Sun Tzu

edit



In your opinion. Just like its my opinion the Warren Commission is full of shit.


Oh that’s interesting, you wouldn’t? I don’t know . . . Fox hasn’t stated there was a cover up so you should really reserve yourself from going down that road. Even if you did, what could you do about it right? After all, if indeed it were a cover up, it happened years ago, it doesn’t affect you, so forget about it, things like that wont happen in this day and age, truth and justice prevail in these times- no one is above the law. As long as suburbia is intact, and “the squirrels are climbing the trees” and there are enough “moose to mate with” things are good.

It’s not just the fuzzy picture, but the information linked together with it. Someone like you probably gives absolutely no second thought to coincidences regardless of how many exist. With government conspiracies ranging from back then up to now there are always multitudes of them. Even when officials are openly caught lying- hey everybody does it right, it doesn’t prove anything . . .



Most official stories can fall apart applying this same mindset:

The common arguments
Test 1: Is the argument factually correct?
It's remarkable how many conspiracy theories are based on arguments which are simply factually incorrect. If you're presented with a conspiracy theory argument, the first thing to do is to check the surrounding facts. Many incorrect arguments are repeated in ignorance. But it's also been my unhappy experience that there are some purveyors of conspiracy theories who knowingly repeat arguments they know are incorrect.

Test 2: Is the argument relevant to the theory?
A second common problem with conspiracy theories is that they cloud the issue by attaching true, but irrelevant, arguments. Just because an argument is true doesn't mean it's relevant to the theory you're testing. This is a form of guilt by association, and gives the impression that the theory is being padded.

Test 3: If the argument is true, what implications does it have in other areas?
An argument on its own may appear to be plausible. But if we apply the argument to related fields or subjects, does it continue to make sense? Or would it require the world to be very different from how we see it?

Test 4: Is the argument consistent with other arguments used to support the theory?
There's a temptation to judge a theory simply by the number of supporting arguments, regardless of how they interact with each other. But amongst all these arguments, there's the danger that two or more of them contradict each other. This immediately means that at least one of the arguments is wrong, but in the context of conspiracy theories, it's perhaps worthwhile doubting both.

Test 5: What do relevant experts say about a particular argument?
Conspiracy theorists often tout their apparent expertise with a body of knowledge in order to bolster their arguments. But, perversely, they also often decry other experts in the field. This is often because the expert consensus in that field is contrary to the argument presented. Similarly, they often quote experts speaking inaccurately outside their field of expertise.

Test 6: Is there actually an argument in the argument, or is it just an opinion?
An argument which merely expresses an opinion, but which doesn't have any supporting evidence, adds nothing to the theory, and should be ignored.

Test 7: Does the argument offer any supporting evidence?
Some arguments are presented with weasel words such as "could have" or "maybe". Without any supporting evidence, these aren't arguments - they're just speculation. They too should be ignored.

Test 8: Is the explanation provided by an argument the only possible explanation for the evidence?
There are cases when an argument presents two alternative explanations for an event. One is the conspiracy explanation, while the other is said to be the official explanation. When the official explanation is debunked, the conspiracy explanation appears to be correct by default. Problems arise, though, when the apparently official explanation turns out to be a straw-man misrepresentation of the official explanation.

Test 9: How does the argument deal with positive arguments which contradict it?
Theories aren't built out of opposition to other theories. Instead, they're created to better explain the evidence than previous theories. Therefore, any conspiracy theory has to address evidence which contradicts it. Ignoring the evidence isn't acceptable, and should be treated as a major weakness of the theory.

Test 10: Would an experiment of your own help shed light on an argument?
Some conspiracy arguments rely on you accepting them without question, perhaps by an appeal to common sense. Sadly, common sense can lead us astray. This is where simple experiments, or even just careful observation of the world around us, can provide useful insights into the accuracy of an argument.

Conclusion: Is the conspiracy theory a coherent theory?
A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to bring the conspiracy to fruition. However, many conspiracy theorists aren't willing to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don't add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, create an implausible, self-contradictory, and ad hoc narrative.





The George bush one was inane, the second was very intentional, responsive, and pleasure to whip up in 5 minutes with imageready. The third was IMO better than posting a picture that someone else requested (origin).

It doesn’t matter to me that you didnt read the initial information posted and answer the question. The fact that you think I’m trying to “prove my case to” tells me I was obviously not clear enough in that question. It could also be clarity was irrelevant because you came into this thread to do what you think you do best, or enjoy the most.

You have your way of communicating, I have mine, unless I violate the rules I'll post in any way I feel conveys my point. Aside from your own inane contributions to this forum, your intermittent sarcasm combined with patronizing wit has become a signature style for you. I’m sure you get up from any post you make with a smile a level of satisfaction that can only be obtained with flexing your interpretation of the ways things are. The open admissions on several occasions referencing your intolerance for conspiracies, and throwing in your typical responses which you think are exceedingly clever; once again confirms why you even posted in the first place. I could care less how your motivating objectives influence the way you respond to any thread in this forum, to hear you bark orders doesn’t bother me.


Maybe you should consider pulling your head out the sand first, seriously.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking