Skepticism and your stance?

[Jackstar]

Of course I've researched it. I've read everything about it.

Everything. You've read everything about it. lol. Okay, pop quiz: when Todashev was being questioned, how many people were in the room with him? Provide two sources.

I just personally conclude that what is reported to have happened is much more plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Now, to be clear, what is your impression of what was reported to have happened?

Definitely wouldn't have time to write Moby Dick. Its already been done!

[steveyraff]

Everything. You've read everything about it. lol. Okay, pop quiz: when Todashev was being questioned, how many people were in the room with him? Provide two sources.

Now, to be clear, what is your impression of what was reported to have happened?

Jackstar, your last couple of replies have been increasingly argumentative and very pernickety. Of course it would be literally impossible for anyone to prove they have read EVERYTHING. So please, spare me the sarcastic little 'lol' after that. I'd love to play your pop quiz, but out of everything I read, I didn't remember exact trivial details like how many were in the room. If I provide two sources is that the bonus question, to which if I answer correctly I instantly gain credibility? I did read the entire manuscript released transcripting his full initial days of question from his hospital bed, including his charges and rights being read to him.

When I say I have read everything (LOL! hiiiilarious isn't it?!?!?), I mean I have read an abundance of views from either side, covering a wide variety of possibilities and theories. Out of them all, the one that to me - in MY opinion, and not yours, seemed most likely, most plausible, the one that was the least complicated and easiest to have possibly happened, was pretty much as was reported in mainstream media. Mainstream media is rife with lies, info manipulation, misrepresentation etc etc - you don't need to help me understand, I am fully aware of it and in general have a dislike for its honesty that runs as deep as me saying I often detest it. But sometimes their story is there for them. Sometimes its just bad enough how it really is and you don't need to find a cover up, or an ulterior motive. It is entirely plausible and it is extremely likely to happen. The various conspiracy theories I've read, would be much less likely, take a huge amount of extra effort and organisation.

Like ANY story, I am always willing to remain open minded. I will never commit so fully to a side that I will stick to that no matter what. If tomorrow I heard something that gave me substantial reason to believe otherwise, I would consider it for sure. But I believe it is 'most likely' that Tamerlan had become radicalised. Some evidence is real - its not all planted, and there was evidence of this. And his social habits and interactions described by a wide array of other sources also hint to this. Two brothers, one influencial over the younger, both not really fitting into society, both driven by ego and stupidity, both with radicalised views. These things are very capable of happening. Theres plenty of accounts reflecting their views. Anyone can go online and find out how to make a bomb. Some idiots go to ridiculous lengths for recognition alone.

Honestly, I am surprised this does not happen more often. There are plenty of hate filled kids out there dying to display their egos, full of venge and hate over ridiculous grudges, full of the stupidity to act upon it, but the ability to go online and make weapons relatively easily. It WILL happen again, and the next time it happens people WILL have conspiracy theories that will always in reality be more complex than the less exciting truth. An angry dumbass.

Now, I have went into way more opinion than I ever wished to go into this subject, and plenty of what I just wrote above, I'd thought while typing it what your smart remark may be - but I've played nice with you, and you've became a little argumentative with me, which I have laughed off on several occasions.

I am not a debunker. I am a realist in most things. It's ok to not believe every single chance of a conspiracy. Conspiracies are real, but I wish people would reserve the conspiracy card for when its much more plausible in order to allow these claims to be taken more seriously.

I'm really not interested in talking about specific cases which is what is happening here. I was just wondering how skeptical people are in general and where they draw their boundaries.

By the way, I can name your several sources that says Lee Harvey Oswald HAD a Casio keyboard and the microphone. In fact, that was taken as he performed in Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby's club. The very man who supposedly shot him. (Seen here playing his signature series Fender Stratocaster) FASCINATING!!!

Thanks all

[McPhallus]

Jackstar, your last couple of replies have been increasingly argumentative and very pernickety.

His typical modus operandi.  Just be glad you're not his alleged ex-girlfriend.

[onan]

Jackstar, your last couple of replies have been increasingly argumentative and very pernickety. Of course it would be literally impossible for anyone to prove they have read EVERYTHING. So please, spare me the sarcastic little 'lol' after that.
Thanks all

Whoa, Whoa, there stranger... you are addressing a man with an IQ of 176. I'd say you should show some respect there pardner.

[Jackstar]

Typical. lol Spared.

Date Registered: Yesterday at 09:53:06

Rome: evidently, now built in a day. Moving on.

a man with an IQ of 176.

Honestly, Onan, I expected better out of you. I made it perfectly clear that I.Q. tests are bullshit, and I said that I once scored that high--I didn't say that my I.Q. currently is that presently. Your inference, not my implication. Do I need to go get StrawMan.jpg for you? I hope not.

Tsk, tsk. Would you mind taking over for me here with the new fella? Maybe you have some kind of genie in a bottle you like for this situation.

[steveyraff]

Whoa, Whoa, there stranger... you are addressing a man with an IQ of 176. I'd say you should show some respect there pardner.

It'd be just horrible and very discriminatory of me if I treated people differently depending on how high their IQ is. I am in no way showing disrespect at all though. Apologies if you are taking it that way. I was however stating how I was juuust beginning to feel slightly disrespected. There isn't a thing wrong with pointing that out early on when you want to keep playing nicely

Jackstar, I'm in no way disgruntled by your opinions, I respect them fully and I am taking them all onboard. You've led me on several paths of research since we've started talking and I've been enjoying that. Just to be on the safe side though, I'm going to make sure I under no circumstances receive a sex change, start and relationship with you, then break up again - I don't know what the story is with the aforementioned 'ex-girlfriend' but it sounds like I ought to stay away from there lol

[Jackstar]

I was juuust beginning to feel slightly disrespected.

It's true--your Respect-O-Meter is on the decline. I suppose now it is kinda wobbling around and hovering, since you have the self-awareness to actually notice that, and then, call attention to that fact.

Go on, strap yourself in, you're in for some chop. You're gonna miss those halcyon days, when all you had to do was answer the pop quiz. The three-part follow-up was gonna be easy, too.

[steveyraff]

It's true--your Respect-O-Meter is on the decline. I suppose now it is kinda wobbling around and hovering, since you have the self-awareness to actually notice that, and then, call attention to that fact.

Go on, strap yourself in, you're in for some chop. You're gonna miss those halcyon days, when all you had to do was answer the pop quiz. The three-part follow-up was gonna be easy, too.

The fact that you considered it easy just means that if I had got it wrong your respect-o-meter for me would have plummeted. Talking back about it retrospectively so soon, yet I already feel all warm and nostalgic about it *sigh*. Those were the days...

[McPhallus]

During times like these, we all* miss the EC.





*most of us, anyway.

[onan]

During times like these, we all* miss the EC.

I do miss the Coyle.

[Jackstar]

if I had got it wrong your respect-o-meter for me would have plummeted.

You are incorrect, but now we know that you have catastrophically low self-esteem, and now, we are getting somewhere.

Smaller walls of text in the future, if you don't mind, thanks? Thanks.

[steveyraff]

You are incorrect, but now we know that you have catastrophically low self-esteem, and now, we are getting somewhere.

Smaller walls of text in the future, if you don't mind, thanks? Thanks.

Nah, its not quite enough evidence to suggest catastrophically low self-esteem. It'd be the same as me saying you are always prematurely judgemental based on only that statement you just made.

Sorry about the large blocks of text. I decided to spurt out a summary of my collective pondering all at once. I don't usually discuss it with anyone else so there was quite a build up. Apologies!

[Jackstar]

Nah, its not quite enough evidence to suggest catastrophically low self-esteem. It'd be the same as me saying you are always prematurely judgemental based on only that statement you just made.

What if there were a demonstrably evident pattern?

Sorry [...] Apologies!

Catastrophic.


I know it hurts, but just breathe through it. What one resists, persists, and what one looks at, disappears.

[steveyraff]

What if there were a demonstrably evident pattern?


Catastrophic.


I know it hurts, but just breathe through it. What one resists, persists, and what one looks at, disappears.

Oh, maybe you are confusing low self esteem with good manners. Its true, some times I am too polite for my own good - even when I really don't need to be. I've been told that before.

[Jackstar]

I've been told that before.

What if there were a demonstrably evident pattern?

Numfar! Teach Onan some kind of dance dance!

[Stellar]

Nah, its not quite enough evidence to suggest catastrophically low self-esteem. It'd be the same as me saying you are always prematurely judgemental based on only that statement you just made.

Sorry about the large blocks of text. I decided to spurt out a summary of my collective pondering all at once. I don't usually discuss it with anyone else so there was quite a build up. Apologies!

All is fair here!!!
Off Topic for Steve since he has asked some big questions.  Lets us ask big questions regarding his MO?

No please steveyraff, please continue to write like you do.  I believe in the 1st amendment as long as the Big Brother isn't pointing a gun to my head telling me what to write; saying its their rite only because the 2nd Amendment applies to them (2014 same year as 1984).  Oh crap yes PRISM  is watching our every word(4th Amendment gone).  So now what do we do?  Hmmm extend middle finger ..!.. or cower in fear Steve? Steve who is your favorite network anchor or news reporter?  Does it bother you that the news filled Bullshit may have to deal with my Bullshit and which one stinks more?  Have you ever heard of Genesis 3:22 and what secret society loves this shit?  Have you ever given out injections like the one Stanley Kubrick received or does the Illuminati wish you to disclose this? From reading your posts Steve you come off as a know it all and I'm learning a great deal; perhaps you can offer me a membership into your cult of wisdom?  I just love all the all seeing eyes in your Avatar!

Steve one last BIG?? What do you think of the thought Police?

Conspiracy Goes Mainstream: CNBC's Big Brother, Big Business

[Jackstar]

[McPhallus]

Oh crap yes PRISM  is watching our every word(4th Amendment gone).  So now what do we do?  Hmmm extend middle finger ..!.. or cower in fear Steve? Steve who is your favorite network anchor or news reporter?  Does it bother you that the news filled Bullshit may have to deal with my Bullshit and which one stinks more?  Have you ever heard of Genesis 3:22 and what secret society loves this shit?  Have you ever given out injections like the one Stanley Kubrick received or does the Illuminati wish you to disclose this? From reading your posts Steve you come off as a know it all and I'm learning a great deal; perhaps you can offer me a membership into your cult of wisdom?  I just love all the all seeing eyes in your Avatar!

[Jackstar]

I want to change my vote.

[Yorkshire pud]

Jackstar, your last couple of replies have been increasingly argumentative and very pernickety. Of course it would be literally impossible for anyone to prove they have read EVERYTHING.

Thanks all

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Both jackshit and Stellarboy have a real problem in not adering to the MO of the typical conspiracy theorist. Jackshit likes to give the impression he's above all that mumbo jumbo nonsense, but then lets himself down again.

Here's the list of CT traits.. Any (in most combinations) at one time or another can be attributed to both individuals..

We often suffer obsessive conspiracy theorists or (guffaw) 'truth seekers' filling up the boards with fact-free claims, evidence-untroubled epilogues and vast reams of tedious cut'n'paste, invariably regurgitated from some dubious internet site.

We hope this information will be of use if you encounter a conspiraloon while on the boards.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

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.  (This was written in their respective tenures)

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.

top

Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide


1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.

2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.

3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.

4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.

5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.

6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.

Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.

7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.

8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.

9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.

^^^^^(Yeah, Ask Stellar how he correlates frequency with current, volts and watts.. He thinks that to increase the first one, you need an abundance of the last three, or any two of the last three, or only one...or something)

10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.

11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'

Yep..That pretty much sums up Jackshit and Stellar.

[Jackstar]

He's lying, and anyone with the time to kill, and the pre-requisite neurons and thumbs to use the search function on this very website, could demonstrate the truth of that statement to themselves in less than an hour.

Let's not do that, however. Let's replace his regular coffee, with Folger's Crystals, and see if he notices. I am particularly tickled by the claim that I refuse to use Occam's Razor; ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you, I don't shave my pubes without Occam. True story.

http://youtu.be/Zp_DGMnaSmw

Brought to you by TaintCo

[Yorkshire pud]

He's lying, and anyone with the time to kill, and the pre-requisite neurons and thumbs to use the search function on this very website, could demonstrate the truth of that statement to themselves in less than an hour.

Oh, please do...I insist.

Let's not do that, however. Let's replace his regular coffee, with Folger's Crystals, and see if he notices.

Or I could try the cocaine you use Jacky boy. How do your parents feel about your addiction? Would they mind if I called and asked them? 

[steveyraff]

All is fair here!!!
Off Topic for Steve since he has asked some big questions.  Lets us ask big questions regarding his MO?

NFrom reading your posts Steve you come off as a know it all and I'm learning a great deal; perhaps you can offer me a membership into your cult of wisdom?  I just love all the all seeing eyes in your Avatar!

Stellar, I say this again while trying hard not to say anything that could come across as more aggravating; you are an extremely strange guy. You behaviour is skittish and unfocused. I'm not going to waste much of my time responding to all of your questions, considering most of them are totally random, unrelated and others are just ... weird. Remember in my last post how I referred to you as highly presumptuous? Well, you are presuming there is a news anchor that I have an opinion of or rate highly enough to call 'my favourite'. Why would you presume that? Why on earth would I have a favourite news anchor? They all serve an entirely useless role, completely detached and clueless from anything they are reading from their scripts and teleprompters.

The only other thing I see worth replying to is that you see me as a bit of a 'Know It All' - yet I haven't stated that I know anything at all. Not one thing. All I've done is describe where my boundaries of skepticism and open mindedness lie and how my thought patterns work when trying to be realistic yet open to possibilities - there are others in this thread that speak with the condescension and arrogance of what you'd describe as a know-it-all, whilst managing to not productively contribute to the topic I had at hand - that fact that you chose me to label as this, I find quite mind boggling.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. Both jackshit and Stellarboy have a real problem in not adering to the MO of the typical conspiracy theorist. Jackshit likes to give the impression he's above all that mumbo jumbo nonsense, but then lets himself down again.

Here's the list of CT traits.. Any (in most combinations) at one time or another can be attributed to both individuals..

Thanks Yorkshire. It was actually quite reassuring to read that these supposed 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists have been acknowledged by others too. Indeed they do seem to bare big comparisons with some of the far fetched claims I've came across in my time. Again, this is not me saying that all conspiracy theories are categorically wrong, obviously - that would be equally as ridiculous. I am primarily talking about those who actively sit around insisting on just any any major catastrophy has having to be a conspiracy.

Yorkshire - so far you've been one of the very few people to contribute to this thread in a way that doesn't come across as either arrogant, imperious, bat-shit crazy, argumentative or wildly off topic - so I thank you a lot for this.

Its funny, I posted this exact same thread to several other very similar message boards, and each community reflects different traits and patterns in their response. For this one, it has mostly came across as though I've stumbled into some form of online frat house, where there is already a little club of characters involved in a constant squabble with one another which constantly takes over from any topic at hand.  Its a little off putting to say the least.

Another forum was just full of 'Stellar' type characters who believed in absolutely everything and seemed to completely pick me up wrongly and proceeded to attack me for apparently debunking everything - when all along I've said I keep an open but realistic mind more than anything.

Then there was one forum, where the community was extremely pleasant, totally open and understanding to my opinions even when they didn't agree, and proved highly productive to converse with. Non-argumentative, non-elitist debate. Even those who didn't share my views came across as polite and quite intellectual. Unlike a lot of the pseudo-intellects that this place seems to come across as having.

I guess I am trying to conclude that I haven't really been offered anything inspiring or productive on this board apart from the entertainment of a couple of crazies and a couple of jokers - and while it hasn't been the worst, it hasn't really shown itself as a particularly pleasant experience either, so I am unsure how much longer I'll continue to respond to this thread as it isn't really improving much at this stage and I've found better elsewhere.

[onan]

Honestly, Onan, I expected better out of you. I made it perfectly clear that I.Q. tests are bullshit, and I said that I once scored that high--I didn't say that my I.Q. currently is that presently. Your inference, not my implication. Do I need to go get StrawMan.jpg for you? I hope not.

Oh ffs if you considered it bullshit, why post it at all?

[b_dubb]

Oh ffs if you considered it bullshit, why post it at all?

How would he antagonize the forum  then?

[Stellar]

Like ANY story, I am always willing to remain open minded. I will never commit so fully to a side that I will stick to that no matter what. If tomorrow I heard something that gave me substantial reason to believe otherwise, I would consider it for sure.

Hmmm its (2014 same year as 1984) and Steve is flopping around like an old lady in the $dollar store with an ambivalent mindset.  Yes that is why sadly I will now have to commit him to the asylum of the shills club where he may preside over handing over the blue pills to all the insane worldly lovers like Yorkshire.  If in 2014 Steve can not see down the rabbit hole yet?  That is silly, he has a big problem, because there is to much information out there otherwise to side with.  Which from reading his post he really already has, because his writing never leads anywhere, but in a giant circle back to his quote above.  I will really miss you Steve, but I sense that your bosses can't handle my objectiveness in finding how people really tic so go back to you bars your temples or whatever you do.

Matrix - The pill

One Night in Bangkok - Murray Head (HQ Audio)

[McPhallus]

but I sense that your bosses can't handle my objectiveness in finding how people really tic so go back to you bars your temples or whatever you do.

What a hysterical kook.

[Stellar]

What a hysterical kook.

Come on McPhallus I expected more from you.

Get three coffins ready - A Fistful of Dollars 1964 (full scene)

[Jackstar]

Oh ffs if you considered it bullshit, why post it at all?

He called me out, Dude. What would you have me do? Lie? Down, or falsely? That's really not my style. Besides, he seemed to like it. Welcome to Carl's Jr.! Fuck you!

How would he antagonize the forum then?

You reprobates were like this when I found you.

[Stellar]

Yorkshire - so far you've been one of the very few people to contribute to this thread in a way that doesn't come across as either arrogant, imperious, bat-shit crazy, argumentative or wildly off topic - so I thank you a lot for this.

From one fellow Morlock to another:

The Time Machine (1960) Trailer