Why do CTists never cite CT books?

[Nick Terry]

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

Is it because the YouTube generation are that incapable of reading?

Or is it because the JAQ-off stance prohibits them endorsing any name conspiracist?

This isn't a behaviour unique to Twoofers, though. Holocaust deniers seem to read a bit more than Twoofers but very rarely rely on citing the revisionist gurus.

So, is it possible that some CT books are now more likely to be read by debunkers than their target audience? How many twoofers have actually read David Ray Griffin anyway?

I'm curious whether this behaviour pattern holds true for other CTs - has anyone ever encountered some loon citing e.g. Milton William Cooper, Jim Keith, David Icke, or a specific JFK author?

[DGM]

I think it's more of a lazy thing for them instead of whether they actually read the information. It's far easier to cite an internet source than actually looking up the page number in a book..

[defaultdotxbe]

i was amused at a debate i had some time ago, it was regarding the military commissions act and whether US citizens could be declared "enemy combatants" under it, the CTer cited several videos, CT websites, and interviews, while i mostly cited form the text of the act itself, i came to realize the CTer was incapable of interpreting the military commissions act for himself and had to rely on others to tell him what it meant, and whether they were right or wrong he swore by what they said

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i was amused at a debate i had some time ago, it was regarding the military commissions act and whether US citizens could be declared "enemy combatants" under it, the CTer cited several videos, CT websites, and interviews, while i mostly cited form the text of the act itself, i came to realize the CTer was incapable of interpreting the military commissions act for himself and had to rely on others to tell him what it meant, and whether they were right or wrong he swore by what they said

That's not an uncommon experience. I think there are many debunkers more familiar with the structure and sources of a particular CT, than its actual adherents.

I think the majority of people who 'advocate' a CT online might repeat a fifth to fifteenth generation copy of an "original idea" that might have appeared in a book. The diffusion of CTs may be quite literal: they're diffuse, and tracing them back to the point of origin likely makes not the blindest bit of difference to the loon.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

That's not an uncommon experience. I think there are many debunkers more familiar with the structure and sources of a particular CT, than its actual adherents.

I think the majority of people who 'advocate' a CT online might repeat a fifth to fifteenth generation copy of an "original idea" that might have appeared in a book. The diffusion of CTs may be quite literal: they're diffuse, and tracing them back to the point of origin likely makes not the blindest bit of difference to the loon.

It's interesting that you say this. I have on many occasions had success convincing CT's on the error of their ways because I was able to source their argument further down the line then they could.

Nothing stops a BSer better then to know where their BS comes from in the first place. (And it fun to rub their faces in it)

[njslim]

Maybe have not finishing coloring the pages?

[cisco]

For the dumb ones (95%), it's because they don't read.

For the smart ones (5%), it's because they know how easily refutable specific arguments are.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's interesting that you say this. I have on many occasions had success convincing CT's on the error of their ways because I was able to source their argument further down the line then they could.

Nothing stops a BSer better then to know where their BS comes from in the first place. (And it fun to rub their faces in it)

Interesting too. What sort of examples could you mention of this 'sourcing further down the line'? It might help to make this more concrete.

A lot depends on where the contradictions lie. CT authors might contradict themselves internally or they might not, but one or two of their claims are picked up by the next generation, and so on, so that by generation 3 there are mutually contradictory theories.

This is usually when the sheep are separated from the goats; sensible people spot that not everyone in the CT camp can be right, and in fact the contradictions are so great that none of them are right. But the diehards ignore this and cling limpet-like to the essence of the claim, which is when they become dogmas.

Several more generations of transmission onwards, and you end up with LastChild. Would it even be worth asking someone like that where they found their sources?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Interesting too. What sort of examples could you mention of this 'sourcing further down the line'? It might help to make this more concrete.

A lot depends on where the contradictions lie. CT authors might contradict themselves internally or they might not, but one or two of their claims are picked up by the next generation, and so on, so that by generation 3 there are mutually contradictory theories.

This is usually when the sheep are separated from the goats; sensible people spot that not everyone in the CT camp can be right, and in fact the contradictions are so great that none of them are right. But the diehards ignore this and cling limpet-like to the essence of the claim, which is when they become dogmas.

Several more generations of transmission onwards, and you end up with LastChild. Would it even be worth asking someone like that where they found their sources?

Without specifies examples at hand. Prison Planet is notorious for their quote mines, but they also rely on the reader not following the links that they provide. If CT's would only pay attention they would catch 90% of the BS before it becomes internet law. How many times have you read an article that was posted by a "truther" (or PP) that if he/she had read it in the first place they would realize it doesn't support their argument?

Most of these "truthers" would do better in their "debates" if they would actually read the articles that they reference, like we do. It's almost like they don't expect us to check up on their sources. Sort of like they don't check on the sources they originally got their argument from.

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by DGM

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

Enter the YouTube Generation. Gotta love 'em.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Enter the YouTube Generation. Gotta love 'em.

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

i think thats a bit extreme, there are plenty of online sources that are comparable to libraries, many newspapers and magazines have their archives online, i think rather than avoiding the internet as a source altogether the next generation needs to learn how to distinguish a good internet source from a bad one

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by DGM

Without specifies examples at hand. Prison Planet is notorious for their quote mines, but they also rely on the reader not following the links that they provide. If CT's would only pay attention they would catch 90% of the BS before it becomes internet law. How many times have you read an article that was posted by a "truther" (or PP) that if he/she had read it in the first place they would realize it doesn't support their argument?

Most of these "truthers" would do better in their "debates" if they would actually read the articles that they reference, like we do. It's almost like they don't expect us to check up on their sources. Sort of like they don't check on the sources they originally got their argument from.

Critical thinking is becoming a lost art with most of these people.

On the flip side of this I've had many discussions with CTers and cited articles as evidence, and they've gone off attacking a strawman because they didn't actually bother to read the article and find out what I was actually saying.

Bluntly put, they're lazy and stupid.

Anyone who isn't lazy and stupid can work out that there's no 9/11 Conspiracy in about 5 seconds.

[Good Lt]

Books don't have YouTube mash-ups.

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

i think thats a bit extreme, there are plenty of online sources that are comparable to libraries, many newspapers and magazines have their archives online, i think rather than avoiding the internet as a source altogether the next generation needs to learn how to distinguish a good internet source from a bad one

What the internet lacks is what every good library should have, namely a skilled and unbiased research librarian who will lead you to good sources of material on the subject you’re researching. The internet is like a library where any ding dong can write a book and stick it on the shelf.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Walter Ego

What the internet lacks is what every good library should have, namely a skilled and unbiased research librarian who will lead you to good sources of material on the subject you’re researching. The internet is like a library where any ding dong can write a book and stick it on the shelf.

well i think people need to be their own librarian, rather than assume the librarian is unbiased

[Liszt]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

Is it because the YouTube generation are that incapable of reading?

Or is it because the JAQ-off stance prohibits them endorsing any name conspiracist?

This isn't a behaviour unique to Twoofers, though. Holocaust deniers seem to read a bit more than Twoofers but very rarely rely on citing the revisionist gurus.

So, is it possible that some CT books are now more likely to be read by debunkers than their target audience? How many twoofers have actually read David Ray Griffin anyway?

I'm curious whether this behaviour pattern holds true for other CTs - has anyone ever encountered some loon citing e.g. Milton William Cooper, Jim Keith, David Icke, or a specific JFK author?

By the way, the last thing Jim Keith did (before he died of a bad leg) was tear a hole in David Icke's bonkers The Biggest Secret. Some of Keith's work on, for example the origins of the education system and the influence of Wilhelm Wundt, is actually very well researched. He dismissed the majority of conspiracy theories (especially ones about aliens), but thought there was was one sourrounding the JKF hit and other assasinations.

Jim Keith is also the source of the "Diana is pregnant" rumour, which he heard from her doctor, whom he knew. Although I have never seen him referenced in any of the Daily Express's million articles (I have his original piece, from about 10 years ago)

[deep]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by deep44

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

For the critical thinking test I sent them to research the "tree octopus"
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

(they passed the test)

These kids are 9/10 year olds they know the internet better than I do. The exercise was mostly to get them to explore other avenues of research and to not expect to always get information handed to them (so to speak). Anyway they had fun and learned somethings and that's all that matters.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by DGM

It's funny you say that. I'm a cub scout leader and we're working on a research project. They wanted to use the Internet for all of their research. I insisted on no Internet, only printed word/ library would be excepted. After much initial complaints they have risen to the challenge and had a lot of fun in the mean time. Maybe there is hope.

Originally Posted by deep44

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

Originally Posted by DGM

For the critical thinking test I sent them to research the "tree octopus"
http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/

(they passed the test)

These kids are 9/10 year olds they know the internet better than I do. The exercise was mostly to get them to explore other avenues of research and to not expect to always get information handed to them (so to speak). Anyway they had fun and learned somethings and that's all that matters.

While I agree, a lesson on how to critically analyze various sources of information on the internet is a good one, I also see the validity in forcing children born into and raised on the internet, to use the printed word, and a library.

TAM

[Davidlpf]

Some think the the publishing houses ar full of guberment spies so they do not trust books.

Some on the internet just see a title of a topic and assume it is supporting their views.

[Apollo20]

Well I think this is a general trend with followers of any creed or system of knowledge....

How many left-leaning radicals have read Das Kapital?

How many self-proclaimed christians have read the Bible (from cover to cover)?

How many people who uphold the tenets of free enterprise have read The Wealth of Nations?

How many believers in the theory of evolution have read The Origin of Species?

How many armchair philosophers have read The Critique of Pure Reason?

How many scientists have read The Principia?

And so on, and so on ..............

[Brainster]

Hopsicker gets cited a fair amount because he's the one who created the claim that Mohamed Atta lived with a stripper and snorted cocaine. But Griffin really has done almost no original research into 9-11; he just popularizes "work" that has been done by others.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by deep44

Interesting approach. I personally would have taken the opportunity to teach the kids how to use the Internet for finding factually accurate information. I would probably setup a fake Wikipedia page with questionable material (available only locally, so it doesn't confuse anybody else), and let the kids figure out what to believe and what not to believe -- using real books or whatever other resource they feel is reliable.

There are fake sites already operating! Just search 9/11 truth. The false information flows freely. Teach them how to see the false information in 9/11 and cure yourself.
The kids may teach you.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Well I think this is a general trend with followers of any creed or system of knowledge....

How many left-leaning radicals have read Das Kapital?

How many self-proclaimed christians have read the Bible (from cover to cover)?

How many people who uphold the tenets of free enterprise have read The Wealth of Nations?

How many believers in the theory of evolution have read The Origin of Species?

How many armchair philosophers have read The Critique of Pure Reason?

How many scientists have read The Principia?

And so on, and so on ..............

The examples you picked tend towards the fons et origio classics. "Left-leaning radicals" do actually read, but they're more likely to read Chomsky, or some exegesis of Marx handed out by whichever SWP-a-like they belong to, or Naomi Klein, or 100s of names, than they are to slog through Das Kapital. Likewise evolutionists are probably more likely to read Richard Dawkins than Darwin these days.

With CTists, you could just as easily argue, how many have read Barruel if you're going to go for the 'classics' as an entry bar.

It's important also to compare like with like. Passive acceptance of a particular belief is one thing; e.g. all those Christians who don't read the Bible but hear excerpts in Church.

But my query was about active advocates. It's one thing to discuss a subject with someone who, however crazy they might be, has read into their pet crankery, another to be confronted by internet trolls who are apparently less familiar with the theory than their opponents. And don't even seem to know the Cliff Notes very well...

Which reminds me: would any of the Truthers and believers in a conspiracy theory care to contradict my impression and reel off the titles they have actually read?


Tests will follow.

[CHF]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

I'd say it's because CT books are just a rehash of all the crap that's on-line anyway.

[gumboot]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many left-leaning radicals have read Das Kapital?

How many left-leaning radicals cite left-leaning literature in their arguments?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many self-proclaimed christians have read the Bible (from cover to cover)?

How many Christians cite the Bible in their arguments?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many people who uphold the tenets of free enterprise have read The Wealth of Nations?

How many people trying to promote free enterprise cite free enterprise literature in their arguments?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many believers in the theory of evolution have read The Origin of Species?

How many people trying to promote the theory of evolution cite scientific literature about evolution in their arguments?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many armchair philosophers have read The Critique of Pure Reason?

How many people discussing philosophy cite philosophy literature in their arguments?

Originally Posted by Apollo20

How many scientists have read The Principia?

How many scientists cite scientific literature in their arguments?

Methinks you missed the point...

[Kenose]

Originally Posted by gumboot

Methinks you missed the point...

To be fair I think the thread has strayed a bit, and that what Greening said is in line with what we're discussing.

To me the flaws of the truth movement are primarily a reflection of the greater society, rather than a nutty fringe being incapable of coherent thought.

There are many otherwise reasonable people in the truth movement. I know very intelligent people who have been taken in by films like Zeitgeist etc. I should mention that when I say "otherwise reasonable" I am not implying that it is unreasonable to consider a 9/11 conspiracy, but rather the chronic inability or unwillingness to do either of the following:

A. Admit fault when part or all of their theory is shown to be false.

B. Consider their sources of information and actively try to improve the quality of them.

In my opinion, these aren't "truther" symptoms, they're "people symptoms". You'll find these intellectual/emotional characteristics and much, much worse in every day life, and especially within other sub-cultures. People don't read. People have difficulty sitting still and thinking for more than a few seconds at a time.

If truthers are interested in a banking conspiracy they should study history and economics.

If truthers are interested in collapse dynamics they should study structural engineering and physics.

But, as has been pointed out, it looks like most of them aren't even willing to read the books which establish and defend their belief-set in the first place.

I feel like the "Truth Movement" itself could potentially be a very respectable thing, partly a reaction to the political corruption of recent years in general. Instead we have a group of underachieving, sometimes very narcissistic people screaming at the top of their lungs before they've really learned their ass from their elbow. The result is bad for everyone.

Yes there are exceptions to this admittedly generalized description.

No, I do not blame ANYONE for considering a LIHOP or MIHOP 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I was a "truther" for a few months and it inspired me to learn, not to pretend I knew. The entire experience beautifully demonstrated my own susceptibility to flimsy or outright false items presented as rock solid evidence, quotes taken far from their context, ability to assume my interpretations of the situation were correct and that all I needed to do was to "fill in the blanks" and the facts would surely prove my case etc.

[Horatius]

Here's some CTists take on this topic.


Only one of them mentions any books at all, and thinks Nick Terry won't read them because he'd be scared of how many pages they contain.

The rest go downhill from there.

[DC]

how many of you did read the NISt report of the WTC investigation?
Dr. Greenings excluded :P

[DC]

Michael C Ruppert
Crossing the Rubbicon
is a good one. well nobody will agree on that

[Nick Terry]

Ah, some book recommendations! Amazing what one can shake out from them if you push hard enough.

Quote:

Ask Nick if he has read "Conspiracy of fools" by Kurt Eichenwald.... I'll bet he has not.
I'd bet the 746 numbered pages would scare him.

Or perhaps "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin.
A little shorter at 624 pages.

Or a dozen or so others....

It it that exact rhetoric in that thread which is the reason I will never join there.

So recommendation #1 is about Enron. Great! How does that tie in with 9/11 Was An Inside Job?

And recommendation #2 is about the Federal Reserve, written by a Bircher. Is it me, or is there something of a big leap from here to the plausibility of an Inside Job on 9/11/01?

I do like this bit, tho'

Quote:

I'd bet the 746 numbered pages would scare him

I can beat that!! 1231 pages!! and it's not in English!!

http://www.amazon.de/Kalkulierte-Mor...dp/3930908638/

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

Michael C Ruppert
Crossing the Rubbicon
is a good one. well nobody will agree on that

I would agree with that assessment. I would suggest the 9/11 Commission Report as a great conspiracy theory book too. The NIST report as well since you mentioned it earlier.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I would agree with that assessment. I would suggest the 9/11 Commission Report as a great conspiracy theory book too. The NIST report as well since you mentioned it earlier.

The 9-11 Report has NOTHING on Loose Change or Debunking 9-11 Debunking.

That's why they've been so effective in proving 9-11 was TEH CONSPIRACY, or a the very least, getting another 'real' investigation underway.

Keep swinging for the bleachers, swing. You'll all get there someday.

[SkepticGuy]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

In watching the burden-of-proof table tennis that passes for debate between our resident crop of CTists and the debunkers, it struck me that the CTists almost never cite any conspiracy theory literature, whether about 9/11 or anything else.

Why?

Is it because the YouTube generation are that incapable of reading?

The reason has more to do with the ranks from which "Truthers" are born. The majority of those claiming the title of "9/11 Truther" carry activist DNA... they came from the same general gene pool of people who would be defacing Starbucks and protesting the World Bank if not for 9/11/2001.

The activist mentality is much more interested in reaction than accuracy... they're more than willing to promote a falsehood if it achieves the desired result of attention and reaction. So, as a result, yes, with a tendency of not being concerned about factual representation in favor of attention, there will be no desire to "bone up" on appropriate research.

I've always contended that "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're activists.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by SkepticGuy

The reason has more to do with the ranks from which "Truthers" are born. The majority of those claiming the title of "9/11 Truther" carry activist DNA... they came from the same general gene pool of people who would be defacing Starbucks and protesting the World Bank if not for 9/11/2001.

The activist mentality is much more interested in reaction than accuracy... they're more than willing to promote a falsehood if it achieves the desired result of attention and reaction. So, as a result, yes, with a tendency of not being concerned about factual representation in favor of attention, there will be no desire to "bone up" on appropriate research.

I've always contended that "9/11 Truthers" are not conspiracy theorists, they're activists.

replace 'activist' with 'troll' and you may have a point.

[SkepticGuy]

Well... "trolls" are just attention-seekers who are interested in sparking reaction than engaging in meaningful debate anyway.

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler

I would agree with that assessment. I would suggest the 9/11 Commission Report as a great conspiracy theory book too. The NIST report as well since you mentioned it earlier.

Well by your standards then, we should label all high school textbooks on World History, "Conspiracy Theory" Books.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth...

TAM