AIBU to believe in conspiring theorys?

[FriedFishAndBread]

That they never really landed on the moon, the rothschilds and their central banks in every country but two, jfk, Martin Luther King, the Whitehouse has actually admitted assignating malcom x, the pesticides they put in food to kill us and the flouride in water makes us stupid and is rat poised.

I may have been on ig to long... can I please have some common sense or is it true and the world's richest are out to get us and control us.

Its still spivey's website, would you trust a website with nonsense like that on it.

The jury werent even shown pictures of rigbys body but artists impressions.

Not according to this detailed account from someone present in court. Or this one.

The only "artist's impressions" were drawings made to show the injuries and how they were caused, and to show them in relation to each other; due to the fact that a post mortem photograph can't show the path a knife takes, nor can it show a torn artery satisfactorily.

It really is a measure of just how batshit this theory is that its proponents choose to ignore the fact that the jury were shown not just pictures of Lee Rigby's body but a film of the murder as it was happening, and instead they focus on this one totally normal use of graphics; which, far from being unusual as is suggested, is in fact common practice.

Yep. What's your point, claig?

The BBC broadcast and published a deer my irresponsible and misleading story (though of course they never named McAlpine, step forward Michael Crick and others). They were fined for it, as you say. There was an apology, an investigation, and the resignation of a very senior person. Rightly, because it was horrible journalism, irresponsibly managed.

Still struggling to see the relevance.

'There's a word for people who publish as fact things they haven't checked.'

That's what you said. The BBC didn't check the story out in sufficient detail before they ran it.

If you read the comments below the Spivey Obama article, it says that it was not Spivey's original info and was sent to him and he doesn't have time to check everything sent to him.

Good grief. The man is accusing the President of the United States and numerous other people of criminal conspiracy, and he doesn't have time to spend two minutes googling the history of Kenya and discovering that it did indeed exist well before 1963? And he hasn't had time over all the months subsequently to check these things and correct them? He can't even lie convincingly about the reasons for his inaccuracies.

That's what you said. The BBC didn't check the story out in sufficient detail before they ran it.

And?

So what, claig? So the BBC didn't check out a story. Lots of news organisations have been guilty of that one, not least your favourite Daily Mail. What is the relevance of that to the subject of this thread?

I agree Icimoi, he should have checked it out before publishing it.

'What is the relevance of that to the subject of this thread?'

JassyRadlett said

'There's a word for people who publish as fact things they haven't checked.'

and I mentioned the fact that even the BBC sometimes publish or broadcast things they haven't checked out in sufficient detail. It happens.

I mean, it's hardly unknown for media outlets to hype up / overreach / not confirm or check information / flat out lie (certain tabs have particularly well-documented form for this). Sometimes they apologise and take steps to prevent recurrences, sometimes they don't.

As it happens I don't think the Newsnight example is the best analogy to what's happening on this website, for pretty obvious reasons. But there's plenty of instances of media printing/broadcasting without checking the veracity of a source for you to choose from.

^
and I mentioned the fact that even the BBC sometimes publish or broadcast things they haven't checked out in sufficient detail. It happens.

Yep. That doesn't make it right.

And what happens afterwards is pretty important. When inaccuracies or lies are pointed out, how does the publisher or broadcaster of the information respond?

"Yep. That doesn't make it right."

I agree. I said
"I agree Icimoi, he should have checked it out before publishing it."

I didnt even see the comments below. It took me a few minutes on my mobile to refute the "facts" would have taken quicker on mobile. My little knowledge of african history told me it was wrong ie Queen was in Kenya when her father died and read a book about Happy Valley. Its very basic stuff

Grand. I'm still confused why the BBC came up in the first place.

Now he knows it isn't true, has he taken the information down, or printed a clarification that isn't buried in the comments?

"I'm still confused why the BBC came up in the first place."

Because the BBC are the gold stanbdard of journalism along with the Daily Mail and the fact that they publish things without checking them in enough detail makes it not an unusual occurrence.

'Now he knows it isn't true, has he taken the information down, or printed a clarification that isn't buried in the comments?'

I haven't read it

I'll help. It's still listed as 'good detective work on Obama' as the endorsement at the top of the page.

It's not unusual, particularly in the Mail and friends (who made either the Mail or the Beeb the gold standard of journalism? Odd bedfellows there, and depends on what you want measured by your gold standard). That doesn't make it any less reprehensible or mean we shouldn't challenge bad practice, particularly when it can serve to mislead the credulous.

I agree he shouldn't have published it. There are lots of conspiracies on the birth certificate and there are more credible ones than what he has published.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to be more credible, but whether it tips over into actual credibility is another matter.

I do think that it calls into question his broader statements, which others on this thread are relying on.

I agree.
He is a conspiracy theorist. He publishes theories.
Some he has investigated himself and others that he gets sent he publishes without checking himself.

This is an interesting thread. Before I get my tin foil out - the mass swirl of conspiracy theories around the two Malaysian Airways flights gives me pause. The threads on the first flight were very insightful and the second plane going missing was a major tragedy again for so many families. I am too simple to think what might have happened and I think there is something fishy about the first flight. As for the second, I refuse to believe that was anything less than wrong flight wrong time, another stupid war where innocent people died for the sake of a greed of a few.

With my tin foil hat on now, DH is a great one for conspiracy theories whilst I remain oblivious. With all the madness of ISIS going on and what he thinks is a disproportionate amount of time given in the media to the Ebola crisis (not that he wants people to get Ebola mind, just that he is astonished by the level of press attention) he is convinced something else of major import is going on being used to distract the masses whilst governments and the elite do some nefarious deeds as the rest of us watch ISIS and Ebola in horror. His rationale is that they could if they really wanted to stop both at any time but they choose not to because it gives a handy cover. It's not implausible given 9/11 but I am not convinced yet.

I believe Courteney Love had much more to do with Kurt's death than we will ever know, that JFK was murdered from within, that 9/11 so doesn't add up with the other building, that governments are just a puppet for much weather individuals behind them (just look at ex PMs and presidents being involved with defense groups like Bain and Carlyle), and that there's no conspiracy in the Ukraine, Putin just wants it back. And that we did land on the moon but they know fare more about alien contact than we members of the public will ever be told. For now.

As for people who deny the Holocaust though, words fail me.

Off to look up Sandy Ridge. Not heard of that or the X Files one! There is a good WatchMojo on the top 10 conspiracy theories on YouTube.

OP not sure you are still around but I think having a degree of skepticism is useful on both sides of the conspiracy coin. There's a lot we don't know but equally life isn't all that complicated

Weather=wealthier

If you're asking me to clarify what I meant then no. Read what I actually said without your own slant on it.

In the context of a discussion about Sandy Hook, it's up for interpretation of what you meant by 'that' in your sentence. A lot of us took it to mean that 'that' was the experience of the Sandy Hook parents.

You don't want to clarify what 'that' refers to? We'll draw our own inferences on what you meant, and whether you're backtracking.

What do you think my 'slant' is, out of interest?

livingzuid it is true that governments let one news story cover another. We had that email from one civil servant a while back suggesting they announce some bad news because the current media frenzy would hide it. That's just normal dishonestly and cunning.

Having a cure for Ebola would mean that a big company had invented it. I doubt they'd have given up their profits for anything. Greed would cause them to announce it.

As for being able to stop ISIS. Yes of course we can. A series of nuclear strikes would take care of them all. What there isn't is a simple way of killing bad people from the air without killing innocent people. I doubt they even wear proper uniforms so even on the ground you'd have to take each one and examine him carefully before shooting him.

It use to be easier when armies lined up on opposite sides of a field.

A lot of you huh? You're so insightful. What with that and drawing conclusions from things I didn't actually say! I'm backtracking on nothing, I'm just not prepared to go into it again when I explained myself first time.