so many people will read and believe in what is essentially highfalutin gibberish.

[stevedesmond]

6. Author didn't even attempt to prove that the Warren Commission was right

Is that what she calls a news article?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Why should she have to?

It's not like the JFK assassination "community" has come close to cracking the case after nearly 50 years.

The evidence against Oswald is overwhelming.

[stevedesmond]

8. Doesn't it bother you that So many witnesses heard shots from the grassy knoll?

And that so many Parkland doctors saw a gaping wound at the back of Kennedy's head?

You call the evidence against Oswald overwhelming. I say he was a patsy.

[SDuderstadt]

9. And, of course...

you omit the fact that many more witnesses heard the shots coming from the TSBD.

You also omit the fact that Parkland was sheer chaos, the Parkland doctors state they were occupied trying to save JFK'S life and, further, the large flap of skull and scalp from the fatal wound made it hard for them to ascertain precisely what they were seeing.

Sorry, dude...no sale.

[stevedesmond]

10. Problem is...Agents Sibert and O'neill, as well as Tom Robinson, saw gaping back wounds, too

And there were in Bethesda.

2) When did I deny that shots were also fired from the TSBD or its vicinity?

And do you really think that chaos results in several people seeing non-existent gaping back wounds? Is that a logical thing to say? Chaos is not some sort of hallucinogen drug.

[SDuderstadt]

11. "Is that a logic thing to say?"

Dude...it's going on fifty years now. Do you have anything besides recycled CT bullshit?

[stevedesmond]

12. Wait..you're going to tell me why you didn't mention Sibert, O'neill and Robinson

Instead of reminding me how long ago the murder occurred. Or you can continue deliberately omitting Sibert's, O'neill's and Robison's observations. The lone-nut theory is the "bullshit."

[SDuderstadt]

13. Dude...

what did the DOCTORS at Bethesda have to say?

How much longer do you think any of the direct witnesses will still be around? Why can't you guys crack this case?

BTW, I saw one of your other posts about BlackOps radio. I'm sorry...I didn't think you'd be a serious student of the assassination.

[stevedesmond]

14. Wait...You said you hate omssions, so first things first...were O'neill and Sibert hallucinating?

Why did you mention chaos as the reason for the Parkland doctors having seen non-existent wounds, when you are now claiming that the FBI agents and a mortician were hallucinating as well, in a place where (according to you) chaos did not exist?

Want to talk about Bethesda doctors? Why did Hume burn the original notes on the Sunday following the assassination? Oh yeah, I forgot, you buy the "the notes were bloody" excuse. LOL. Want to talk about doctors? Why did Fincke say that Humes called him on November 29th (Blumberg report) in order to examine JFK's brain, hen Humes testified that the brain was examined "2 or 3 days" after November 22nd?

I want you to tell me your position as to whether Kennedy's brain was buried with the body on Monday, November 25th or not.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Dude...

please show where I ever said anyone was hallucinating.

Typical CT strawman argument. You seriously need to master the
concept of "convergence of evidence". I also
recommend you read Bugliosi's books to find answers to your
silly questions.

I'm not going to waste time on someone who deliberately
misrepresents what I actually said. I'm done.

[reinvestigate911]

33. hilarious

nice exchange here.

[SDuderstadt]

35. Yeah....

I think you might want to ask stevedesmond how he feels about it.

[reinvestigate911]

37. actually

both steve and 30rock dealt with you quite handily in both exchanges.
the casual reader will notice that in both exchanges you tuck tail and run.

it's rather amusing to now see you "claim victory".

[SDuderstadt]

39. First of all...

show me where I "claimed victory".

Secondly, why do CT types rely so heavily on strawman arguments? Of course, you would claim they "dealt with me quite handily". For example, the FBI S.A.'s that 30rock claims listened to the "tape" of Oswald at the embassy in Mexico City, actually testified to the HSCA they had never heard a tape of Oswald. If you don't believe me, read pgs. 249-250 of the HSCA Report. You wouldn't know a fact if it did the cha cha on your head, dude.

P.S. stevedesmond can't hear you and 30rock is M.I.A.

[30rock]

41. What do you mean I'm "MIA"? You said, "I'm done."

I stopped talking to you when you announced that you were running away with your signature "I'm done" white flag. Why would I continue to school someone who didn't want to continue debating?

You came here saying that the Salon lady didn't have to defend the awesome Warren Commission, because see, chaos in Parkland made many doctors and nurses there see the exact same hallucination (yes, hallucination is what you describe), and O'neill and Sibert and Robinson saw things that were not there (even though you claim there was no reality-distorting-chaos in Bethesda), and we are to believe that the someone inexplicably said that two SA of the FBI listened to a tape by "Oswald" and determined this was an impostor. Yup, that's another one who was hallucinating. I'd love to see you build a case against a defendant in which so many people saw things that were not there according to you.

Now, are you done, or are you not done?

[SDuderstadt]

43. Dude...

you continue to blatantly misconstrue what I actually said. As far as the S.A.'s are concerned, if you'd bother to read the HSCA Report, they all testified they had NEVER listened to a recording of Oswald.

You're nothing more than a garden variety JFK assassination CT and, yes, I'm done with you. Hint: I also wasn't talking to you in that post, was I...

[30rock]

45. Why do you think the FBI originally said they listened to the tapes and determined it wasn't Oswald?

Do you think the flip flop helps your cause? Why would the FBI make that up originally? Don't you think that people will believe there was a cover-up?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Dude...

remember where I said I was done with you?

I wasn't kidding.

[30rock]

47. Too bad. I was dying to know how you would have addressed the following memo

Besides the memo that we discussed (Belmont to Tolson, re: agents listening to tapes and concluding it wasn't Oswald) here is part of an internal CIA memo uncovered in the late 90's by the ARRB, dated December, 1963. In this memo, we are told about phone calls sent to the White House and FBI after the assassination in which the CIA claims that the "similarity of speech" led the CIA to believe this voice was Oswald's.

Wait a second. I thought no tape existed, only transcripts. Now you have the difficult task of explaining why, if the CIA had a tape of (allegedly) Oswald trying to get to Cuba, the CIA did not keep it and use it as proof against Oswald. Perhaps because the voice was not similar to Oswald's?

According to your version:

-Belmont lied,
-Hoover got duped by Belmont
-Sylvia Duran lied when she said the man who visited them on a Saturday wasn't Oswald.
-The HSCA was foolish to believe Silvia Duran was "truthful" when she said that the person visiting Saturday was Oswald.
-The CIA lied in the memo uncovered by the ARRB.

You have weaved a very tangled web for yourself here.

[SDuderstadt]

48. You just did it again, dude..

you keep ascribing arguments to me that I haven't even made, then attempting to refute a non-existent position I never adopted.

See why I'm done, dude?

[30rock]

49. Tell me anything about that memo

...

[SDuderstadt]

50. Done, dude...

for the reasons I stated.

Sinking in, yet?

[30rock]

51. Checkmate

Again.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Sigh...n/t

[SDuderstadt]

53. "Checkmate"

Jesus, you're a hoot.

[zappaman]

54. you have to admit

it is pretty funny.

[SDuderstadt]

55. It's hysterical....

no matter what transpires, CT's think they earned a victory lap, even when they got their ass kicked.

[reinvestigate911]

56. lol. asses kicked?

you never answered 30rock's question... you deflect and excuse yourself.
pretty fucking funny, dude.

[Johnny1974]

16. JFK

Didn't the US government admit some time ago, that likely at least two assassins were involved?

[SDuderstadt]

17. Except...

the Department of Justice commissioned the National Academy of Sciences to conduct further study and the NAS determined that the "acoustic evidence"upon which the HSCA relied in its finding wasn't even contemporaneous with the assassination. The HSCA, like the Warren Commission, also determined that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed JFK. OF course, JFK assassination conspiracy theorists (not saying you are one) love to cite the part of the HSCA findings that JFK was "likely" assassinated as part of a conspiracy, yet completely ignore that they further concluded that Oswald was guilty.

[30rock]

21. Speaking of HSCA...Where are those photographs of Oswald in Mexico City?

The Lopez Report concluded that there are likely photos of Oswald during his visit to Mexico City, which have never been given up by the CIA. Instead, the CIA showed a picture of some chubby guy and pretendeded he was Oswald.

[SDuderstadt]

22. This has been explained over and over...

guys, you've been plugging away at this for nearly fifty years now.

If the CIA even knew what Oswald looked like when he visited the embassy, do you honestly think the CIA would hire someone to impersonate Oswald that didn't look like him? The problem with JFK assassination conspiracy theorists is they look backwards for almost fifty years through a lens of modern technology, without stopping to consider it didn't exist back then.

There is plenty of corroboration for Oswald's trip to Mexico City and his visit to the embassy.

[30rock]

23. Hoover said, "there appeared to be a second person" down there

"Hoover: No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there" http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Hoover_11-23-63.htm

By the way, why were 14 minutes erased from that tape? And why was even Hoover confused and claim not to be?

[SDuderstadt]

24. "Less than 24 hours after the assassination of President Kennedy"

That's from your own source, dude. Funny how you left that out.

Typical CT tactic. Rely on quotes from the immediate aftermath of an event and omit later statements as more information and facts emerge.

[30rock]

25. Typical LN: You pretend that Hoover ever addressed the impostor situation after that phone call

Nor did you address the 14 minute gap. So enlighten us and tell us what Hoover said about the impostor situation after the date on the tape. Did Hoover ever say that the voice matched Oswald's voice?

Here's something you will also ignore. From the Lopez Report:

The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual indentified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to-individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald

Dear LN, why was someone pretending to be Oswald? Did these agents ever backtracked from their opinion that the voice wasn't Oswald's?

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

this was addressed by the HSCA. No offense, but trying to reason with you is a total waste of time.

Nearly fifty years...are you guys close to blowing the lid off this thing?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

[30rock]

27. Looks like the FBI big-shots didn't convince the HSCA

Someone called on a Saturday pretending to be Oswald, yet Sylvia Duran said Oswald did not visit the consulate that Saturday. HSCA said that "there are indications that she was truthful" in that statement. Yet you tell us that the salon lady did not need to explain the Warren Commission joke to her readers: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0260a.htm

[SDuderstadt]

28. Dude...

what part of "waste of time" is confusing you?

[30rock]

29. What part of "you accuse a lot of people of hallucinating" don't you get?

First, since you didn't like what the Parkland doctors had to say about the hole at the back of jfk's head, you say that the chaos in the room made them see things that didn't exist (hallucinations). Now you accuse the FBI agents who opined that the voice was not Oswald's of listening to a tape that didn't exist. I wonder if reality-distorting-chaos reigned in these Special Agents' rooms as well. One thing we agree on: You are wasting your time.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[30rock]

31. Let's reach a compromise

Regarding the special agents...since you made the argument that the special agents in questions listened to a tape that did not exist...can we describe the state of mind you assigned to them as schizophrenia? Or it's possible that you are accusing them of lying about having listend to the tapes and concluding that the voice wasn't Oswald. Were they listening to nonexistent voices or were they lying?

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

now you're constructing a false dilemma. Actually, you've managed to combine a false dilemma with several strawman arguments. Apparently you have trouble comprehending the meaning of "waste of time".

Done, dude.

[reinvestigate911]

34. good stuff

another great exchange here.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Feel free to jump in....

dude.

[reinvestigate911]

38. didn't you say that you were done here?

too funny.

[SDuderstadt]

40. No, I said I was done with....

30rock.

Duh.

[30rock]

42. Then wy did you accuse me to being "MIA" when you said you were done?

Another flawed argument.

[SDuderstadt]

44. You're more than welcome to...

parade your ignorance of the facts of the assassination for everyone else here to see, dude.

[reinvestigate911]

57. another great dodge by the "dude"

weak sauce.

on edit: i'm curious; what did you find so offensive about 30rock's question? because to the causal reader it seems as though you simply feign piety and promptly excuse yourself. you have to admit that it's pretty amusing... especially that you react so predictably in each instance.

[SDuderstadt]

58. Read for comprehension, dude...

Read the "exchange" carefully....it's a typical "debate" with a CT type...notice throughout the "exchange" how he continually misrepresents what I actually said and attributes positions to me that I never advocated?

Duh.

[reinvestigate911]

59. oh, i did read...

and it's there in black & white for anyone to see: you didn't like how your argument was summarized and so you stamped your feet and marched your ass out of the conversation. if you're not so easily offended, then why not address the substantive issues raised by his question?

and if you are that dismayed by a simple and reasonable reframing of your argument then i take back what i said... it's not funny; it's pretty fucking sad.... dude.

[SDuderstadt]

60. "a simple and reasonable reframing of your argument"

Dude, it's called a "strawman" and it's a dishonest debate tactic. You can gloss over it all you want.

I don't expect you to understand.

[reinvestigate911]

61. it's amusing that the conversation is still there for anyone to read

and your calling 30rock's summary of your argument "a strawman" doesn't make it one.
it looks more like you couldn't answer his questions without losing your footing -- and so rather than being exposed you declare that you're "done" and run away.

it's right there for all to read, dude. duh.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Dude...

if you can't see how he was putting words in my mouth, I can't help you. I'll engage with anyone who wants to debate what I actually said or positions I actually advocate.

That leaves both of you out.

[reinvestigate911]

63. no, you can't answer the question... and so that leaves YOU out

30rock pointed out OBVIOUS and glaring contradictions that you -- for whatever reason -- cannot or will not clarify nor resolve. so you call it "a strawman" and exit the debate. go back and read it again.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Dude...

show me where I accused anyone of "hallucinating".

[reinvestigate911]

65. duder

ok, so you don't think like the terminology; you consider "hallucinating" to be an inaccurate description for seeing things that were not there.

then please detail for us what phenomena explains the contrary nature of these professionals' analysis. HINT: "chaos" will not suffice. doctors and FBI agents routinely operate under pressure and in chaotic circumstances -- it's what they do, "dude". obviously, citing "chaos" does not help your argument... now if you can, explain the contradiction.

and "dude" i have to say, it's pretty fucking goofy that you make people jump through your stupid semantic hoops.

from webster's:

Main Entry: hal·lu·ci·na·tion
Pronunciation: \hə-ˌlü-sə-ˈnā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 1629
1 a : perception of objects with no reality usually arising from disorder of the nervous system or in response to drugs (as LSD) b : the object so perceived

pay attention dude, this one concerns you...

2 : an unfounded or mistaken impression or notion : delusion

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hallucination

[SDuderstadt]

66. Dude...

it's not a "contradiction". Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable and your "argument" omits the fact that other witnesses saw something different. So, by your "logic" (and, by extension, 30rock's), they can only be "hallucinating". Of course, the "argument" is a false dilemma because it assumes there are only two possibilities; either the witnesses saw what they saw or they were "hallucinating", when there are additional possibilities. Which is why I never once accused anyone of hallucinating. If you can find an example where I did, please provide it.

Trying to reason with you is as frustrating as trying to reason with 30rock. Let me know when you find a smoking gun. I won't hold my breath.

P.S. Are you and 30rock having some sort of contest to see who can pack the most logical fallacies into one post?

[30rock]

67. To see things that are no there=to hallucinate

You expect readers to think that because you didn't use the exact word "hallucinate" you did not accuse Parkland doctors, Belmont (who said two agents had concluded someone was impersonating Oswald) and some Bethesda witnesses (Sibert, O'neill and Robinson) of hallucinating (seeing things that are not there).

[SDuderstadt]

68. Yes, dude....

Duh.

Done.