From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 09:36:31 -0400 Archived: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 11:26:16 -0400 Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 16:10:30 -0500 >Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >>From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 09:58:39 -0400 >>Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 15:25:19 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing ><snip> >>>To think that I started this thread intending to protect the >>>good name of ufologists against the false charge that serious >>>interest in UFOs renders one a conspiracy theorist... I'd hate >>>to think I was wrong, but so far the evidence on UpDates - >>>though I realize from a very small percentage of Listfolk - >>>suggests I may have been excessively charitable. >Your real quarrel is not with me but with historians, >journalists, prosecutors, political scientists, and others who >have rejected conspiracy theories as a useful explanation for >political and social phenomena. I suggest you take your beliefs >to them. >They can explain to you why Jews, Catholics, Masons, Communists, >Illuminati, and other conspiracy favorites are not in charge of >the world. >As is often said of pornography, conspiracy theories are hard to >define, but one knows one when one sees one. Too many moving >parts, for one, with shaky evidence trying to cover for shaky >speculations. As I've also noted, conspiracy theories amount to >the political equivalent of pornography. >There is a considerable literature, written by historians, >psychologists, folklorists, journalists, and others, on >conspiracy theory and its pathologies. You should read some of >that, but I know you won't, alas. I guess you prefer demonology. Obviously, Jerry has a different definition of "conspiracy theorist" than I do, and that would explain why we are talking past each other. For him, it is a pejorative term, while for me it is nothing more than descriptive. So if I believe that there is a group effort to hide certain facts about UFOs from the public, then I am a conspiracy theorist and I don't attempt to hide that. It seems Jerry would be offended if anyone accused him of the same. At this point, anybody who has any ideas at all about why things happened on 9/11 is a conspiracy theorist. That includes adherents to the officially sanctioned theory, since evidence in its favour was never provided. I like the approach of Dr. Judy Wood, who has written a book on _what_ happened without speculating on the _why_. Her observed anomalies should open the door to a proper forensic analysis which might answer the _who_ and _why_ questions. I would certainly not want Jerry's psychologist, folklorists, journalists, political scientists, and historians to do that analysis. These people probably wouldn't even recognize Isaac Newton's name. For the same reason, I would not expect such people to give an authoritative opinion on whether a UFO's appearance or behaviour was anomalous. >Enough. Yes, at least until we can agree on the definition of what is being discussed. William 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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp