Saturday, March 10, 2007

Conspiracy Theory Rating Scale

This is just an idea of mine that's been bouncing around in my head for awhile: I've never seen any sort of objective rating system whereby a current conspiracy theory could be rated as to it's validity or possible truth. The hardest part in doing this would be setting up the criterion to apply for the rating. The actual ranking would go something like this:

5 = An event that has essentially been proven true, but initially was considered conspiracy theory (See the post "List of Proven Conspiracies" on the second page of this blog - I'd consider most of those a "5")

4 = An event that has a large body of circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a strong liklihood that it is true, and that an "official version" of the story is probably not entirely true.

3 = An event that could go either way, something that has a lot of troubling unanswered questions, a lot of "loose ends" that haven't been adequately explained, but the "official version" could be just as valid - just a lot of unanswered questions. An event that in all liklihood needs "filling in the blanks". Many theories fall into this category - there just hasn't been enough research to tie everything together or adequately explain everything.

2 = An event that can, through use of such techniques as Occam's Razor, investigative reporting, a specialist's knowledge of science and/or engineering & physics, usually be successfully de-bunked. Usually scenarios in this category involved plots that seem a little too complicated or logically unlikely, and are sometimes based on assumptions that are false to begin with.

1 = An event or belief in something that can be very easily dismissed, even by those who have no more knowledge than the average person, using commonly held knowledge and common sense.

Using this scale, most of the conspiracies listed in the "List of Proven Conspiracies" would in my opinion be rated a "5".

An example of a "4" would be the conspiracy theory that the JFK assassination involved more than a single bullet, and possibly more than one shooter from different locations, and that it was the product of an elaborate conspiracy rather than a lone deranged nut firing a single shot from one location.

The conspiracy theory that states that the moon landings were staged and faked might get a 3 - some things have been debunked, but not others. The mysterious "disappearance" of the original videos of the landing is troubling too - they didn't disappear until lately when computerized digital video enhancement techniques became available. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. Buzz Aldrin leaving a question and answer meeting in tears when asked to describe what it felt like to walk on the moon.... What was up with that anyway?

Example of a 2 would be something like the standard tinfoil hat thing, because we are supposedly the target of mind control - things like that.....

1's?? The Flat Earth Society, etc.

Will continue working on this to develop it..... Later.........

Saturday, March 3, 2007

One argument against large scale conspiracies being true

"The argument is often advanced that the non-existence of any given conspiracy is shown by the lack of leakers or whistle blowers. Given the success of the British government in getting thousands of people to keep the ULTRA secret -- and thereby ensuring that no reliable history of World War II could be published until the 1970s -- it is apparent that this is not necessarily a reliable indicator."

from Wikipedia - "conspiracy theory/real conspiracies"

Often the argument is advanced that a conspiracy on a grand scale is not possible because of a supposedly large number of people who would have to be in on the secret, and surely someone would "out" the conspiracy. It's been proven in the past that this is not necessarily true.

The best known example I can think of is the WWII "Manhattan Project", where thousands of people were working on developing the atomic bomb, but only a very small inner circle knew exactly what was being worked on. Everyone worked on their own little piece of the project, and was told only what they needed to know to complete their own task, and no more. Of course even this was kept secret as even small snippets of information could be valuable to the enemy, but it was possible to pull off a large project involving thousands of technicians without the cover being blown, at least to the general public anyway..... The Soviets found out about it because of their mole spy Klaus Fuchs, and others within our own government, but the general public was successfully kept in the dark about it.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Thoughts on why conspiracy theories exist

Here are some of my own thoughts on why we have conspiracy theories and conspiratorialists:

Have you noticed that in the past decade or two, the amount of real, hard and factual investigative reporting has decreased? I have. Most of the "news" we get now is what could be considered "fluff". The runaway bride, Natalie Holloway in Aruba, the Scott Peterson murder case, etc. All stories reported constantly, and at great length in the national news media as national news stories. In reality, most of these stories are nothing more than lurid local crime stories - nothing of any real legitimate national interest. It's essentially "supermarket tabloid journalism" being carried into the mainstream national media. For every story such as these that are being reported, that much less investigative reporting is being done. I'm sure a lot of people would like to know more about what is going on within our government, what sort of relationships exist between government and Big Business, how vast and extensive the corruption in our government really is - none of which is being reported by the major news outlets anymore. It's almost like they've been bought off, or intimidated into keeping quiet.

My point here is that in the absense of any serious investigative reporting, conspirancy theories and theorists have appeared to fill the vacuum. I don't believe that it's a coincidence that the amount of conspiracy theories have seemed to increase with the corresponding decrease in investigative reporting. It's my belief that the two are related. Of course it's always fun to speculate, and many theories are what could be considered "way out" and not worthy of serious consideration. But just because some theories fall into this category, I don't believe that all conspiracy theories should be written off. Many past theories (as mentioned in this blog) have been proven to be true and factual - too many to write off all conspiracy theories as the ravings of the mentally unbalanced. Indeed, it has been suggested that those officials and VIPs who discount all conspiracy theories and theorists do so deliberately to hide agendas - a conspiracy theory in itself.

In light of the fact that news outlets don't really report real news anymore, conspiratorialists fill a vacuum by helping stimulate debate and investigation on topics that major news outlets are paid to ignore and keep quiet about. No, not all conspiracy theories turn out to be true - in fact many are easy to legitimately debunk - but enough of them have turned out to be true not to discount them entirely. And in the absence of investigative reporting by those who call themselves journalists, it has been left (mostly by default) to the rest of us out here to try to find the truth as best we can on our own.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Reporting Of Military 'Copter "Crashes"

Another example of official denials being later proven true:

I've noticed a pattern of reporting a while back that I've not seen anyone anywhere else comment on - it's been going on for a while now - concerning downed U.S. military aircraft in Iraq...... An airplane or helicopter goes down. It's initally reported as a "crash". Now I realize that a "crash" could be anything from a mechanical malfunction, to a case of pilot error, anything really. And I can understand being cautious about reporting until you have all the facts. Having said that though, it seems as if there is a deliberate effort to downplay any incidents involving downing of aircraft by enemy fire. When a downed aircraft is referred to as a "crash" I think most people assume that it's something other than by hostile fire. A recent example was a video shown on TV of a military troop transport helicopter that went down about a week ago - The video showed the helicopter rising and leveling off, then a big plume of smoke coming from it. The offical story for several days afterward was that it was likely mechanical problems. Finally it was admitted that it was shot down by enemy fire. I suppose it's in their best interests to initially downplay and deny, then admit later after the glare of the media spotlight has passed, and most people have forgotten about it. Then the report that it was actually shot down is almost an afterthought, gone unnoticed by the majority of people. I have yet to see this story reported on TV or newspapers - I came across it on the Net.......

Yet another example of official denial and later proven fact.......

Here's the story and link:

US: Crashed Copter Was Shot Down in Iraq
By Kim Gamel
The Associated Press
Wednesday 14 February 2007

A Sea Knight helicopter that crashed last week northwest of Baghdad was shot down, the U.S. military said Wednesday, reversing earlier statements that it appeared to have been due to mechanical failure.
The Marine CH-46 troop transport went down northwest of Baghdad on Feb. 7, killing all seven people on board, and an al-Qaida-linked Sunni group claimed responsibility and aired a video.
Military officials initially said they believed the crash was due to mechanical failure, but the military announced Wednesday that an investigation showed the crash was "the result of anti-aircraft munitions."
"Initial evidence indicated that the CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter went down as a result of mechanical failure. After further investigation using all available means, the cause of the incident has been confirmed to be hostile fire," said Maj. Jeff Pool, a spokesman for the Multi National Force - West.
The statement said the pilots of an AH-1W Super Cobra helicopter escorting the Sea Knight did not witness the actual attack, but they saw the fire, descent and subsequent crash. The initial signs resembled fires that have occurred aboard CH-46s experiencing mechanical difficulties in the past, it added.
The military also said the crash site had been cleared with explosives after the remains and equipment were removed "to ensure the enemy could yield no gain from the debris."
At least seven U.S. helicopters have crashed or been forced down under hostile fire since Jan. 20. In the wake of the recent crashes, U.S. officials have said they were reviewing flight operations and tactics but maintain there is no evidence of sophisticated new weapons used in any of the latest attacks.
Wednesday's statement raised to five that were known to have been shot down. Two private security company helicopters also have crashed but the cause was unclear.
The military statement declined to comment on insurgents weapons' capabilities or tactics to counter them, citing security concerns.
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these fallen service members," Pool said. "All available resources are dedicated to eliminating the threat to our aircraft so that we can continue to provide the support our ground forces."
The Islamic State in Iraq, an umbrella group of Iraqi insurgent groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, claimed responsibility for downing the helicopter and issued an Internet video on Feb. 9 it said was proof. The group also claimed the recent downings of two other U.S. helicopters.
The two-minute video showed a helicopter that appears to be a Sea Knight flying. An object trailing smoke is seen in the sky nearby, then the craft bursts into orange and red flames, with a spray of debris emerging from it.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Senator Joe McCarthy Charges Proven Correct

Here's something I've not seen mentioned by anyone in their lists of conspiracy theories that were eventually proven to be factual and correct: The vindication of the late Sen. Joesph McCarthy of Wisconsin. It turns out that most of the charges he made, many of which were dismissed at the time as "a witch hunt", and "slander that ended people's careers", turned out to actually be essentially true:

Some other comments on "McCarthyism" and McCarthy having been proven right:

The Venona Project:

So IOW when he was waving his famous "list" he was actually on to something and basically had it right. From what I understand, the guy was no saint - he had his personal flaws - reportedly drank a lot, and by the accounts I've read, was generally a coarse and uncultured person. But the main point I'm making here is that he apparently was right, and recently released documents vindicate him on that. But at the time in the 1950's, what he was saying was denied by the media and the entertainment industry. So we've got this gigantic decades-old myth about a guy who was supposedly seeing Commies where there allegedly were none, and ruining people for no reason other than to further a political career. The myth gained so much strength through repetition that a new term was coined - "McCarthyism", a term that incredibly is still in use by some uninformed people yet today. But the fact was that there actually were many Moscow-loyal, Stalinist-type, communists in media, entertainment, and even in sensitive areas of the government. And McCarthy was correct to point that out. Another item to add to the slowly growing list of things that were denied and later proven to be fact.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Informational "Official" Websites on the North American Union

Here's a "short list" of URLs from official sources only - no "conspiracy sites" - on the NAU:

Concerning the proposed "Supercorridor":
Looks like the building of this is already underway..........

Arizona State University's "North American Center for Transborder Studies":
Getting us used to the idea of a NAU through "education"?

From the same site - links to many other official sites, including

Recently Michael Medved, the movie critic and political commentator, charged that the NAU and its enabling program SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) were "Internet conspiracy theories". Just from the looks of what I've read online from the above sources - all official (not blogs or conspiracy sites) - it looks like something is already well underway and already beyond the talking and proposal stages. IMO, it looks like something is being slipped in "under the radar" so to speak, with the cover of "internet conspiracy theory" being used to buy time until its a done deal. What we might just have here is an actual case of a true conspiracy coming to light. I think this whole matter bears watching, and will keep you the reader posted on it............

Saturday, January 13, 2007

North American Union moving from "Internet Conspiracy Theory" to Accepted Fact???

Here's an item that I recently came across concerning the proposed North American Union that's been recently written about by Jerome Corsi, and which many people have written off as a conspiracy theory. A resolution has been recently introduced into Congress officially coming out against it - H.C.R. 487, introduced by Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va. You can read about it here:

I'm not saying that this one has been definitely proven beyond all doubt to be true, but apparently enough so to catch the eyes of our lawmakers. If what has been written about the proposed NAU is true, Congress and the American people will have been left out of the loop. Maybe another example of a so called "wacky conspiracy theory" turning out to be true, purposely so?????? By the time people wake up and smell the coffee, it will be a "done deal"???