Customer Discussions > History forum

Ten Tips to Becoming an Accomplished Conspiracy Cultist


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 254 posts in this discussion
Posted on Oct 31, 2012 9:30:40 AM PDT
Yo says:
anne,

That was a truly fine example of Kook wit in action!

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 11:05:12 AM PDT
Will someone please let me know if Patrick ever produces any forensic evidence to back up his paranoid suspicions of a massive conspiracy.

As I wrote yesterday, the best disinfectant to use on conspiracy cultists is the request for hard evidence. Since I refuse to debate the 9/11 attacks with any of the "Truthers" I don't have a great deal of rebuttal information for their glassy-eyed claims, but the Kennedy assassination is my area of expertise and I am still waiting in vain for ANY conspiracy cultist to produce one bullet that doesn't match Oswald one fingerprint that does match Oswald, one rifle that didn't belong to Oswald, or one description given on another assassin by a credible eyewitness whose words match the known evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 11:07:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 11:10:36 AM PDT
Suet says:
What forensic evidence didn't the 9/11 Commission offer, anne? Do you have something specific in mind or is it just a general point?

*forensic: Of or used in courts of law, forensic science, etc. Concise OED.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 11:13:51 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Oct 31, 2012 12:15:26 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 11:15:01 AM PDT
Suet says:
I bet the kook-o-meter spiked with that one, eh?

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 11:25:33 AM PDT
Yo says:
Sadly, the Kook-o-meter is broken. An older model, it was not designed to withstand the magnitude of Kook forces now extant.

Posted on Oct 31, 2012 12:22:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 31, 2012 5:59:08 PM PDT
Suet says:
It isn't so much WHAT these people think, it's HOW they think that bothers me. Almost without exception they are convinced they "know" the truth; and they infer from this that any kind of chicanery, distortion or worse is justified to further their cause. They are a menace to rational discourse.

"Those of us who continue to adhere to the rationalist tradition must commit to its defense, as though the year were 1755 and not 2011. For if the Great Lisbon Earthquake can be said to have inaugurated the Age of Reason, 9/11 and its consequences may yet prove to mark its end."

Jonathan Kay, Among the Truthers*

*Almost 50% of Amazon reviewers rated this book 1 star. I suspect that most of those are not Birthers, vaccine phobics, or fans of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - which are also touched on.

Added: I think they must have something else against it. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 1:47:57 PM PDT
Since I am relatively new to this site could someone please outline who is on which side. On other sites that I frequent more often I know all of the personalities, but this site I am still getting my feet wet. Who are the DIE-hard conspiracy cultists and who are on the other side of the tracks? This will help several of us to enjoy the respective posts more if we know who is behind the comments.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 2:05:30 PM PDT
JagdTiger says:
lol...funny...:).

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 2:17:45 PM PDT
Suet says:
Well SV, as you can tell from my posts, I am a diehard conspiracy cultist. I believe every conspiracy theory that was ever thought of, and some that haven't been thought of yet. You name it, I believe it (anne, otoh, is a skeptical rationalist, and left coaster is a government shill).
Hope that helps. ;)

Posted on Nov 2, 2012 6:20:21 AM PDT
anne says:
Is someone a conspiracy cultist if they believe the 9/11/2012 Benghazi event was a botched kidnapping?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 6:28:41 AM PDT
Suet says:
It depends on what evidence they cite and how they argue their case. For example, do they distort or ignore inconvenient evidence to make it either fit their "theory" or go away? In that case they are cultists.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 7:21:19 AM PDT
anne says:
anne: <Is someone a conspiracy cultist if they believe the 9/11/2012 Benghazi event was a botched kidnapping?>

Suetonius: <do they distort or ignore inconvenient evidence to make it either fit their "theory" or go away? >

anne: Not that I'm seeing so far. I would have pegged Garland Peterson an accomplished conspiracy cultist. Now I may have to rethink that.

Posted on Nov 2, 2012 10:36:20 AM PDT
My opinion says:
Those conspiracy cultists are almost as bad as the people who will fight about anything.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 10:37:57 AM PDT
Suet says:
I haven't looked into it, anne. Is it interesting?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 10:41:34 AM PDT
Suet says:
Conspiracy cultists WILL fight about anything. For example, as far as I can see, half the 9/11 truthers think the other half are govt. shills, and vice versa.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 10:45:11 AM PDT
I have a few minutes between lectures and I think I will start a new thread dealing with specific examples of how conspiracy cultists deal with physical evidence. Even though most of it will deal with Kennedy assassination information (my area of expertise) it should be interesting for conspiracy cultists and historical scholars alike.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 11:56:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Nov 2, 2012 11:58:09 AM PDT
Suet says:
I am a comparative novice at this, SV. I first took an interest in conspiracy cultists five years ago when I found out what they were saying about 9/11. Before that I thought they were just a bad joke. Now I think they are a bad joke PLUS.

I know almost nothing of the JFK genre. You mentioned 'Jimmy Fetzer' in that connection - would that be James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth?
I certainly hope there aren't two of them.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 12:42:10 PM PDT
One and the same.

The infamous Jimmy Fetzer formerly of the University of Minnesota has undergone one of the most puzzling falls from a credible philosophy professor to perhaps the kookiest of the kooky among the conspiracy cultists in the world. Jimmy Fetzer NEVER met a consipracy he didn't like (of believe.) He believes Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy, he believes the famous Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination is a total fabrication, he believes the 9/11 attacks were all planned and carried out by our government, he believes the moon landings were all faked. The more I deal with conspiracy cultists, like Fetzer, the more I see that a person that enters the netherworld of the conspiracy mindset soon becomes convinced that ALL events that have occurred in our nation's past were the result of massive conspiracies. NOTHING is as it seems and NOTHING we have been taught in high school and universities is the way it really is (an ironic position to embrace having been a professional teacher, as Fetzer was for decades.) These cultists that believe that President Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy soon believe that his brother Robert was also assassinated by a conspiracy as well as Martin Luther King, as well as Vince Foster, as well as John Kennedy junior, as well as the individuals that died during the Pearl Harbor attack as well as both victims of the O.J. Simpson murders. Before long, the conspiracy monster has consumed their entire ability to see ANYTHING in non-cionspiratorial terms. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy and POWERFUL forces have controlled our world without our knowledge. The conspiracy cultist see themselves in almost "super hero" terms, believing that they and they alone see things as they really are. These people are virtually impossible to talk with on rational terms. Fetzer is a bully, a loud talker, a shouter, an intimidator, and as a result he scares off a lot of rational individuals whose points could expose his wacky theories. I have squared off against him many times and never blinked once--he doesn't intimidate me one bit. When cornered with contradictory evidence he tends to resort to making up factoids (false facts), name calling, questioning YOUR identity and background, anything to get away from the facts that you presented that contradicted his conspiratorial view of the world. For a while he was convinced that I was another poster on the Internet named John McAdams. This "discovery" of his was based on the fact that Dr. McAdams and I both are convinced there was no conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassinaiton; therefore Fetzer naturally assumed we must be the same person. In Fetzer's mind there COULDN'T be two people that disagree with him--therefore they must be the same individual. Then when he learned that Dr. McAdams and I were two different people he began accusing me of being yet another Internet poster named David Von Pein. Jimmy Fetzer spends a good deal of his time trying to find out the identities of his rivals so that he can deflect attention from his irrational beliefs and focus them on the background and identity of the person he is debating. He has no idea who I am. I am a virtual persona non grata on the Internet. There is NOTHING factual about me or my background ANYWHERE on the Internet, simply because I value my privacy. Of course this desire for privacy adds endless fuel to the fires of every conspiracy kook I come in contact with. They interpret my desire for privacy as evidence that I TOO AM PART OF THE CONSPIRACY. I can't count the number of times cultists like Jimmy Fetzer have said to me, "Well....if you are not part of the conspiracy then why don't you tell us who you really are and where you were educated and where you currently teach?" Conspiracy cultists believe that this third-grade attempt at intimidation will work with me...but as a quick search of the Internet will reveal, it doesn't. The only thing you will read about me is what OTHERS think about me but nothing has been discovered about me factually.

If I were you, I wouldn't waste any time debating Jimmy Fetzer, he is a lost soul, drifting aimlessly from one conspiratorial claim to another in a sea filled with confusion and contradictory beliefs.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 1:25:09 PM PDT
Bubba says:
I saw a TV show that took several photographs and movies taken during the Kennedy drive through, recreated the street, and stitched the pictures and films together to get a rather coherent documentation of the drive and the shooting. The Zapruder film meshed seamlessly into the photographs and other films. The camera that Zapruder was using was a good quality Bell & Howell 8mm movie camera (yeah, I used "good quality" and "8mm movie camera" in the same sentence).

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 1:42:48 PM PDT
Suet says:
Thanks, SV. And Fetzer looks so avuncular! My understanding of his current position regarding 9/11 is that no planes were involved either at the Pentagon or the WTC. There may have been a big ray gun in space. But however it was done, it was almost certainly the Zionist Jews behind it.

To be fair, I should make clear that this is not mainstream Truther belief. They agree there was no plane at the Pentagon, but while the Twin Towers were definitely hit by planes, they were demolished by planted explosives. Much more reasonable, eh?

Needless to say, there is no evidential basis for any of this.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 2, 2012 1:44:00 PM PDT
The program Bubba is referring to is a Discovery Channel special titled "Death in Dealey Plaza" and he is exactly right. As with ALL real evidence it fits together. All truth can be circumscribed into one great whole. Items of truth agree with and compliment other items of truth. That is one major problem with ALL conspiracy theories, the various theories contradict and disagree with each other. That fact alone should be sufficient to dissuade any thinking person from jumping into the conspiracy cult with both feet.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 12:54:53 AM PST
Well just 2 comments

1 - The conspiracists approach is actually the same that various religious folks use to "convince" us that their particular god exists and performed miracles (even though of course there is never any evidence). Hence this can be construed as a fringe religion

2 - The "official narrative" is in fact often inconsistent and full of holes. The latest example is that of the official narrative of Ben Laden's death. This makes it easier for conspiracy theories to arise which in turn should not discourage anyone from questionning the official narrative when it clearly does not make sense.

But of course Napoleon put it best: never look for conspiracies when simple incompetence can explain what happened

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 5:24:05 AM PST
Suet says:
That can be a problem with our perception of reality: it often contains apparent inconsistencies and holes. Then pettifogging cranks like St. David Griffin go to work on it, joining up the holes and even inventing some that weren't there. Before you know it, you've got a Truth Movement.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 5:28:30 AM PST
anne says:
So you're saying 9/11 can be explained with simple incompetence?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  254
Initial post:  Oct 25, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions