Origins of popular conspiracy theories?

[David Wong]

Do we generally know where the big conspiracy theories got started? I don't mean in general, I mean do we know the exact name of the first guy to say/write that Oswald wasn't the lone shooter (or that the Apollo moon landing was faked or whatever)?

This seems like a really obvious question but a forum search didn't turn up a similar thread. I ask because, as some of you know, I write and edit a website for a living. I have written about 9/11 in the past (see my sig) and I was wanting to do another article on conspiracy theories. But instead of doing the same tired debunking, I wanted to actually trace down who exactly started each of the major conspiracy theories (JFK, moon landing, 9/11, Illuminati, etc) and kind of get into the origins of how the theory got started and how it spread.

At this point that's more interesting to me because it gets into how myths get created and take on a life of their own, and how some beliefs grow roots. But now I'm becoming concerned that the information just isn't out there, or has been lost to history.

So that's what this thread is about, the origins of CT's and good resources for tracking them down if we don't know off the top of our heads. Obviously I'm not asking you to do my job for me (well, I'm not JUST asking that) as I think this would be instructional, to get a sense of how these things happen.

[Stout]

Hi David.

The only CT genesis I cat attest to is 9/11, which I heard on that very same fateful day.When I asked the guy who said it " how do you know ?" he replied with "isn't it obvious" Funny thing is, I work with the guy who said this, and we don't have internet access, only a TV in a nearby restaurant, so it's not like he logged onto any website to get the idea from.

The only conclusion I can draw from this experience is that it came from anti-American sentiment ( we're in western Canada ) and was instantly seized on as a way to stick it to the man. so to speak.

Wait a minute...I know who you are now ( I have sigs disabled ) you're the guy who wrote that great piece on Loose Change...I've posted a link to that story quite a few times. Cheers.

[ElMondoHummus]

http://911guide.googlepages.com/history

ETA: Oh, whoops, wait a minute. I kneejerked and linked stuff relevant to 9/11 only. Sorry... that wasn't exactly what you were asking for. But it's a start on the 9/11 stuff.

[sleahead]

The originator of the WTC demolition theory, as unearthed by Ref. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101025)

[fromdownunder]

I actually recall reading at one point that the "Paul is Dead" CT started from a joke radio broadcast, with only a very few of the hundreds of clues that eventually came forward.

I am not sure when the "yes Paul did not die, but the whole thing was set up by the Beatles, who deliberately provided fake clues" (phew!) thing came from. The "origin" of the original Paul CT has been cited on the Web, but unfortuately, nobody could find the original recording. So it remains conjecture.

I know the Princess Di thingy was on the Web in multiple places in under 24 hours from her car crash. These days, anything "suspicious" (a term I am using for any event) will generate multiple theories, often within minutes.

With new events, I suspect there is no "the" original source. Just the WWW (World Wide Woos) springing into action.

Norm

[David Wong]

With new events, I suspect there is no "the" original source. Just the WWW (World Wide Woos) springing into action.

Norm

I am afraid that will turn out to be true, I guess the closest I can come is trying to hunt down the earliest instance where somebody spelled it out. Like if there's three different conspiracy sites that ran articles on 9/12 implying controlled demolition, then that's what I'd say, I point out how quickly they were on the case.

For the older ones, I guess I was assuming they could more easily be tracked to a specific book or magazine article or talk radio broadcast. But the Paul Is Dead thing is a fabulous example, because if you can really hunt these origins down and it turns out the originator is really goofy, that's what will make it really entertaining.

[Praktik]

I've pimped this guy here before but check out Michael Barkun "A culture of Conspiracy". If your google skills are advanced you should be able to find the whole thing online - otherwise there's some articles he's written you can find too. Its also worth buying.

ALso, Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" - is oft cited and worth a full read.

His essay on the "Free Silver Movement" is equally engaging and informative.

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm not sure where the first "theories" originated, but the first one I saw was Myssan's "Find the Boeing", probably around Nov, 2001, followed shortly thereafter by Dr. Albert Pastore, PhD's, "Stranger Than Fiction", not long after.
I did some checking on Pastore and he appears to be a hoax himself, most likely a creation of Carol Adler, an Arizona huckster who runs Dandelion Books, a POD publishing house that specializes in promoting tinfoil hat authors whose works run the gamut from 9/11 CT's to homeopathic cures for alien abductees. Adler strays from the usual CT loony-toons publisher only in that she increases her net profits by scamming the real authors ( if that term isn't an oxymoron in this context) by regularly under reporting sales, neglecting to pay royalties, and reneging on her contracts, at least if any of the numerous complaints against her can be believed. Probably the only clients she doesn't rip off are the ones who reside exclusively in "Carolville".

I was going to publish my landmark expose, "Transexual Bikers for Jesus: The True Story of Elvis' Three Headed Martian Baby" at Dandelion but realized this was no doubt too highbrow for its readership, and changed my mind. Plus, I didn't want to get clipped for the gobs of money sure to roll in off such a scholarly work.

Just as an aside, this research led me to Carol A. Valentine, who runs the Waco Holocaust Museum on the Internet.
Ms Valentine also hosts a lot of 9/11 CT authors on her website, especially those who believe the Jews are at the heart of 9/11 (and everything else), something so dear to the heart of Ms Adler that I wonder if they are not in fact the same person, especially in light of the published photo of Ms Adler on the Dandelion site and the one of a Ms Valentine "look-alike" on the Waco site, both of which look remarkably similar save the hair color. However, this could just be coincidence.

Another coincidence is their affinity for extreme anti-Semitic websites, authors, and ideas, particularly those with a bend towards revisionist history and/or 9/11 themes. The Waco page even links to the Zundelsite which, quite literally, places it in the moon-bat category since there you can learn all about the Flying Saucers regularly shuttling between the Nazi base inside the Mare Imbrium to Der Fuhrerpalaz located under Antarctica.

At any rate all of these have been in operation since Nov,2001 or very shortly thereafter, which places them pretty close to the front of the pack I think.

[MikeW]

Something I've suggested before, that helps figure out the origins of recent theories, is to use Google Groups (groups.google.com). You can do an advanced search for the second half of September 2001, for any newsgroup messages containing "controlled demolition" and WTC, say, and see what comes up (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=wtc+%22controlled+demolition%22&start=0&scoring=d&num=10&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=10&as_minm=9&as_miny=2001&as_maxd=31&as_maxm=9&as_maxy=2001&safe=off&) - a very handy way to see what people were saying very early on.

[scratchy]

Where do ct:s come from? I'd say most evidence points to the NWO. They plant it to distract their enemies in the wrong direction, to make them look like fools and obscure the really important issues.

[MaGZ]

I think the first conspiracy theory were started by a blue-eyed person thousands of years ago.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/01/blue_eyes_mutation/

[Pardalis]

I think the first conspiracy theory were started by a blue-eyed person thousands of years ago.

That's not a conspiracy.

It's like you're not even trying to make sense. :rolleyes:

[David Wong]

Does the "vaccines cause autism" thing qualify as a conspiracy? Or is there some real group of scientists out there saying that?

I'd love to include it just because it's such a hot web topic, but I don't know if it's the same deal.

Otherwise, the obvious ones:

JFK
Roswell
9/11
Apollo Moon Landing
The Illuminati

I'd like to expand beyond those big, standard conspiracies. Are there any more you guys would like to see in an article like this?

I'd like to include the Bermuda Triangle but that's probably not so much a "conspiracy theory." Still interesting though.

[Brainache]

Does the "vaccines cause autism" thing qualify as a conspiracy? Or is there some real group of scientists out there saying that?

I'd love to include it just because it's such a hot web topic, but I don't know if it's the same deal.

Otherwise, the obvious ones:

JFK
Roswell
9/11
Apollo Moon Landing
The Illuminati

I'd like to expand beyond those big, standard conspiracies. Are there any more you guys would like to see in an article like this?

I'd like to include the Bermuda Triangle but that's probably not so much a "conspiracy theory." Still interesting though.

I believe "The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion" has a lot of documentation concerning its origin and was a pretty influential piece of BS.

There is also the whole "Federal-Reserve-is-unconstitional" thing.

"Income Tax Is Illegal"? Does that count as a CT?

[David Wong]

I'd like to include that just because of the Snipes thing. That was Wesley Snipes' problem, wasn't it? That he believed the "taxes are illegal" thing?

[Brainache]

I'd like to include that just because of the Snipes thing. That was Wesley Snipes' problem, wasn't it? That he believed the "taxes are illegal" thing?

"That's just what he wants us to think".

I'd love to hear the judge use that line at his trial.

[rtalman]

Couldn't the first reference to the JFK assassination conspiracy be considered to have come from Oswald himself?
I am just a Patsy!

[Mobyseven]

There's that one guy who thinks that Stephen King was involved in a conspiracy to assassinate John Lennon. It's not widespread, otherwise I guess it would classify...

[The Doc]

Origins of most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Holocaust deniers.

[rtalman]

I have been thinking a bit on the origin of the more popular CTs out there, and I may have a germ of an idea.

It seems to me that the big CTs all have one thing in common: Live, unscripted television coverage, with huge populations watching.

Consider the possibility that out of a group witnessing an event, a small percentage of those watching sees or hears (or interprets what they see or hear) something they consider amiss, that no one else catches. For example, someone watching the live coverage on 9/11 sees one of the towers falling, and their brain interprets it as 'just like that clip I saw of the controlled demolition of that hotel in Las Vegas'. Once that idea of controlled demolition is planted, then that part of their brain that demands patterns looks for what it considers signs of CD. Every clip shown, from every angle, and their brain sees what it wants to see, 'proving' to itself again and again that the towers were demolished (I think that is what is called confirmation bias).

Once they have convinced themselves of a crime, they go looking for suspects, motives and methods. Every statement, every witness, every report is scrutinized, but it is only with the view of proving their hypothesis. The suspect, motive and method are all subordinate to the initial perception of what happened. That's why the theories of who/why/how vary so much within CTs.

After they have built their houses of cards, their 'proof' goes out to the public. It used to be books, then TV specials, now it's the internet. The larger an audience they can reach, the more people they can pull to their cause (1% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 1% of 10,000).

[Tippit]

I am afraid that will turn out to be true, I guess the closest I can come is trying to hunt down the earliest instance where somebody spelled it out. Like if there's three different conspiracy sites that ran articles on 9/12 implying controlled demolition, then that's what I'd say, I point out how quickly they were on the case.

For the older ones, I guess I was assuming they could more easily be tracked to a specific book or magazine article or talk radio broadcast. But the Paul Is Dead thing is a fabulous example, because if you can really hunt these origins down and it turns out the originator is really goofy, that's what will make it really entertaining.

Haven't you already decided that anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 is "goofy"? If so, then what would be the point of identifying the original goof?

[Brainache]

Haven't you already decided that anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 is "goofy"? If so, then what would be the point of identifying the original goof?

Maybe some people think that historical accuracy is important. Maybe it could be used as reference for future resaerchers into the history of these irrational ideas. There are many possible reasons why something like this could be useful.

[Chuck Guiteau]

Haven't you already decided that anyone who questions what happened on 9/11 is "goofy"? If so, then what would be the point of identifying the original goof?

While I'm not sure if you are specifically addressing Mr Wong, I will answer anyway.
Everyone on this board questioned what happened on 9/11. Considering the inhuman barbarity of the the events that day, what sane person would not?

The difference is that most of us used logic and objective research, letting the weight of evidence lead us to a certain conclusion ( that Salafist/Qutbist terrorists hijacked 4 passenger jets and committed suicide by flying them into buildings, or attempting to).

The rest came to a conclusion based on their own personal biases then sought evidence to fit their case, discarding or ignoring anything which didn't fit. They still do.
This isn't anything new. There are always people who would rather blame the objects of their disfavor for misadventure and misfortune than accept reality and, as they say in the Army, "handle up". It's much easier, less risky, and serves to justify their original prejudices. Hitler used this to great effect in the late 20's/early 30's in Germany.

To answer your question, it would seem relevant to identify the original source for these claims, and bring their real agenda to light.
If the Germans had done this, instead of supporting Hitler based on their prejudices and unwillingness to shoulder the responsibility for their own governments original shortcomings, then the world would be a very different place.

[rtalman]

@ David Wong

Here is a chance for you to watch a brand new CT from it's inception:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/04/2153974.htm?section=world

[Sabrina]

I think many 9/11 conspiracy theories got started because of misinterpretations of news broadcasts that day. It's been pretty clear from observing twoofers that they take what newscasters said that day as literal interpretations of events when in reality the newscasters were speaking metaphorically ("it was like a bomb went off" and so forth). Plus, they're prone to believe the first thing they hear and dismiss any corrections to the theory from later on, as in the misidentification of several of the hijackers that was later corrected by people who discovered new information. It's a sad, limited mindset, but it exists.

[dudalb]

Origins of most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories:

Holocaust deniers.

I am not denying that was an influence,but I think most 9/11 theories seems to be connected to that old Conspiracy Kook Standard, The One World Conspriacy/New World Order nonsense.

[ElMondoHummus]

I think many 9/11 conspiracy theories got started because of misinterpretations of news broadcasts that day. It's been pretty clear from observing twoofers that they take what newscasters said that day as literal interpretations of events when in reality the newscasters were speaking metaphorically ("it was like a bomb went off" and so forth). Plus, they're prone to believe the first thing they hear and dismiss any corrections to the theory from later on, as in the misidentification of several of the hijackers that was later corrected by people who discovered new information. It's a sad, limited mindset, but it exists.


Oof... that makes things sound a little more innocent than I personally believe they are (personal opinion here). As much as I'd love to agree with that well argued paragraph, when I consider Alex Jones's early contributions, and the degree of willful misinterpretations behind many of these conspiracy fantasies, my own conclusion is that they more resemble the old saying "if you look hard enough, you can find anything" than "well, they said this at first, that must be more right". I think the mindset is a bit more intentional in how they decide to interpret things. And I believe many truthers know that any official story opposed by the CT they choose to believe in has more traction and factual bases (<-plural) than they want to admit, but in the spirit of rebellion against the conventional, they deliberately choose to weigh the CT over the conventional.

Just my personal opinion there, mind you. If you chose to say that this doesn't mean the "innocent" misunderstanders don't exist, I would agree that there must be a spectrum including the types you mention above, as well as the more "deliberate" CT'ers I'm referring to. I can easily believe that.

But anyway, I can definitely agree about that last part: It is indeed a sad and limited mindset they hold. Far from being openminded, I keep finding conspiracy fantasy-believers to be some of the most closed-minded folks on the 'net. True imagination includes being able to accept the fact that reality's boundaries often exceed human comprehension - try explaining to early astronomers like Galileo the concepts of collapsars, dark matter, or huge hydrogen cloudes (http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/WebImg/starsformingM16WF2.jpg) - and that true imagination allows the eventual mass of evidence to provide the overall picture of the issue/event/phenomena, rather than pidgeon-holeing elements of the narrative into existing and tired categories, like how truthers explain away "government" information as a lie before evaluating its accuracy, how it fits the narrative, etc.

True imagination allows the picture to form without chains to pre-existing notions. It's difficult, and huge elements of subjectivity will always tint the evaluation of evidence, but by and large, critical thinkers will attempt to apply as much objectivity as they can to given pieces of evidence and let the picture build as it may. Unfortunately, truthers embrace subjectivity to the point of madness and allow their worldviews to not merely tint their evaluations of elements of the narrative, but openly shape it into something it's not (Killtown, anyone?), and all the while ironically imagining themselves to be free of bonds of "conventionality" simply because they distrust "official" sources. In reality, they're more strongly chained to a single convention than even the "official" narrative is.

Yow, just realized I'm rambling. Anyway, to try to re-rail my post here, part of the "origin" of any CT is partly psychological, and internal to the fantasy-believer. It's a mistaken view that they're allowing their imagination to exceed standard boundaries, when in fact they're simply caging it with an entirely separate set of boundaries. That's part of the origin, regardless of the actual details of any given CT.

[David Wong]

I don't doubt that the people in the conspiracy industry (talk show hosts and writers whose profession is propagating them) have helped many of these theories advance... but I suspect that none of the theories originated with an Alex Jones or Art Bell or whatever books or TV shows are out there.

I may be wrong and there's no doubt those guys are integral to making the theory popular... but there's no mystery to why those guys do what they do. Conspiracies are what stand between Alex Jones and having to get a real job.

But maybe that'll be the most interesting part, how the theory started in some newsgroup and how an Alex Jones or whoever took it and ran with it.

[ElMondoHummus]

I don't doubt that the people in the conspiracy industry (talk show hosts and writers whose profession is propagating them) have helped many of these theories advance... but I suspect that none of the theories originated with an Alex Jones or Art Bell or whatever books or TV shows are out there.

I may be wrong and there's no doubt those guys are integral to making the theory popular... but there's no mystery to why those guys do what they do. Conspiracies are what stand between Alex Jones and having to get a real job.

But maybe that'll be the most interesting part, how the theory started in some newsgroup and how an Alex Jones or whoever took it and ran with it.


Oh, I agree. I don't credit Alex Jones with the intelligence to actually create a theory from scratch either. Possibly he can remix elements of a theory into a new one, but at best, that makes him the equivalent of a music sampler, rather than a composer. At any rate, you're right. He probably spotted his early spoutings elsewhere and just picked them up.

[Sabrina]

I'd have to agree with you EMH. That's not to say I don't think the more innocent ones outnumber the ones who do it deliberately though. If you think about it, that's quite likely why several prominent twoofers are using this platform as a money-making enterprise; Avery, both Jones's, DRG, to name a few. They're the ones who have that mindset and yet are capable of recognizing the fallacies of their arguments... and keep plunging ahead with them anyway. But given the number of twoofers (which is significant, albeit not as significant as those who disbelieve CTs) I'd have to say the more innocent version outnumbers the ones who willfully believe the CTs despite knowing better.

My opinion of course though. ;)

[dudalb]

Oh, I agree. I don't credit Alex Jones with the intelligence to actually create a theory from scratch either. Possibly he can remix elements of a theory into a new one, but at best, that makes him the equivalent of a music sampler, rather than a composer. At any rate, you're right. He probably spotted his early spoutings elsewhere and just picked them up.

Alex Jones was a hard core conspiracy kook long before 9/11. He just saw that 9/11 would be the Next Big Thing in Conspiracy Theory Fodder,and jumped on the bandwagon.

[Mobyseven]

I have been thinking a bit on the origin of the more popular CTs out there, and I may have a germ of an idea.

It seems to me that the big CTs all have one thing in common: Live, unscripted television coverage, with huge populations watching.

Hmmm...it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really stand up. Works for 9/11 and the moon landings, but fails on the Holocaust, JFK, and the 'Evil Jews' one has been around longer than television itself.

Fails on less popular CTs as well - the Bali Bombings and the Port Arthur Massacre for example.

[rtalman]

Hmmm...it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really stand up. Works for 9/11 and the moon landings, but fails on the Holocaust, JFK, and the 'Evil Jews' one has been around longer than television itself.

Fails on less popular CTs as well - the Bali Bombings and the Port Arthur Massacre for example.INRE JFK: There was constant live coverage immediately after the shooting. How many theories were germinated by the reporters speculations and shaky interviews on live TV?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jfk%20assassination%20televis ion&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

Also, there was plenty of raw coverage of Oswald. Every time he farted, every channel would break into their broadcast schedule and show the circus.*
2k0_b9KiDPg

Anti-Semitism (whence sprang Holocaust Denial, so I consider them one and the same) I think is in a far different category than CTs, partly because of the longevity you yourself cited. To categorize 'Evil Jews' as a CT, you would have to categorize all forms of bigotry (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc.) as CTs. One societal group irrationally hating another societal group has been around as long as there have been societal groupings.

I am not familiar with the other CTs you cited, so I will have to take your word that there was not enough raw footage to germinate CTs. The OP, however, was addressing the more popular theories.






*I also posit that had OJ been found guilty, there would have been numerous CTs sown by the amount of television coverage.

[Mobyseven]

INRE JFK: There was constant live coverage immediately after the shooting. How many theories were germinated by the reporters speculations and shaky interviews on live TV?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jfk%20assassination%20televis ion&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

Also, there was plenty of raw coverage of Oswald. Every time he farted, every channel would break into their broadcast schedule and show the circus.*
2k0_b9KiDPg

True. I thought you meant live coverage of the event itelf - the world actually watched the 9/11 attacks live, ditto to the moon landing. But you're certainly correct as to the media coverage of the JFK event.

Anti-Semitism (whence sprang Holocaust Denial, so I consider them one and the same) I think is in a far different category than CTs, partly because of the longevity you yourself cited. To categorize 'Evil Jews' as a CT, you would have to categorize all forms of bigotry (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc.) as CTs. One societal group irrationally hating another societal group has been around as long as there have been societal groupings.

Not really. The conspiracy theory is not that the Jews are evil, it's that the Jews covertly control the world. Holocaust denial certainly springs from such anti-semitism, but I don't think that prevents it from being a conspiracy theory - there are plenty of racists who don't propose conspiracy theories regarding the object of their ire.

I am not familiar with the other CTs you cited, so I will have to take your word that there was not enough raw footage to germinate CTs. The OP, however, was addressing the more popular theories.

True. I thought I'd mention them anyway - two Australian CTs regarding the Port Arthur Massacre and the Bali Bombings.

[rtalman]

The conspiracy theory is not that the Jews are evil, it's that the Jews covertly control the world. Well, after a couple thousand years, I would say the portion of the population that believes Jews control the world is significantly less than it once was. Maybe that will give you a benchmark as to how long it will take to put the 9/11 CTs to rest...

[dirtywick]

Does the "vaccines cause autism" thing qualify as a conspiracy? Or is there some real group of scientists out there saying that?

I'd love to include it just because it's such a hot web topic, but I don't know if it's the same deal.

Otherwise, the obvious ones:

JFK
Roswell
9/11
Apollo Moon Landing
The Illuminati

I'd like to expand beyond those big, standard conspiracies. Are there any more you guys would like to see in an article like this?

I'd like to include the Bermuda Triangle but that's probably not so much a "conspiracy theory." Still interesting though.

I'm not sure how wide spread this one is, but there's Martin Bryant. (http://home.overflow.net.au/~nedwood/portarthur.html) I'm pretty sure I first heard about that one here.

Then there's the CIA starting the crack epidemic in the 80's to hold the black man down and make a bunch of money or something.

[Mobyseven]

Well, after a couple thousand years, I would say the portion of the population that believes Jews control the world is significantly less than it once was. Maybe that will give you a benchmark as to how long it will take to put the 9/11 CTs to rest...

Boy is that a depressing thought...

[MaGZ]

I have been thinking a bit on the origin of the more popular CTs out there, and I may have a germ of an idea.

It seems to me that the big CTs all have one thing in common: Live, unscripted television coverage, with huge populations watching.

Consider the possibility that out of a group witnessing an event, a small percentage of those watching sees or hears (or interprets what they see or hear) something they consider amiss, that no one else catches. For example, someone watching the live coverage on 9/11 sees one of the towers falling, and their brain interprets it as 'just like that clip I saw of the controlled demolition of that hotel in Las Vegas'. Once that idea of controlled demolition is planted, then that part of their brain that demands patterns looks for what it considers signs of CD. Every clip shown, from every angle, and their brain sees what it wants to see, 'proving' to itself again and again that the towers were demolished (I think that is what is called confirmation bias).

Once they have convinced themselves of a crime, they go looking for suspects, motives and methods. Every statement, every witness, every report is scrutinized, but it is only with the view of proving their hypothesis. The suspect, motive and method are all subordinate to the initial perception of what happened. That's why the theories of who/why/how vary so much within CTs.

After they have built their houses of cards, their 'proof' goes out to the public. It used to be books, then TV specials, now it's the internet. The larger an audience they can reach, the more people they can pull to their cause (1% of 1,000,000 is a lot more than 1% of 10,000).

Then how does this explain Jewish Ritual Murder?

[Hans]

Much of the CT is created to support existing CTs. The spectrum runs from alien lizards running the planet to elected officials not doing their jobs well.

Conspiracy grows with ignorance. In some ways it has structures similar to religion, zealous belief overriding rational facts.

[MaGZ]

Hmmm...it's an interesting idea, but it doesn't really stand up. Works for 9/11 and the moon landings, but fails on the Holocaust, JFK, and the 'Evil Jews' one has been around longer than television itself.


Exactly my point!

[MaGZ]

INRE JFK: There was constant live coverage immediately after the shooting. How many theories were germinated by the reporters speculations and shaky interviews on live TV?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jfk%20assassination%20televis ion&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1

Also, there was plenty of raw coverage of Oswald. Every time he farted, every channel would break into their broadcast schedule and show the circus.*
2k0_b9KiDPg

Anti-Semitism (whence sprang Holocaust Denial, so I consider them one and the same) I think is in a far different category than CTs, partly because of the longevity you yourself cited. To categorize 'Evil Jews' as a CT, you would have to categorize all forms of bigotry (racism, misogyny, homophobia etc.) as CTs. One societal group irrationally hating another societal group has been around as long as there have been societal groupings.

I am not familiar with the other CTs you cited, so I will have to take your word that there was not enough raw footage to germinate CTs. The OP, however, was addressing the more popular theories.






*I also posit that had OJ been found guilty, there would have been numerous CTs sown by the amount of television coverage.

Being antisemitic and having racist views against other races is not the same.

[Cuddles]

I think this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105549) is relevant here. OK, it's about internet videos rather than conspiracies, but it demonstrates that some people will believe absolutely anything, even if it's completely made up. I think it's quite possible that at many conspiracy theories are not at all serious to start with, but get picked up by people who actually believe them. Crop circles and bigfoot would be perfect examples of this.

[MaGZ]

Well, after a couple thousand years, I would say the portion of the population that believes Jews control the world is significantly less than it once was. Maybe that will give you a benchmark as to how long it will take to put the 9/11 CTs to rest...

Fewer people believe in a World Wide Jewish Conspiracy (WWJC) today only because the Jews control the mass media and have the ability to spread their propaganda.

[rtalman]

Does anybody have a 10 foot pole I could borrow? I would like to not touch MagZ's BS with it.

[Steve H]

Fewer people believe in a World Wide Jewish Conspiracy (WWJC) today only because the Jews control the mass media and have the ability to spread their propaganda.No, most people don't buy into a global "Jewish conspiracy" because they, unlike you, don't have a bug up their arse regarding Jews and are genuine skeptics when it comes to all conspiracy theories. Jewish world-wide media control? :rolleyes: Inventing omnipotent cabals to avoid the burden of proof only works on the narrow-minded.

[MaGZ]

No, most people don't buy into a global "Jewish conspiracy" because they, unlike you, don't have a bug up their arse regarding Jews and are genuine skeptics when it comes to all conspiracy theories. Jewish world-wide media control? :rolleyes: Inventing omnipotent cabals to avoid the burden of proof only works on the narrow-minded.

You might want to do you own research concerning the mass media. You might want to start with the film industry.

[Steve H]

You might want to do you own research concerning the mass media. You might want to start with the film industry.No need. Now tell me how your global Jewish cabal has made the state of Israel better off since 9/11/01.

Aside to rtalman: I love your avatar! ;)

[Mobyseven]

Then how does this explain Jewish Ritual Murder?

Babies are yummy.

[Corsair 115]

Does anybody have a 10 foot pole I could borrow? I would like to not touch MagZ's BS with it.And why would you want to ruin a perfectly good ten foot pole by doing that?

[MaGZ]

No need. Now tell me how your global Jewish cabal has made the state of Israel better off since 9/11/01.

Aside to rtalman: I love your avatar! ;)

The attacks of 9/11 were a benefit to Israel. Israel had planned an American war in the Middle East against Israel’s neighbors but did not know exactly how to get it started. Israel planned the anthrax attacks before 9/11 starting as early as April 24, 1997. It was Israel’s good fortune that she discovered the AQ plot and then followed the 9/11 attacks with the anthrax attacks. With her neocon allies she brought the US into war against her enemies.

[beachnut]

The attacks of 9/11 were a benefit to Israel. Israel had planned an American war in the Middle East against Israel’s neighbors but did not know exactly how to get it started. Israel planned the anthrax attacks before 9/11 starting as early as April 24, 1997. It was Israel’s good fortune that she discovered the AQ plot and then followed the 9/11 attacks with the anthrax attacks. With her neocon allies she brought the US into war against her enemies.
What a neoNAZI line of junk. No evidence, just pure talk based on the lies of your neoNAZI web sites and friends.

[rtalman]

The attacks of 9/11 were a benefit to Israel. Israel had planned an American war in the Middle East against Israel’s neighbors but did not know exactly how to get it started. Israel planned the anthrax attacks before 9/11 starting as early as April 24, 1997. It was Israel’s good fortune that she discovered the AQ plot and then followed the 9/11 attacks with the anthrax attacks. With her neocon allies she brought the US into war against her enemies.http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-9529.gif
Now I remember why I rarely bother to read the CT subforum.

[MaGZ]

What a neoNAZI line of junk. No evidence, just pure talk based on the lies of your neoNAZI web sites and friends.

Your posts are so predicable. You always say the same thing. You obviously can’t debate me since you never try. Your attempt at rebuttals are pathetic. You claim to be an engineer but apparently you can not think or debate. You must have never had an original thought in you life.

[Corsair 115]

Your posts are so predicable. You always say the same thing. You obviously can’t debate me since you never try. Your attempt at rebuttals are pathetic. You claim to be an engineer but apparently you can not think or debate. You must have never had an original thought in you life.As Bart Simpson once observed, "The ironing is delicious."

[Steve H]

The attacks of 9/11 were a benefit to Israel. Israel had planned an American war in the Middle East against Israel’s neighbors but did not know exactly how to get it started. Israel planned the anthrax attacks before 9/11 starting as early as April 24, 1997. It was Israel’s good fortune that she discovered the AQ plot and then followed the 9/11 attacks with the anthrax attacks. With her neocon allies she brought the US into war against her enemies.Telling me Israel benefited without a qualifier and referring to a toothless post-Desert Storm Iraq in the plural won't cut it. Now quit doing the bigot-boogie and tell me how your global Jewish cabal has made the state of Israel better off since 9/11/01. (I underlined it to help you focus).

[David Wong]

I think this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105549) is relevant here. OK, it's about internet videos rather than conspiracies, but it demonstrates that some people will believe absolutely anything, even if it's completely made up.

I started both threads!

It was writing that article that gave me the idea for this.

[Cuddles]

I started both threads!

Holy crap! You're right. Clearly this is some kind of conspiracy.:eek:

[NoZed Avenger]

Do we generally know where the big conspiracy theories got started?


The Jews.








































Sorry. Couldn't resist.




ETA: Well, crud. MaGZ beat me to it. Kinda sucked all the funny right out of it.


Hmmm.... almost like it was planned that way.