I am a Moonie

Guest

youngdan wrote:: Are you sober. If meteorite rocks are plentifull what is to stop someone saying that he brought it back from the moon, look Ibis it is different.

No matter where the rocks are, on the surface or 100 miles down they are 4.5 billion years old.

Roll on April

Geology is a science. By the time one has been studying it for 4 years one has a pretty good idea whether the rocks one is looking at down a microscope are within the range of terrestrial variation or not. The lunar rocks are completely different - the differences are technical, I fear, and I won't bore you with them, although in essence terrestrial rocks are invariably affected by fluids or air. The thin sections are passed around from university to university to be looked at by hundreds of geology students and lecturers every year. No doubt, in your eyes, that is not a risk, but a huge deception exercise!

I'm afraid the psychology of conspiracy theorism remains a more compelling explanation for this thread than anything else.

Guest

ibis wrote:

youngdan wrote:: Are you sober. If meteorite rocks are plentifull what is to stop someone saying that he brought it back from the moon, look Ibis it is different.

No matter where the rocks are, on the surface or 100 miles down they are 4.5 billion years old.

Roll on April

Geology is a science. By the time one has been studying it for 4 years one has a pretty good idea whether the rocks one is looking at down a microscope are within the range of terrestrial variation or not. The lunar rocks are completely different - the differences are technical, I fear, and I won't bore you with them, although in essence terrestrial rocks are invariably affected by fluids or air. The thin sections are passed around from university to university to be looked at by hundreds of geology students and lecturers every year. No doubt, in your eyes, that is not a risk, but a huge deception exercise!

I'm afraid the psychology of conspiracy theorism remains a more compelling explanation for this thread than anything else.

Personally I think conspiracy theory as a phenomenon is social and not psychological. It is quite a recent phenomenon and is international. How can you explain it in terms of psychology?

Guest

I don't think you can categorise it as either/or. It is surely one of the byproducts of fusing psychology with social interaction. Maybe I should dig out my notes from first year psychology and see is there anything in them about it. That was an interesting year.

Guest

johnfás wrote:: I don't think you can categorise it as either/or. It is surely one of the byproducts of fusing psychology with social interaction. Maybe I should dig out my notes from first year psychology and see is there anything in them about it. That was an interesting year.

You can say that any form of human behaviour is a product of psychology, including political behaviour. Ibis I think intended to suggest some kind of dysfunction. It is often tempting to dismiss people one disagrees with as nuts, but is generally frowned on in debate ( I lost a school debate once on those grounds, and the memory has stayed with me Embarassed

). Conspiracy theory of one kind or another is believed in by a very substantial proportion of the US population. I would say it is at the level of a normal anxiety that they are not being told the whole truth, rather than a medical level of paranoia. There is also an extent to which it is played on and exploited by political interests who collect a following by counterposing their devotion to the truth as opposed to the elite who lie to the masses.

The function of suspicion about the landing on the moon is to fuel general mistrust of Government, whilst ensuring that this mistrust remains at the level of fantasy and speculation, rather than on a foundation of scientific knowledge and analysis. The mistrust is more important than the facts and nobody learns anything. The real lies and conspiracies of the US government, both at home and abroad, are mingled with and obscured by the hogwash.

Guest

cactus flower wrote:

johnfás wrote:: I don't think you can categorise it as either/or. It is surely one of the byproducts of fusing psychology with social interaction. Maybe I should dig out my notes from first year psychology and see is there anything in them about it. That was an interesting year.

You can say that any form of human behaviour is a product of psychology, including political behaviour. Ibis I think intended to suggest some kind of dysfunction. It is often tempting to dismiss people one disagrees with as nuts, but is generally frowned on in debate ( I lost a school debate once on those grounds, and the memory has stayed with me Embarassed

).

Ah, no - had that been the case I would have said the psychiatry of conspiracy theorism. It is an interesting and common quirk of human psychology, by no means pathological except politically and socially.

cactus flower wrote:: Conspiracy theory of one kind or another is believed in by a very substantial proportion of the US population. I would say it is at the level of a normal anxiety that they are not being told the whole truth, rather than a medical level of paranoia. There is also an extent to which it is played on and exploited by political interests who collect a following by counterposing their devotion to the truth as opposed to the elite who lie to the masses.

Indeed, most extremist politics relies on theories of conspiracy, and conspiracy theories of history - that, for example, most history is explicable as a conspiracy by the strong against the weak, the Jews against the rest, and so on. In the most splendid example I ever saw, which predated the Internet, the author of some mimeographed sheets I found at Heathrow explained it all as the actions of a group of immortals who had posed as Olympian gods in ancient Greece, and who these days posed as traffic wardens. The author knew this, because traffic wardens kept harassing him as a result of his discovery of the truth.

cactus flower wrote:: The function of suspicion about the landing on the moon is to fuel general mistrust of Government, whilst ensuring that this mistrust remains at the level of fantasy and speculation, rather than on a foundation of scientific knowledge and analysis. The mistrust is more important than the facts and nobody learns anything. The real lies and conspiracies of the US government, both at home and abroad, are mingled with and obscured by the hogwash.

I'd agree to a fair extent. People know they don't know the whole truth, but set off in pursuit of the truth inadequately equipped to catch it. The idea that something is a conspiracy is the easiest shortcut between the observable facts and an explanation. The socio-economic, political, religious, and ideological factors behind 9/11 are complicated, and point to enemies of little emotional interest - the idea that it is a false flag attack is much simpler, and provides complete emotional satisfaction for those who distrust central government. It also leaves no loose ends, as conspiracy theories can be extended indefinitely without facts.

One of the noticeable facts about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to believe not just one theory, but almost invariably several. So, for example, youngdan subscribes to the conspiracy theory of global warming and the moon hoax conspiracy theory - I don't recall his position on JFK or 9/11, but it won't surprise me to discover he subscribes to the conspiracy theories of those too.

Guest

Ibis said

Quote :: Ah, no - had that been the case I would have said the psychiatry of conspiracy theorism. It is an interesting and common quirk of human psychology, by no means pathological except politically and socially

That's fair enough - but what we are talking about here in my personal opinion is a phenomenon of social rather than individual psychology, and is a very close relation (albeit an embryonic or distorted one) to a political outlook or philosophy.

It would be ludicrous to claim that elites do not use their position of power manipulate the less powerful masses in all kinds of ways, both by release of disinformation, failure to disclose, by psyops and by "bread and circuses" distraction. De Tocqueville wrote of the need to keep the peasantry in the thrall of the church, to ensure their compliance with the social order, for example.

As populations are now generally educated, it has become more difficult to prevent leakage. People are aware they are lied to and misinformed by governments, and become vulnerable to what I think of as a "white noise" of conspiracy theory some spontaneously arising and some deliberately fostered.

Quote :: Indeed, most extremist politics relies on theories of conspiracy, and conspiracy theories of history - that, for example, most history is explicable as a conspiracy by the strong against the weak, the Jews against the rest, and so on. In the most splendid example I ever saw, which predated the Internet, the author of some mimeographed sheets I found at Heathrow explained it all as the actions of a group of immortals who had posed as Olympian gods in ancient Greece, and who these days posed as traffic wardens. The author knew this, because traffic wardens kept harassing him as a result of his discovery of the truth.

As you don't define what you mean by "extremist politics" that is a very broad statement that can't be interpreted. I agree where you are talking about anti-semitism, which has fed off and invented conspiracy theories for hundreds of years, the "Blood Libel" having stirred up thousands of killings of Jews in Europe long before the Third Reich. Parts of ths "Blood Libel" set of antisemitic conspiracy theory reappears now as part of the current Alex Jones, Zeitgeist outlook that points at the Rothschilds as being behind an all powerful financial clique.

I fear that some form of dysfunction or psychosis might have come into play where the Traffic Warden conspiracy is concerned. What a Face

Quote :: People know they don't know the whole truth, but set off in pursuit of the truth inadequately equipped to catch it. The idea that something is a conspiracy is the easiest shortcut between the observable facts and an explanation.

There is a level of conspiracy theory that involves speculation and enquiry and leaves it at that. There is not much harm in that. Where it starts to become something more dangerous is where there is conspiracy belief, based on zero or insufficient factual basis, which suits a political agenda and is fostered for that reason.

I don't think inadequacy of information or methodology explains conspiracy theory. We live with almost infinite unknowns without needing to fill them in with fantasy and speculation.
I don't think the wave of conspiracy theory that has emerged since 9/11 that we are experiencing can be accounted for by individual psychology- its the product of the political times were living in, and to some extent the inadequate political leadership of the day. 9/11 was a profound shock to the US, and it was I think probably more frightening for many people to think that a handful of Islamic terrorists were able to inflict that damage than it was to believe that their Government was all powerful, but on this occasion malign.

There is also the matter of fact of the close relationship of the Bush's and the Saudis, that provided a good starting point.

Guest

ibis wrote:: One of the noticeable facts about conspiracy theorists is that they tend to believe not just one theory, but almost invariably several. So, for example, youngdan subscribes to the conspiracy theory of global warming and the moon hoax conspiracy theory - I don't recall his position on JFK or 9/11, but it won't surprise me to discover he subscribes to the conspiracy theories of those too.

Ibis, now you're joining in with the rabble in using "conspiracy theorist" as a careless insult. Some theories are just plain silly to begin with, some theories remain theories, and some theories are proven. That applies to conspiracy theories as well as others. And your list of four conspiracy theories there, as if they're all on the same level of unbelievability, suggests an unfortunately dismissive attitude, something like: "Oh, so you're one of those (and not worth wasting time on)."

I'd agree with you that the global warming and moon hoax theories are so poorly supported with evidence that we probably shouldn't dwell on them, except for entertainment, but there are several disturbing reasons for thinking that Bush and/or the CIA (or elements thereof) and/or other people/organizations anticipated in some way the 9/11 events, and, well, you know the rest. As for JFK, I and a lot of people think that the official investigations were seriously inadequate and, based on our own studies of the evidence, think that Oswald probably didn't act alone. It's a theory, a conspiracy theory indeed, but there's a helluva lot of evidence. What's more, I say there's good reason to think the same of the Robert Kennedy assassination.

Guest

The other side of the coin is, if you believe they landed on the moon then you would believe anything.

Some people watch the video clip of JFK's brains being blown out the back of his head but still insist he was shot from behind. If they don't believe their eyes then they are unlikely to believe me.

So roll on April.

Guest

Conspiracy theories - it's a kind of internet market now since the X-Files finished. Still, I don't think it's too much harm to have a healthy sprinkling of doubt about anything you can't immediately see touch taste smell or hear right in front of you. Know what I mean ? "You're Jesus ?? Yeah right - take off your clothes and let's see the holes".

Descartes, the weirdo, built an incredibly successful philosophy entirely on doubting. It could be argued that the scientific method springs from his way of looking at the world. He was a weirdo though - he would sit at home in front of his fire with his pipe in the 1600s and think "what if I'm not here and there's an evil demon poking electric wires into my brain inside a laboratory?" Somehow he built a metaphysics on that.

It's no harm to doubt something you have no direct proof for although society would fall apart utterly unless we deferred at some point.

The moon conspiracy theory is an intellectual exercise in science and politics and not at all incredible and we can get plenty of mileage and entertainment out of debating it. I learned for example that there is rakes of metals on the moon and some water in the dark side, left there by impacted comets. I also am learning some stuff from Ard Taoiseach about radation levels and the figures involved as well as the thickness of aluminium one needs to wear when passing through the Van Allen Belt(s)

The JFK conspiracy is wide open in my mind - if you think there was only one gunman you need to get out there are pick up a rifle and have a few shots of it.

9/11 I don't know but I wouldn't doubt Bush. Some of the films and documentaries on it are fairly compelling and again you'd learn a fair bit about skyscraper engineering among many other things if you delved in deeper. It's good to doubt. Anyway don't you think it's crazy to trust the likes of the Bush Administration who later razed a couple of countries and slaughtered millions on the back of a couple of buildings undergoing forced demolitition. There was plenty of proof and evidence and opinion against the Bush effort in Iraq.

The NWO banking and ethnic cleansing, eugenicist flouride and food sprays theories I don't know at all but I've no doubt it's no harm to keep an open mind. When it keeps you up all night you can start worrying.

edit
A nice pitcher of the Van Allen belts
I am a Moonie - Page 6 I09-05-VanAllen

Guest

Auditor #9 wrote:: The NWO banking and ethnic cleansing, eugenicist flouride and food sprays theories I don't know at all but I've no doubt it's no harm to keep an open mind.

Eugenicist fluoride? I'm not sure what you're on about there, but the conspiracy behind fluoridation is well documented. The best source is The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson. In a nutshell, there was a huge incentive, on the part of many of the world's biggest corporations, to launder the image of fluoride, a very dangerous pollutant. When the opportunity was spotted to sell it as a "health" aid, they went at it in a big way, and amazingly successfully, with the ruthless, omnipotent toxicologist Harold Hodge and PR guru Edward Bernays at the reins.

Even now, despite all the discoveries and documentation, with the scales falling from the eyes of so many important people, we still have a huge amount of fluoridation of unsuspecting populations, with Ireland to the fore (the only democracy with mandatory water fluoridation). At the same time, there is not one Irish medical doctor who's willing to defend fluoridation in public debate, or on Internet discussions.

The fluoridation law and infrastructure were put in place years ago, and it just goes on and on, at enormous expense, with no one responsible, and no politician questioning it (except Kathy Sinnott). At this stage it doesn't need a conspiracy, though the dentists who control Irish fluoridation, principally Whelton, O'Mullane, Clarkson, O'Hickey and Mullen, know bloody well what they're doing (and they don't want you to know).

Come to think of it, maybe I can present a little conspiracy theory:

Prof Pat Fottrell, former President of UCG, and very prominent in Galway social life, was appointed by Micheál Martin to be chairman of the Forum on Fluoridation (2000-2002). Fottrell and prominent Galway businessman Thomas McDonogh were board members of the Galway University Foundation (and they were still involved together more recently, according to this now-restricted page.

Shortly before the Forum began, Fottrell was among those who nominated McDonogh for an honorary doctorate from UCG (see this). McDonogh headed the Thomas McDonogh Group, owner of the Albatros factory in New Ross, which at that time held the contract for supplying all of the fluoride (in the form of fertilizer factory toxic waste fluosilicic acid) added to Irish water. Cf. this.

This is the same Dr Thomas McDonogh of the Galway Race Committee whose companies sponsor some of the races. Would you bet that McDonogh, Fottrell and Martin were not in the Fianna Fáil tent together? Some of this information got an airing in the Oireachtas Health Committee when Fottrell was questioned about the Forum.

Anyway, the Fluoridation Forum was a disgrace, and left nearly all the questions unanswered. The Forum’s many critics have never been responded to: for example, these.

Note that many of McDonogh's business interests -- fertilizer, coal, building materials, etc. -- are associated with fluoride pollution.

There's more about McDonogh here, in a Sunday Business Post profile, published 14 July 2002.
Quote:
"The Galway-based Thomas McDonogh & Sons, one of the state's largest privately owned companies, sells mostly agribusiness products. McDonogh, its chairman, is worth an estimated €73 million..."

A few more quotes, from the other government party:

"It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health." -- Trevor Sargent TD, Feb 1997 (Dáil speech)

"If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley TD, Feb 2007 (personal e-mail)

"In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation." -- Green Party health policy, Dec 2008

Would you draw any conclusions?

Guest

Quote :: "It cannot be lawful for a state to poison its own people. We have ample evidence that fluoridation is damaging our health." -- Trevor Sargent TD, Feb 1997 (Dáil speech)

"If I'm in government fluoridation will go in the first month in office. That's a guarantee." -- John Gormley TD, Feb 2007 (personal e-mail)

"In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation." -- Green Party health policy, Dec 2008

Would you draw any conclusions?

Well that's a fair whack of info but it's a bit of a letdown and turnaround that the Greens had such convictions and then forget them all of a sudden. Now, on that perhaps they haven't forgotten them and intend to push their agenda soon enough when they get a few more bits and pieces out of the way first. Do they have designs do you know, about getting the fluoride out of the water soon ?

The conspiracy theory eugenicist stuff comes from me watching Alex Jones one night as I was falling asleep. He was ranting on and literally spitting out about fluoride and how it's put into the water to kill everyone and dumb them down. Sounds like a heap of caca but one is often impressionable during the Alpha Wave phase of sleep i.e. the onset of it.

I guess you harbour no such crazy ethnic cleansing conspiracy theories ? And if there isn't a noticeable and appreciable effect when a person drinks fluoridated water then should we really be worried ?

Here is Alex Jones reporting on sodium fluoride being added to children's milk in schools in the UK