View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby really? » 27 Apr 2013, 02:42

Should there be any surprise that this happens? But hey, what do I know I'm just a shill.

Like the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Sandy Hook massacre and other tragedies, the recent Boston Marathon bombing has spawned several conspiracy theories. Some of the more cynical conspiracy theorists do it simply for attention and ratings, or to promote their books, DVDs and seminars promising to reveal the truth that no one else would dare.

These days most conspiracy theories are promoted by one or two (relatively) high-profile people. A man named Alex Jones was at the forefront of the conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook school attack last year — including the claim that the shooting didn't really happen. This time around, former Fox News host Glenn Beck is among those leading the charge that a conspiracy is afoot in the Boston bombing case that left several dead and one suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in the hospital.
Beck is apparently not denying that the Boston bombings took place — the thousands of eyewitnesses, countless videos and forensic evidence is too overwhelming to be dismissed. No, instead the conspiracy seems to center around what Beck believes is the suspicious government handling of a Saudi national named Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, who was supposedly investigated (and cleared) of some connection to the Boston attack, but whose student visa had expired, and who may or may not be in the process of being deported back to Saudi Arabia. More: http://www.livescience.com/29038-why-bo ... acies.html
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58






Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 29 Apr 2013, 19:00

There will always be someone who interprets a series of events in a different light. Many times they are off the mark but every once in a while, they hit on something that connects. It's a crap shoot of opinions and interpretations nowadays.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 18 Jun 2013, 10:38

What about this one?

Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor”

http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr ... -an-actor/
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby really? » 18 Jun 2013, 17:55

SydneyPSIder wrote:What about this one?

Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor”

http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr ... -an-actor/


If the point you are making is there are conspiracies, no one says there aren't. This article is explaining why people invent conspiracies where none exist.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 19 Jun 2013, 06:34

really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:What about this one?

Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor”

http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr ... -an-actor/


If the point you are making is there are conspiracies, no one says there aren't. This article is explaining why people invent conspiracies where none exist.

And how do YOU or anyone know when none exists? You don't. You have made a misstatement, as has the author of the OP article. You scientifically can only say you BELIEVE none exists or that you are sceptical in one particular case or another. But you cannot definitively know or make a blanket statement about something where you may not have all the absolute evidence. This goes to the heart of the conundrum of pseudosceppery and its inherent epistemological self-contradiction and failure. In the postmodern sense, there is no such thing as a 'fact', just our understanding and communication of ideas that we call facts.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby really? » 19 Jun 2013, 09:59

SydneyPSIder wrote:
really? wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:What about this one?

Dr. Stan Monteith, a 35-year orthopedic surgeon on Jeff Bauman’s leg amputations: “I believe that this young man was an actor”

http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr ... -an-actor/


If the point you are making is there are conspiracies, no one says there aren't. This article is explaining why people invent conspiracies where none exist.

And how do YOU or anyone know when none exists? You don't. You have made a misstatement, as has the author of the OP article. You scientifically can only say you BELIEVE none exists or that you are sceptical in one particular case or another. But you cannot definitively know or make a blanket statement about something where you may not have all the absolute evidence. This goes to the heart of the conundrum of pseudosceppery and its inherent epistemological self-contradiction and failure. In the postmodern sense, there is no such thing as a 'fact', just our understanding and communication of ideas that we call facts.


Such an idiot.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby Misha » 19 Jun 2013, 15:09

Definition of idiot
noun
informal

a stupid person.
Medicine, archaic a mentally handicapped person.

Really, I'm not sure who you are calling an idiot. Could you clarify?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Jun 2013, 19:22

Misha wrote:Really, I'm not sure who you are calling an idiot. Could you clarify?

Yes Really?, please clarify. I think by now you (Really?) know that name calling is one of the seven deadly sins around these parts. If for some reason you have forgotten one of the 3 rules here, allow me to remind you.

It seems that lately your posts have been full of quotes with not much more than some short, curt response that is very open to interpretation.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby really? » 19 Jun 2013, 20:09

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Misha wrote:Really, I'm not sure who you are calling an idiot. Could you clarify?

Yes Really?, please clarify. I think by now you (Really?) know that name calling is one of the seven deadly sins around these parts. If for some reason you have forgotten one of the 3 rules here, allow me to remind you.

It seems that lately your posts have been full of quotes with not much more than some short, curt response that is very open to interpretation.


I know naming a person is wrong, but there are times when my irritation with someone's reasoning abilities and their name calling [ pseudosceptic] just brings out the worst in me. Syd with his last post did just that. I get so fed up with people that use the word pseudoskeptic every time a person like myself disagrees with their particular point. According to syd in this case and many others that think like him, skeptics like myself should forever remain opionionless and open to all the possibilites forever. Everyone has opinions as you well know, so I expressed mine about him after he put forth his own misunderstanding of what the article's author is saying. Remind syd to also refrain from labeling me or anyone a pseudoseptic, that is name calling too and that makes me very irritable. Sometimes a person needs to hear not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. By doing so maybe next time they will be more circumspect writing a reply.

Respectfully,
really
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Jun 2013, 00:34

really? wrote:I know naming a person is wrong, but there are times when my irritation with someone's reasoning abilities and their name calling [pseudosceptic] just brings out the worst in me.

Sweet baby cheeses! Have I been scooped up by ETs and dropped on some strange planet?

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

“In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]”

But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means.

This is the opening statement from Winston's "Introduction" - - "Defining PseudoSkeptics vs. True Skeptics: Behaviors and Tactics". The definition can be found here for those who would like to know more: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introd ... htm#Define

really? wrote:Syd with his last post did just that. I get so fed up with people that use the word pseudoskeptic every time a person like myself disagrees with their particular point. According to syd in this case and many others that think like him, skeptics like myself should forever remain opionionless and open to all the possibilites forever.

According to the above definitions, opinion is certainly welcomed. That's opinion about the topic, NOT THE POSTER. Heck, you can even have an opinion about someone's opinion but unless you are willing to express an actual opinion in the rebuttal, it fits with definition of pseudoskeptic behavior.

really? wrote:Everyone has opinions as you well know, so I expressed mine about him after he put forth his own misunderstanding of what the article's author is saying.

Why not just add your understanding of what the actual author is saying? Most of us here can appreciate pointing out a different opinion of articles or differences in interpretation. Cold, hard, accurate facts are surely appreciated. Especially when presented in a pleasant manner. You know... the whole more flies with honey thing?

really? wrote:Remind syd to also refrain from labeling me or anyone a pseudoseptic, that is name calling too and that makes me very irritable.

I'm sorry that using the term pseudoskeptic makes you irritable. How about I give you permission to call Syd a "Pseudobeliever"? Would that work? Considering that the term pseudoskeptic is plastered in just about everything that Winston has in print, I'd say that it's an acceptable term on these forums.

really? wrote:Sometimes a person needs to hear not what they want to hear but what they need to hear. By doing so maybe next time they will be more circumspect writing a reply.

Hmmmm???? Are you telling us that this is something that believers need to know? I guess it doesn't apply to skeptics and I'm positive the pseudoskeptics out there sure as heck don't think that it applies to them.

I understand that Syd makes you irritable. Well guess what? Y'all make me irritable when I have to remind someone of a higher intelligence than me to frickin' stick to the only 3 rules that are clear cut. I'm sure that Syd is capable of holding his own in a battle of wits with you but my job is to make sure that lurkers and readers of all types don't feel that they will be treated the same if they post an opinion that is not to another members liking.

Newbies don't know the history of the members here. They don't bother to read the gazillion back posts either. I wouldn't expect them to but it would be nice if they did a bit of back reading to get a better grip on the flavor of this site. Not that it would make seeing someone being called "an idiot" any sweeter.

I'll get off of my soapbox now and leave EVERYONE here this little gem: No more name calling.

Thank you-
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby SydneyPSIder » 20 Jun 2013, 18:27

I'm particularly bemused really? doesn't want to grapple with the postmodernist project! :ugeek:

And I sometimes wonder if our resident pseudosceps aren't over-patriotic intelligence operatives at times, paid or unpaid. Their ability to consistently reject clear evidence particularly when it pertains to US black ops is unparalleled.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Jun 2013, 21:20

SydneyPSIder wrote:I'm particularly bemused really? doesn't want to grapple with the postmodernist project! :ugeek:

And I sometimes wonder if our resident pseudosceps aren't over-patriotic intelligence operatives at times, paid or unpaid. Their ability to consistently reject clear evidence particularly when it pertains to US black ops is unparalleled.

I don't know for fact what any of "them" are but they sure do get around. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby Arouet » 21 Jun 2013, 01:11

SydneyPSIder wrote:I'm particularly bemused really? doesn't want to grapple with the postmodernist project! :ugeek:

And I sometimes wonder if our resident pseudosceps aren't over-patriotic intelligence operatives at times, paid or unpaid. Their ability to consistently reject clear evidence particularly when it pertains to US black ops is unparalleled.


In my experience evidence is rarely as clear as people think. Or rather, the same evidence can often support multiple hypotheses.

Let's take the recent example of Scepcop and the fluoride in water thing. Let's accept for the sake of the argument that we've now concluded confidently that fluoride in drinking water hurts more than it helps. Scepcop takes that and says it must be because its a conspiracy and a scam perpetuated by or on behalf of fluoride manufacturers. Now, we can probably agree that this finding would be consistent with such a conspiracy. But we also have to ask: are there any other possibilities that the same evidence could support?

When that's the case, you have to keep on going and look at other factors.

People like to say "follow the evidence" but IMO its rarely that simple, the evidence often leads to forks in the road.

Also- anytime I think something is obvious I try to remind myself to take a step back and look at it again - Sometimes things appear obvious only because we haven't looked at it closely enough.

(incidentally, I'm not American and can hardly be labelled an American patriot.)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Jun 2013, 05:40

Arouet wrote:People like to say "follow the evidence" but IMO its rarely that simple, the evidence often leads to forks in the road.

I say, forget evidence, "follow the money". I don't even want to think about how many products out there are basically not good for us.

Arouet wrote:(incidentally, I'm not American and can hardly be labelled an American patriot.)

You may not be an American but you're still welcomed here. BTW, your command of the English language is pretty good. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Boston Marathon Bombings Ignited Conspiracies

Postby Arouet » 21 Jun 2013, 06:03

NinjaPuppy wrote:I say, forget evidence, "follow the money". I don't even want to think about how many products out there are basically not good for us.


Following the money can be helpful, and may indicate wrongdoing - but even then its not so simple. Remember: no matter what the situation, people will look for ways to exploit and profit off of it. The fact that someone is profiting so does not mean that the situation was designed with them in mind or by them. Again- that's one possibility, but not the only possibility!

But think about this: is there practically such a thing as an unexploitable system? Can someone really design a system that will prevent one group or the other from gettting more than their fair share?

Look at tax attorneys - these are among the smartest and richest of lawyers. The reason is, whenever the new tax code comes out, they pour over it looking for loopholes, then they sell their product to rich people until the loophole is closed. It doesn't mean that the changes were made in order to facilitate those schemes, but only that people will be motivated to find ways to exploit what they deem are profitable situations.



Arouet wrote:(incidentally, I'm not American and can hardly be labelled an American patriot.)

You may not be an American but you're still welcomed here. BTW, your command of the English language is pretty good. :lol:[/quote]
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Next

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron