Conspiracy theories are all over the internet it seems these days, and there are a lot of things I have noticed about many of these conspiracy theories, but there is one thing that seems to be an absolute constant about conspiracy theories:
Conspiracy theories create more conspiracy theories.
Take the 9/11 conspiracy theories for example. What was probably the original conspiracy theory concerning that act of terror was the accusation that the Bush administration allowed it to happen, then it eventually progressed into the belief that the government made it happen, then into the belief that the towers were brought down by explosives, then into the belief that the towers were hit by drones, until finally you get to the really bizarre ones that claim that no planes hit the the World Trade Center towers at all.
Originally it would take years for a conspiracy theory to get to it's most bizarre levels (as the 9/11 conspiracy theories did) but now it takes no time at all.
The Sandy Hook conspiracy theories for example took very little time to go from your basic false flag attack conspiracy theory, to the truly bizarre theory that it didn't happen and that all the grieving parents of the children that were killed were just actors, and that all the children that were killed either were not killed, or never even existed.
That progression took less than a week.
And the conspiracy theories concerning the recent bombing of the Boston Marathon went from being an alleged false flag attack, to being an outright staged hoax in less than a day...
Sometimes it will go even further than just going from being mundane to being really bizarre (and perhaps harmful), sometimes it will lead to the creation of a conspiracy theory will actually end up being what's called a "counter conspiracy theory".
What a counter conspiracy theory is, is an attempt to counter a conspiracy theory with a conspiracy theory that is the exact opposite of that conspiracy theory (and in some cases themselves becoming pretty darn bizarre).
Going back to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, while there are a lot of conspiracy theories concerning who did it, there are some conspiracy theories concerning the creation of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The main ones being that they were created simply as a way to try to either get or keep the United States out of the middle east. There are some claims that Al-Qaeda created those 9/11 conspiracy theories, and even payed people in the United States to spread these conspiracy theories.
Then there are of course the counter counter conspiracy theories, which basically are conspiracy theories that claim that the counter conspiracy theories were created as nothing more than propaganda to make people fearful of believing in certain conspiracy theories, and as a way to make conspiracy theorists look like traders, and that if you believe in these conspiracy theories, you are a trader.
This is basically what happens when a conspiracy theory is created. It creates more and more conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theories that are meant to counter those conspiracy theories, and other conspiracy theories that are meant to counter those conspiracy theories.
In the end it all becomes so confusing that it is best just to ignore them all and go about your life.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Friday, April 26, 2013
5 things I've noticed about... FEMA camps
I've done quite a bit of research into "FEMA camps" (which is a conspiracy theory that claims that the government has constructed these prison camps around the country that are to be run by FEMA to hold American citizens in that disagree with the government) and there are several things that I've noticed about these camps.
So here are five things I've noticed about FEMA camps:
5. There are apparently a lot of them.
According to many conspiracy theorist websites, there are hundreds of FEMA camps scattered across the United States and Canada.
While the numbers tend vary from website to website, some report as few as 300 "identified" FEMA camps, and perhaps as many as over 900 "identified" FEMA camps.
I find it amazing that so many of these camps have been "identified", yet the only people they have caught the attention of are conspiracy theorists (particularly those in the Sovereign Citizens/Patriot Movement). Of course these numbers really don't mean anything, because...
4. They can be anywhere.
Also according to many websites that promote the FEMA camp conspiracy theories, FEMA camps can be just about anywhere, be it a military base, a hospital, a prison, a warehouse, an airport, a rail depot, a seaport, any place with a fence with barbed wire at the top...
Oh, and any place that has an open field and is open to the public. Those places can also apparently be FEMA camps too.
3. Apparently they've been around for a while.
From the research I've done into these FEMA camp claims, I have found that these claims have been around for a long time.
The first time I actually heard someone claim these places were real was back in the mid-1990's, and I have found out these claims are even older, even going back as far back as the 1970's.
It's kind of strange that FEMA camps have apparently been around for so long, and yet the government has yet to use them, or enact this fascist "police state" plan that many conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen when the government starts shipping people to these camps.
2. They drive people crazy.
I'm not talking about FEMA camps themselves driving people insane (although I'm sure some conspiracy theorists will claim that they do) I'm talking about that the belief in the existence of FEMA camps drives people insane.
These conspiracy theories have driven many people to become paranoid and to isolate themselves from the rest of society, to stock up on guns and supplies for what they believe will be a fight to the death, to become hostile to others (especially law enforcement and people who work for the government), and it has caused people to become extremely hateful and abusive towards those who tell them that FEMA camps don't exist, and in a few cases, suicidal.
Of course the reason why skeptics (like myself) tell conspiracy theorists that FEMA camps don't exist is because...
1. They don't exist.
From the research I've done on the FEMA camp location claims, I have found that none of them contain FEMA camps (you can see this research on my other blog Is that a FEMA Camp?).
Regardless of how much "evidence" people who claim that FEMA camps are real claim that they have, much of the so called evidence is easily debunked, and many of the sites of these alleged FEMA camp locations are either the result of major mis-identification, or are outright bogus and have nothing there at all.
The fact remains is that no matter how much some conspiracy theorists want to believe in them, FEMA camps just do not exist.
So here are five things I've noticed about FEMA camps:
5. There are apparently a lot of them.
According to many conspiracy theorist websites, there are hundreds of FEMA camps scattered across the United States and Canada.
While the numbers tend vary from website to website, some report as few as 300 "identified" FEMA camps, and perhaps as many as over 900 "identified" FEMA camps.
I find it amazing that so many of these camps have been "identified", yet the only people they have caught the attention of are conspiracy theorists (particularly those in the Sovereign Citizens/Patriot Movement). Of course these numbers really don't mean anything, because...
4. They can be anywhere.
Also according to many websites that promote the FEMA camp conspiracy theories, FEMA camps can be just about anywhere, be it a military base, a hospital, a prison, a warehouse, an airport, a rail depot, a seaport, any place with a fence with barbed wire at the top...
Oh, and any place that has an open field and is open to the public. Those places can also apparently be FEMA camps too.
3. Apparently they've been around for a while.
From the research I've done into these FEMA camp claims, I have found that these claims have been around for a long time.
The first time I actually heard someone claim these places were real was back in the mid-1990's, and I have found out these claims are even older, even going back as far back as the 1970's.
It's kind of strange that FEMA camps have apparently been around for so long, and yet the government has yet to use them, or enact this fascist "police state" plan that many conspiracy theorists claim is going to happen when the government starts shipping people to these camps.
2. They drive people crazy.
I'm not talking about FEMA camps themselves driving people insane (although I'm sure some conspiracy theorists will claim that they do) I'm talking about that the belief in the existence of FEMA camps drives people insane.
These conspiracy theories have driven many people to become paranoid and to isolate themselves from the rest of society, to stock up on guns and supplies for what they believe will be a fight to the death, to become hostile to others (especially law enforcement and people who work for the government), and it has caused people to become extremely hateful and abusive towards those who tell them that FEMA camps don't exist, and in a few cases, suicidal.
Of course the reason why skeptics (like myself) tell conspiracy theorists that FEMA camps don't exist is because...
1. They don't exist.
From the research I've done on the FEMA camp location claims, I have found that none of them contain FEMA camps (you can see this research on my other blog Is that a FEMA Camp?).
Regardless of how much "evidence" people who claim that FEMA camps are real claim that they have, much of the so called evidence is easily debunked, and many of the sites of these alleged FEMA camp locations are either the result of major mis-identification, or are outright bogus and have nothing there at all.
The fact remains is that no matter how much some conspiracy theorists want to believe in them, FEMA camps just do not exist.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Local Earth Day festival: Oh the Woo!
On April 20 my home town held it's annual Earth Day festival.
I walked down to it (since it is near my house, and I walk down to the area where it was held everyday anyways, so that's no problem) and took a look around to see what was going.
There was of course a lot of people selling stuff (clothes, hand made jewelry, etc.), there was activities for kids, and there was the selling and promoting of woo and pseudoscience...
Now there was a lot of promoting of organic foods (which doesn't bother me that much, it's just that there are some things that are claimed about it that are simply not true) and new age stuff, but there was also the promoting of things there that honestly should not have been there.
There was of course first this:
I have no idea what this has to do with Earth Day or conservation. All I know is that you are basically wasting $10 on something that is vague and won't really tell you anything.
Next I saw this:
It's bad enough that adults go to these fake doctors, but kids???
If your child has any of these problems, don't take them to a chiropractor, take them to a REAL doctor.
Besides, what does any of these things have to with the spine in the first place???
Finally there was this:
Yep, it's the blatant promotion of anti-GMO foods (and the basic promotion Monsanto conspiracy theories, and also thus the promoting of GMO conspiracy theories).
This of course wasn't the only things that promoted woo and pseudoscience (and in my opinion should not have been there) but these three things should never have been allowed to be there at all, because they have nothing to do with either Earth Day, nor the environment, and not only promoted stuff that not only wastes money, but also may be harmful.
There were a few booths there that really were promoting conservation and environmentalism, but they were just drowned out by the people promoting stuff that really had nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism.
Over all the whole event left me with a feeling that it was more about the promoting and selling (quite literally at that) of woo and pseudoscience, and that much of what was there should not have been there, and that the whole event was more of a promoting of the New Age movement, rather than conservation or the environment.
I walked down to it (since it is near my house, and I walk down to the area where it was held everyday anyways, so that's no problem) and took a look around to see what was going.
There was of course a lot of people selling stuff (clothes, hand made jewelry, etc.), there was activities for kids, and there was the selling and promoting of woo and pseudoscience...
Now there was a lot of promoting of organic foods (which doesn't bother me that much, it's just that there are some things that are claimed about it that are simply not true) and new age stuff, but there was also the promoting of things there that honestly should not have been there.
There was of course first this:
I have no idea what this has to do with Earth Day or conservation. All I know is that you are basically wasting $10 on something that is vague and won't really tell you anything.
Next I saw this:
It's bad enough that adults go to these fake doctors, but kids???
If your child has any of these problems, don't take them to a chiropractor, take them to a REAL doctor.
Besides, what does any of these things have to with the spine in the first place???
Finally there was this:
Yep, it's the blatant promotion of anti-GMO foods (and the basic promotion Monsanto conspiracy theories, and also thus the promoting of GMO conspiracy theories).
This of course wasn't the only things that promoted woo and pseudoscience (and in my opinion should not have been there) but these three things should never have been allowed to be there at all, because they have nothing to do with either Earth Day, nor the environment, and not only promoted stuff that not only wastes money, but also may be harmful.
There were a few booths there that really were promoting conservation and environmentalism, but they were just drowned out by the people promoting stuff that really had nothing to do with conservation and environmentalism.
Over all the whole event left me with a feeling that it was more about the promoting and selling (quite literally at that) of woo and pseudoscience, and that much of what was there should not have been there, and that the whole event was more of a promoting of the New Age movement, rather than conservation or the environment.
Friday, April 19, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... the show "Ancient Aliens"
Ever watch the show "Ancient Aliens", the History Channel show that claims that humans were visited by aliens in the past? Well I have, and there are some things that I have noticed about that show.
So here are five things I've noticed about the show "Ancient Aliens".
5. Their answer for everything is "Aliens".
According to the "experts" on that show, almost everything we have built in the ancient world was built by aliens.
It doesn't matter if it is a giant structure like the Great Pyramid of Giza, or some mundane but interesting object like the Baghdad Battery, or even something that was proven to be made in modern times, such as the Crystal Skulls, according to the experts on the show, they were all either built by aliens, or their construction was guided by aliens.
Heck, even our own existence is, according to them, the result of aliens messing with our genes a long time ago.
4. The "experts" have a "pics, or it didn't happen" type mentality.
All of the "experts" on that show apparently want exact details about how a megalithic structure was built, and if they don't have those exact details, they assume that aliens built it, not humans (where as with most scientists or archaeologists, it's the other way around).
This is somewhat similar to the phrase "pics, or it didn't happen" where when someone makes a claim on the internet that they did something pretty awesome, if someone is skeptical of the claim they will sometimes say "pics, or it didn't happen". Although some might argue that this is more of a reverse of that...
3. They get their facts way wrong.
Many of the "facts" that are presented on that show are just down right wrong. A great example of this would be many of the claims they make about Pumapunku that simply aren't true.
According to the show Pumapunku is 14,000 years old, when in fact it's closer to 1,500 years old. Also, according to show, the stone blocks at the site are basalt and granite. In fact the site was constructed using andesite and red sandstone.
2. The regular "experts" on the show are not experts in science or archaeology.
The show has regular guests on that claim to be experts in the field of ancient alien or astronaut theory. The problem with this is that not only is this not a legitimate scientific field, the regular guests on the show have no degrees in either science or archaeology.
Giorgio Tsoukalos doesn't have a degree in science or archaeology. Erich von Däniken, the person whom's book Chariots of the Gods? which the show is basically base upon, doesn't have a degree in science or archaeology either (or anything for that matter).
1. The whole theory that the show is base upon is racist.
One of the biggest criticisms of the theory itself (besides being nothing more than pseudoscience) is that it is in a way, racist.
The reason why the whole theory itself is accused of being racist isn't just because it's primary focus is on none European peoples, it's also because it asserts that people who are not as advanced technologically as what we are today are not capable of constructing massive, megalithic structures, simply because we would have a hard time constructing such structures with our technology. Some people would say that's pretty racist...
So here are five things I've noticed about the show "Ancient Aliens".
5. Their answer for everything is "Aliens".
According to the "experts" on that show, almost everything we have built in the ancient world was built by aliens.
It doesn't matter if it is a giant structure like the Great Pyramid of Giza, or some mundane but interesting object like the Baghdad Battery, or even something that was proven to be made in modern times, such as the Crystal Skulls, according to the experts on the show, they were all either built by aliens, or their construction was guided by aliens.
Heck, even our own existence is, according to them, the result of aliens messing with our genes a long time ago.
4. The "experts" have a "pics, or it didn't happen" type mentality.
All of the "experts" on that show apparently want exact details about how a megalithic structure was built, and if they don't have those exact details, they assume that aliens built it, not humans (where as with most scientists or archaeologists, it's the other way around).
This is somewhat similar to the phrase "pics, or it didn't happen" where when someone makes a claim on the internet that they did something pretty awesome, if someone is skeptical of the claim they will sometimes say "pics, or it didn't happen". Although some might argue that this is more of a reverse of that...
3. They get their facts way wrong.
Many of the "facts" that are presented on that show are just down right wrong. A great example of this would be many of the claims they make about Pumapunku that simply aren't true.
According to the show Pumapunku is 14,000 years old, when in fact it's closer to 1,500 years old. Also, according to show, the stone blocks at the site are basalt and granite. In fact the site was constructed using andesite and red sandstone.
2. The regular "experts" on the show are not experts in science or archaeology.
The show has regular guests on that claim to be experts in the field of ancient alien or astronaut theory. The problem with this is that not only is this not a legitimate scientific field, the regular guests on the show have no degrees in either science or archaeology.
Giorgio Tsoukalos doesn't have a degree in science or archaeology. Erich von Däniken, the person whom's book Chariots of the Gods? which the show is basically base upon, doesn't have a degree in science or archaeology either (or anything for that matter).
1. The whole theory that the show is base upon is racist.
One of the biggest criticisms of the theory itself (besides being nothing more than pseudoscience) is that it is in a way, racist.
The reason why the whole theory itself is accused of being racist isn't just because it's primary focus is on none European peoples, it's also because it asserts that people who are not as advanced technologically as what we are today are not capable of constructing massive, megalithic structures, simply because we would have a hard time constructing such structures with our technology. Some people would say that's pretty racist...
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
FM 3-39.40 proves FEMA camps are real... Or does it?
Reblogged from Is that a FEMA camp?
Recently I read a comment on Illuminutti.com that was posted on a reblogging of several FEMA camp sites that were debunked on this site.
The comment (you can see the comment here) was concerning a US military document and training manual called FM 3-39.40 (alternate link) also known as Internment and Resettlement Operation.
The document is believed by many conspiracy theorists to be "proof" that the United States government is going to place citizens in interment camps and that the military was being trained to operate these places.
The person whom left comment also left a Youtube video concerning this as well:
While watching the video (which is 3:37 minutes, but tries to explain a 325 page document in that time frame) I could tell that the person who made it was obviously quote mining the document and taking a lot of things out of context, with many things that were just not mentioned.
One thing that was not mentioned was the Introduction section:
Recently I read a comment on Illuminutti.com that was posted on a reblogging of several FEMA camp sites that were debunked on this site.
The comment (you can see the comment here) was concerning a US military document and training manual called FM 3-39.40 (alternate link) also known as Internment and Resettlement Operation.
The document is believed by many conspiracy theorists to be "proof" that the United States government is going to place citizens in interment camps and that the military was being trained to operate these places.
The person whom left comment also left a Youtube video concerning this as well:
While watching the video (which is 3:37 minutes, but tries to explain a 325 page document in that time frame) I could tell that the person who made it was obviously quote mining the document and taking a lot of things out of context, with many things that were just not mentioned.
One thing that was not mentioned was the Introduction section:
Introduction
I/R operations facilitate the ability to conduct rapid and decisive combat operations; deter, mitigate, and defeat threats to populations that may result in conflict; reverse conditions of human suffering; and build the capacity of a foreign government to effectively care for and govern its population. This includes capabilities to conduct shaping operations across the spectrum of military operations to mitigate and defeat the underlying conditions for conflict and counter the core motivations that result in support to criminal, terrorist, insurgent, and other destabilizing groups. I/R operations also include the daily incarceration of U.S. military prisoners at facilities throughout the world.
This manual continues the evolution of the I/R function to support the changing nature of OEs. In light of persistent armed conflict and social turmoil throughout the world, the effects on populations remain a compelling issue. The world population will increase from 6 billion to 9 billion in the next two decades, with 95 percent of the growth occurring in the developing world. By 2030, 60 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Coexisting demographically and ethnically, diverse societies will aggressively compete for limited resources.
Typically, overpopulated third world societies suffer from a lack of legitimate and effective enforcement mechanisms, which is generally accepted as one of the cornerstones of a stable society. Stability within a population may eliminate the need for direct military intervention. The goal of military police conducting detainee operations is to provide stability within the population, its institutions, and its infrastructure. In this rapidly changing and dynamic strategic environment, U.S. forces will compete with local populations for the same space, routes, and resources. The modular force’s ability to positively influence and shape the opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of select populations is critical to tactical, operational, and strategic success.
An adaptive enemy will manipulate populations that are hostile to U.S. intent by instigating mass civil disobedience, directing criminal activity, masking their operations in urban and other complex terrain, maintaining an indistinguishable presence through cultural anonymity, and actively seeking the traditional sanctuary of protected areas as defined by the rules of land warfare. Such actions will facilitate the dispersal of threat forces, negate technological overmatches, and degrade targeting opportunities. Commanders will use technology and conduct police intelligence operations to influence and control populations, evacuate detainees and, conclusively, transition rehabilitative and reconciliation operations to other functional agencies. The combat identification of friend, foe, or neutral is used to differentiate combatants from noncombatants and friendly forces from threat forces.
FM 3-39.40 is written with the acknowledgement that today’s OEs are much more variable than the environments addressed in previous doctrine. Military police must be prepared to deploy into any OE and conduct I/R operations in support of the commander while dealing with a wide range of threats and other influences. This manual builds on the collective knowledge and wisdom gained through recent operations, numerous lessons learned, doctrine revisions, and the deliberate process of informed reasoning throughout the Army. It is rooted in time-tested principles and fundamentals, while accommodating new technologies and organizational changes.
This iteration of FM 3-39.40 has been driven by a lack of existing doctrine for the rehabilitation and reconciliation of detainees and changes in OEs, the Army structure, and Army and joint doctrine. Changes not already mentioned above that have directly affected this manual include the—
• Integration of I/R operations within the overarching counterinsurgency or irregular warfare efforts of current operations.
• Development of terms of reference for detainee typology and standardization of procedures for detainee assessment.
Note. Recent decisions by the Executive Branch have adjusted the typology in JP 3-63.
• Implementation of standardized programs and methods for rehabilitation, reconciliation, and repatriation of detainees.
• Planning, employment, and sustainment of military police capabilities in support of all echelons while conducting I/R operations.
• Alignment of I/R operations with the sustainment warfighting function.
• Technological and doctrinal updates to material in other publications.
The foundations of military police operations provided in this manual, together with related military police doctrine, will support the actions and decisions of commanders at all levels. Like FM 3-39, this manual is not meant to be a substitute for thought and initiative among military police leaders and Soldiers. No matter how robust the doctrine or advanced the military police capabilities and systems, it is the military police Soldier who must understand the OE, recognize shortfalls, and adapt to the situation on the ground. It is the adaptable and professional military police Soldiers of the Military Police Corps Regiment who are most important to the future and must successfully perform their basic skills to accomplish the mission, with or without technology assistance.
Now if you read the Introduction you can tell that this doesn't have anything at all to do with the United States and it's citizens. It concerns what the military is suppose to do with displaced civilians in disaster areas and war zones that the United States is involved in in third world countries.
While there are certain things in that document that I don't agree with, it only concerns the United States military operations overseas, and not domestically, and it most certainly does not prove that FEMA camps are real.
Friday, April 12, 2013
A review of "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists" by Myles Power
On October 31, 2012 blogger and vlogger Myles Power began uploading to his Youtube page the first of a seven part series called "Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists".
The series (as you can tell by the name in itself) primarily focused on several of claims that members of the 9/11 Truth movement made when he went down to the World Trade Center site on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and interviewed some of the movement's members that were there protesting near by.
The main claims that were addressed were the ones concerning the beliefs that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition, that thermite was used to bring the towers down, and that a missile hit the Pentagon (along with a few other minor related claims).
Myles does an excellent job at debunking these claims using a combination of science, logic, and photographic and video evidence, while at the same time addressing and debunking these claims in a way that is not only easy to understand, but is also entertaining. I even learned couple of things myself that I didn't even know, such as that the plane that hit the Pentagon struck several lamp posts before it actually hit, and what exactly caused the Twin Towers to finally collapse (besides just the constant heat from the intense, jet fuel fueled fires that were causing the steel beams strength to weaken, the constant pressure from the rest of building up above pressing down on the weakened steel beams, and of course the damage caused by a Boeing 767 traveling 400 mph into this sides of the buildings).
While I did very much enjoy the series, I do have a couple of (minor) complaints.
First is that there were a few more claims that, in my opinion, should have been addressed.
While I know that Myles was primarily focused on the claims from the 9/11 Truthers that he had met made to him, I believe he should have addressed a few other claims that are also made by other 9/11 Truthers, such as the drone theory, the "let it happen" theory, the "Israel did it" theory, the "no plane" theory, and the related "space laser" theory (which he did briefly mentions, but would not bother address simply because it was so insane, which I don't blame him for).
If he does decide to make some follow up videos concerning some of the issues that were not addressed, I do hope that he will address and debunk these claims.
My other complaint actually concerns the sixth part of the series, which talks about the psychology behind 9/11 Truthers (and conspiracy theorists in general).
While I did find that part to be very interesting and informative in showing how conspiracy theorists think, in my opinion I don't feel that the part was actually necessary. Why I do know that part was included to help better show the thought processes of a 9/11 Truther, I feel that part should have been completely separate from the series, rather than apart of it.
Besides these two minor issues, I felt overall that this series was excellent, and I highly recommend viewing it, and not just for skeptics and debunkers, but also for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and people who just have some unanswered questions about that horrible day.
Below is the first of the seven part series:
The series (as you can tell by the name in itself) primarily focused on several of claims that members of the 9/11 Truth movement made when he went down to the World Trade Center site on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and interviewed some of the movement's members that were there protesting near by.
The main claims that were addressed were the ones concerning the beliefs that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down in a controlled demolition, that thermite was used to bring the towers down, and that a missile hit the Pentagon (along with a few other minor related claims).
Myles does an excellent job at debunking these claims using a combination of science, logic, and photographic and video evidence, while at the same time addressing and debunking these claims in a way that is not only easy to understand, but is also entertaining. I even learned couple of things myself that I didn't even know, such as that the plane that hit the Pentagon struck several lamp posts before it actually hit, and what exactly caused the Twin Towers to finally collapse (besides just the constant heat from the intense, jet fuel fueled fires that were causing the steel beams strength to weaken, the constant pressure from the rest of building up above pressing down on the weakened steel beams, and of course the damage caused by a Boeing 767 traveling 400 mph into this sides of the buildings).
While I did very much enjoy the series, I do have a couple of (minor) complaints.
First is that there were a few more claims that, in my opinion, should have been addressed.
While I know that Myles was primarily focused on the claims from the 9/11 Truthers that he had met made to him, I believe he should have addressed a few other claims that are also made by other 9/11 Truthers, such as the drone theory, the "let it happen" theory, the "Israel did it" theory, the "no plane" theory, and the related "space laser" theory (which he did briefly mentions, but would not bother address simply because it was so insane, which I don't blame him for).
If he does decide to make some follow up videos concerning some of the issues that were not addressed, I do hope that he will address and debunk these claims.
My other complaint actually concerns the sixth part of the series, which talks about the psychology behind 9/11 Truthers (and conspiracy theorists in general).
While I did find that part to be very interesting and informative in showing how conspiracy theorists think, in my opinion I don't feel that the part was actually necessary. Why I do know that part was included to help better show the thought processes of a 9/11 Truther, I feel that part should have been completely separate from the series, rather than apart of it.
Besides these two minor issues, I felt overall that this series was excellent, and I highly recommend viewing it, and not just for skeptics and debunkers, but also for people in the 9/11 Truth Movement, and people who just have some unanswered questions about that horrible day.
Below is the first of the seven part series:
The other six parts can be found here
Myles's Youtube Page
Myles's Blog
Myles's Facebook Page
Myles's Twitter Page
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
How many people really do believe the government committed the 9/11 attacks?
How many people actually believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, or at least allowed the attacks to happen? This is a question that I sometimes wonder about.
What I mean by people who actually believe the government committed or allow the 9/11 attacks to happen, I don't mean simply people who say they believe that the government committed the 9/11, I mean people who actually mean it when they say that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Now there are multiple surveys that have been conducted over the past decade that have asked people whether or not they believe the government was involve in the 9/11 attacks, but there are a couple of problems I have with these surveys:
One, they are often vary in percentages of how many people actually believe the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This can be because of where the surveys were taken, when they were taken, and how the questions were actually worded.
And two, there is no realistic way to filter out the people who just say they believe from the true believers.
Now many of you are probably asking "why would someone claim they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks but not really mean it?"
Well, one reason might be for political purposes.
It's very well known that conspiracy theories are often time used for political and propaganda purposes, and the conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks are no exception.
A person could be claiming this because they have anti-government beliefs, or anti-American beliefs, or anti-Israeli beliefs (for those that are antisemitic), or they could be a person who hated President Bush so much that they say they believe the government committed the 9/11 to (in their minds) further delegitimize his presidency.
Of course they could also be saying that the government committed the 9/11 attacks not because they have a anti-something beliefs, but because they wish to further their own political agendas, and they're just using and exploiting the 9/11 Truth movement to do it.
Of course, political reasons are not the only reasons why some people claim to believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks and not really mean it. It could be that they are, or fell like they are being pressured into saying that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps a person joined a group of people who believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks because they themselves were once curious about the conspiracy theories about the attack, but now no longer believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They might continue to claim that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks simply because they made friends in that group, and they don't want to risk losing them.
Another reason is because they are feeling pressure from their family to believe in these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Perhaps they even feel threatened by a spouse or a parent to "believe" in these conspiracy theories.
This happens all the time with things like religion and politics, and so it really would not surprise me if it happened with things like conspiracy theories (since conspiracy theories are sometimes a mixing of religion and politics).
Then there is one more group that has to be taken into consideration: people who have severe mental illness.
While a person who is severely mentally ill, and believes that the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, probably sincerely does believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, there is the question about whether or not their belief should be considered a legitimate belief or not. The reason why I question if their belief that the government committed the 9/11 attacks should be consider legitimate or not is because it is questionable whether or not they would still believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks if they were either not mentally ill (sometimes severe delusional disorders will make a person believe in anything), or if their mental illness was under controlled to the point where they were considered sane. Because of this it should be taken into consideration whether or not we should even count those beliefs as being sincere because their minds might not be allowing them to see clearly the facts when presented to them, rather then just simply ignoring the facts.
Because of all these factors I truly do wonder how many people actually believe that the government caused the 9/11 attacks, and honestly, I don't think it's as high as what many people think it is.
What I mean by people who actually believe the government committed or allow the 9/11 attacks to happen, I don't mean simply people who say they believe that the government committed the 9/11, I mean people who actually mean it when they say that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Now there are multiple surveys that have been conducted over the past decade that have asked people whether or not they believe the government was involve in the 9/11 attacks, but there are a couple of problems I have with these surveys:
One, they are often vary in percentages of how many people actually believe the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This can be because of where the surveys were taken, when they were taken, and how the questions were actually worded.
And two, there is no realistic way to filter out the people who just say they believe from the true believers.
Now many of you are probably asking "why would someone claim they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks but not really mean it?"
Well, one reason might be for political purposes.
It's very well known that conspiracy theories are often time used for political and propaganda purposes, and the conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks are no exception.
A person could be claiming this because they have anti-government beliefs, or anti-American beliefs, or anti-Israeli beliefs (for those that are antisemitic), or they could be a person who hated President Bush so much that they say they believe the government committed the 9/11 to (in their minds) further delegitimize his presidency.
Of course they could also be saying that the government committed the 9/11 attacks not because they have a anti-something beliefs, but because they wish to further their own political agendas, and they're just using and exploiting the 9/11 Truth movement to do it.
Of course, political reasons are not the only reasons why some people claim to believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks and not really mean it. It could be that they are, or fell like they are being pressured into saying that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks.
Perhaps a person joined a group of people who believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks because they themselves were once curious about the conspiracy theories about the attack, but now no longer believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They might continue to claim that they believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks simply because they made friends in that group, and they don't want to risk losing them.
Another reason is because they are feeling pressure from their family to believe in these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Perhaps they even feel threatened by a spouse or a parent to "believe" in these conspiracy theories.
This happens all the time with things like religion and politics, and so it really would not surprise me if it happened with things like conspiracy theories (since conspiracy theories are sometimes a mixing of religion and politics).
Then there is one more group that has to be taken into consideration: people who have severe mental illness.
While a person who is severely mentally ill, and believes that the government did commit the 9/11 attacks, probably sincerely does believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks, there is the question about whether or not their belief should be considered a legitimate belief or not. The reason why I question if their belief that the government committed the 9/11 attacks should be consider legitimate or not is because it is questionable whether or not they would still believe that the government committed the 9/11 attacks if they were either not mentally ill (sometimes severe delusional disorders will make a person believe in anything), or if their mental illness was under controlled to the point where they were considered sane. Because of this it should be taken into consideration whether or not we should even count those beliefs as being sincere because their minds might not be allowing them to see clearly the facts when presented to them, rather then just simply ignoring the facts.
Because of all these factors I truly do wonder how many people actually believe that the government caused the 9/11 attacks, and honestly, I don't think it's as high as what many people think it is.
Friday, April 5, 2013
5 Things I've noticed about... Psychics
Ever watched a psychic on TV, or met one in real life? Well other than meeting one in real life, I sure have, and I have noticed certain things psychics that they tend to do a lot of.
So here are five things that I've I've noticed about psychics:
Despite the claims of many psychics that they can predict the future and that they can use that power to help guide other people in a positive way, none of them apparently plays the lottery so that they can win lots of money and not have to charge people $50 so they can talk to their dead relatives for 20 minutes.
(Author's note: that last part is just a guess. I don't have any clue what the average going rate for speaking to a psychic is.)
4. They make lousy detectives.
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of criminal investigations in which psychics came in and either volunteered, or were actually asked by an officer on the case to use their powers to help solve a case. Currently not a one has ever solved a case.
In fact the total success rate for psychic detectives isn't even zero, it's actually in the negatives because sometimes the psychic leads the investigative officers to the wrong person, and this has even lead to some innocent people being arrested.
3. They ask a lot of questions.
For people who's powers are suppose to let them know everything, they sure do ask a lot of questions before they start to give a person answer to the question that they originally asked.
Why the heck would a psychic need to ask a bunch of questions for in the first place? In fact why would anyone need to ask a psychic a question? Shouldn't they already know what question you want to ask them?
2. None of the celebrity psychics want to be verified.
It seems that none of the famous, or celebrity psychics, ever bother to go and get their powers verified by a scientific institution that offers to test a person to see if they actually have psychic powers.
One of the most famous of these verification programs is the James Randi Educational Foundation's One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, where upon verification of your powers, you will be awarded one million dollars!
So far the only celebrity that agreed to take this challenge was Sylvia Browne, and she backed out.
1. Anyone can be a psychic!
Yep, that's right! Anyone can be a psychic!
No, not everyone (or anyone for that matter) has the power to talk to the dead, or to see the future. What I mean is that everyone has the ability to use a technique that most (if not all) people who claim to be psychics use. That technique is called cold readings, and is basically a combination of deception and observation to make a person think that a psychic knows more than what they really do.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Breaking Stereotypes: Why I'm the last person you would expect to support same-sex marriage
Suffice to say, I am, stereotypically speaking, probably the last person who would support equal rights for everyone, regardless of their sexuality, and has no problem what so ever with two adults of the same gender marrying one another.
Now I use to be against same-sex, and I admit I was wrong. The reasons why I was is mostly because of two things:
Peer pressure from an homophobic culture, and bullying from said culture during high school.
I was bullied throughout my entire school years. At first it was because the kids just wanted to pick on someone, and I was seen as the easiest target, and it continued even into high school, and in high school many people were claiming that I was gay, and were using that as a "reason" to continue to bully me (because apparently when you get older you need an "excuse" to torment a person who won't fight back). So this left an impression on me for several years on me that homosexuality and bisexuality was wrong (don't ask me why, it just did) and that same-sex marriage should never be legalized.
Eventually I got over this, and after interacting with gay and bi people and talking to gay and bi people, I realized that there is nothing wrong with gay and bi people, nor is there anything wrong with being gay or bi, and that it is the bullies who have something wrong with themselves, and that I don't have to hate, or dislike, or try to deny a group of people rights that they should already have because they are of a different sexuality than me in order to feel secure about my own sexuality, and that there are gay and bi people out there that most people would never think were gay or bi unless they either told you, or introduced you to their partner.
In fact one of friends, Sean Munger, is bisexual, and I didn't even know it until he announced he was getting married to a guy. Heck, I didn't even suspect that he was bisexual at all, mainly because he loves heavy metal music, and he writes zombie fiction (which at the time I thought that only straight guys were interested in)!
Basically, he is not what I thought a stereotypical, bisexual guy would be like, and that's a good thing too, because it helped destroy some stereotypes that I still had in my own mind.
The fact is that I no longer see homosexuals and bisexuals as being wrong, or wicked, or even abnormal. They're normal people, and just because they are attracted to people who are the same gender as they are does not mean there is something wrong with them. Heck, there are some women that I am attracted to that other straight guys would believe I am wrong for being attracted to. Does that mean that I truly am wrong for being attracted to said women? No, it's just a matter of that other person's personal preference, and their inability to get over the fact that not every other guy thinks like them, or has to think like them, and in the end it just makes them look like a jerk.
The same applies with people who think that homosexuality and bisexuality is wrong. They just can't get over the fact that homosexuals and bisexuals are not attracted to the people that they feel they should be attracted to, and in the end it just makes them look like jerks.
These people need to get over their insecurities like I did, that they don't have to be a societal stereotype, and that believing that someone that is different from them should have the same rights as they do doesn't make them a bad person, it makes them a better person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)