From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 22:17:22 -0400
Archived: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 09:19:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories


>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul
>To: post.nul
>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:06:30 -0400
>Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories

>>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:50:16 +0200 (CEST)
>>Subject: Conspiracy Theories

Hello William, Nick and List

<snip>

>The undercurrent in Nick's article is that people should just
>stop thinking. It is telling the conspiracy theory world,
>"There, there, don't worry, let daddy take care of it." Let our
>formal government inquiries tell you what happened. Nick should
>also have said, "Until the official explanations stop being
>selective with the facts, there will be conspiracy theories".

<snip>

"Until the official explanations stop being selective with the
facts, there will be conspiracy theories" is a nice way of
putting it, but I think it goes further than that.

Governments have a history of lying blatantly and shamelessly to
the people, and the consequences of those lies cast a dark light
on how they balance human lives with their interests.

The Irag invasion, the Gulf War and the Vietnam War, to name
just a few, were all based on lies, lies told by presidents with
straight faces. We can lament on the life loss on the side of
American forces, but those numbers reach at least the twenty-
fold on the side of the victims of those lies.

We are not talking about war only, we just have to sneak a peek
at the past 70 years: the Tuskagee experiment and it's little
brother in Guatemala, the CIA experiments with LSD on unknowing
soldiers and the secret similar project implying Canadian
psychiatrists.

As the list goes on, a question arises: credibility is no more,
the Roosevelts of this world are long gone - if they ever
existed: if this is what we know, then what about what we don't
know?

Concerned and very competent citizens ask questions about
evident inconsistencies in the official history, but to no
avail.

The same straight face liars write the official reports, reports
that do not address the facts. They are not only picky on the
facts they chose, they are also picky on the facts they chose to
ignore.

This is debunking at its best.

I have so far avoided the word _conspiracy_: although it is part
of the English language in all its right, it has become the
perfect straw man argument.

The use of the expression "conspiracy theory(ists)" as an
argument says more of your tenure as a BS-er than anything
else.

It is the perfect weapon which serves 2 purposes:

1. The user places himself in an irreversible position of
authority in relation to his adversary. The adversary is stuck
with a shameful tag, and must then relinquish any credibility
and authority: he's down and out in the bottom of the cuckoo's
nest. The user is now invested by the powers of authority and
credibility. He has downed to sacred clothe: the Authority now
speaks through him.

2. Whatever the facts, they don't matter anymore... They will
never be addressed.

The bullshitter easily wins the game 2-0.

But come to think of it, the true conspiracy theorists are the
ones accusing the others of being so.

They are the ones who base their opinion on fantasies. They are
the ones who have chosen to ignore facts that do not fit their
perception of history or reality, they are the ones who are
killing any possibility of debate.

"Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up" (S.F.)

Concerned citizens are asking questions that deserve an answer.

This simple process is denied by those who have the gall to play
a name-calling game.

This name-calling strangely looks like a form of prostitution to
acquire credibility from the fabricators.


Vincent Boudreau



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.