I agree completely. Social media is the number one reason conspiracy theories are so prevalent now.
When an outcome solely relies on the trust of someone to present facts, how can this be trusted? Proven lies and biased journalism add to this hysteria. So, what can we do as a society to gain trust to those who are supposed to tell the truth? An example would be the biased opinion of our news sources.
So if this is what is presented to us, who can we trust for actual news? I have never been one to beleive in conspiracy theories, but if we can not trust who is supposed to be presenting me facts and not opinions, who can we trust? The internet is a great source of information, but its ran by someone. This someone can manipulate what you see. So, can I trust it? Anyone can get a degree, it its their educated opinion that makes a conclusion. I have always been a firm believer of prove it or be quiet. Seems today we rely on people who the masses do not trust. Everything is being questioned. So, as a society, how can we overcome this? Do we trust what we are told? FBI is quoted saying the conspiracy theories are probably true. This adds fuel to the fire. I’m open to discussions but not in public. You can email me. I have to leave social media because of biased opinions. Present facts and am called a conspiracy theorist.
I am not worried about ordinary conspiracies against me — the ones fomented by people, for I am almost completely independent; a ‘freelance’ physician not afraid to lose any post, for I have none, nor to lose fame for I have never been famous. Furthermore I am no lender to be concerned about chasing the borrower, nor a borrower to be concerned about the stalking of loan sharks.
The conspiracies I fear most are the inner ones — the ones perpetrated by my own cells, silently for most of my lifetime. Conspiracies to mutiny and multiply uncontrolled wreaking havoc in my body, conspiracies to stop apoptosing for my sake, and to turn immortal at the cost of my own life
Boghos L. Artinian MD
Top 10 Conspiracy Theories That Were True
Admittedly, the title of this piece focuses on ‘psychology and allure’ – but I’m still surprised it features no mention of the rise of social media and its role in dramatically increasing the publishing power of these theories. I’m tempted to think the thing that makes this story relevant now isn’t the general decline in conspiratorial beliefs (as noted in the article) but, rather, how every conspiracy-minded person has been handed a bullhorn.
While I agree that it may be arguable that burn patterns of wildfire may indicate some form of conspiracy, this author is too quick to throw the baby out with all the bathwater.
There are clearly many very REAL conspiracies throughout history (e.g. smallpox intentionally being spread to Native Indians, attempted cover-up of bikini atoll nuclear test disaster, documented mind-control experiments by CIA that have since been declassified via FOIA etc.)
Does the author think the JKF assassination does not begin with some form of conspiracy too?
By definition, the JFK assassination, is a classic conspiracy turned into reality and exposed as such, correct?
More recent examples that are CLEARLY highly suspicious is “Building 7” during 9-11.
Google this smoking gun “Building 7” and you know there is no rational way an entire skyscraper can come down in a similar fashion as a controlled demolition due to just a few small & sporadic fires.
The world is not what it seems. What you see and read in the press is not always what is the truth.
Gabriella, the JFK assassination “conspiracy theory” is the origin of the term. To call it “exposed” is flatly false, as the evidence supports the government’s conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Admittedly, the evidence is not particularly persuasive one way or the other, but the point is that people will continue to construct specific narratives none of which is more likely than the null hypothesis that Oswald acted alone.
There are undoubtedly numerous plots going on right now, criminal conspiracies of all sorts and at all levels. There always have been. And some of them will involve the government, directly or indirectly. But the problem with the state of mind here is that specific narratives are viewed as intrinsically likely just because they implicate the government, or the Jewish people, or whomever. Consider the standard response a 9/11 truther gives to someone who disagrees: “So you think the government wouldn’t do this? That they only act in your best interest?” I don’t have to think that; the evidence speaks for itself, and my opinion about the nefariousness of the defendant isn’t relevant. Most of the evidence concocted to support these assertions is gathered and twisted with a specific goal in mind rather than analyzed objectively. And usually, when you do look at the evidence objectively, it falls apart almost instantly.
This is the pattern you see in people who believe in secret government weather control. The government is being classified as “evil,” and therefore evil actions are automatically expected of them, even if the particular theories don’t really make any sense. That’s why you spent most of your post describing bad things previous administrations have done instead of developing the evidence for your theory.
If you really want an answer for how 7 WTC is believed to have collapsed, and the variety of footage that exists of the collapse, the information is out there. Hell, you could read the article on Wikipedia. Your entire argument here is to google the demolition, which I have, and what I found does not support your conclusion. Rather than small and sporadic fires, there were fires on over a dozen different floors burning for up to seven hours. The fires were uncontrolled in many places due to a vulnerable sprinkler system with no automatic control and due to low water pressure for the fighters (because of the high demand of course). The building began to bulge and creak three hours before it collapsed, and did not collapse all at once, but over the course of about 40 seconds. Although copious amounts of information exist, most of it is extremely flimsy, often involving subjective interpretation of video footage, altered evidence, non-authoritative scientific opinions, and individual testimony. On balance, I think the evidence is clearly more consistent with a collapse due to structural failure from colliding debris and uncontrolled fires than with a demolition.
Govenrment controlled weather might be a poorly phrased conspiricay theory; certainly the government is controlling the amplitude and regularity of severe weather events with energy policy by encouraging industrial pollution in general and specifically with Rick Perry’s coal subsidies.
Really interesting point. People may poorly articulate their thoughts, such that it sounds as if they believe in whacko unsubstantiatable conspiracy theories.
What William suggests makes a lot of sense. “President Trump” could be shorthand for those in government and in power; “control the weather” could be a layperson’s way of saying “influencing the climate”.
So, how a question is asked matters, and assuming someone understood the question as asked, and that we understand the response, risks a great deal of misunderstanding. Thanks!
Comments are closed.