CrackpotForeigner Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I'll say. Thousands of conspiricy nuts all rushing to read these obscure sites all at once. This appears to be a rather worrying line that to be skeptical about or even disbelieve the official media/government/establishment line on a topic is to be a 'conspiracy nut', that information that is not of the mainstream only belongs to 'obscure' sites and therefore, by implication, is ridiculous. This is not a case of people being sceptical of the government line. In this case there is no government line to be sceptical of yet, they have no idea what happened and the investigation is only just beginning. This is people with a preconceived agenda using hearsay, conjecture and tenuous links to match the story up to their already developed theory. Why not wait and see what develops before jumping to such flimsy and poorly supported conclusions?But surely if, as has been suggested (and seems perfectly plausible) the government are able to issue directives to the press not to report certain aspects of a case, what we are left with IS effectively the government line. I'd have a few questions about that. Firstly, can you be sure that there is any truth that this directive was actually issued and is not just another internet rumour? If it does exist does it only cover British press or are the British (or is it meant to have come from the French?) government able to direct press world wide? And lastly, if there is a directive and it does apply worldwide is it designed to prevent the press from reporting aspects of the case or is it designed prevent them making dangerous speculation without any evidence to support it? Depends who and what you believe, obviously. I'd say that it's very likely that the govt does have the facility to direct press coverage on matters regarded as having bearing on national security. If it's a choice of believing Peterms or the govt, I'll go with Peter because he has nothing to gain by bullshitting and seems an eminently clever bloke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Can I opt for believing neither? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 and seems an eminently clever bloke. and then he shattered that illusion by voting for the Green party :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 This is not a case of people being sceptical of the government line. ...the official media/government/establishment line... This is people with a preconceived agenda using hearsay, conjecture and tenuous links to match the story up to their already developed theory. Is it? Is the 'conspiracy nut' style comment in order to implicitly devalue any skepticism not a preconceived agenda? Why not wait and see what develops...? Develops where? Can I opt for believing neither? Not when you push the 'conspiracy nut' line to castigate those who may not 'believe' the official word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 Strikes me the british police have come out with this family dispute over inheritance line a little too quickly. It's all just too convenient and seems pre-baked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Calling someone a conspiracy nut, is a good way to try and discredit the person's argument. To just label them as Crazy Conspiracist, and while this may be true in some cases, its not true all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 pure sound pure sound is offline Trade: manufacturer/distributor Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 1,568 Having just been contacted by a journalist I'm taking some of this down. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 You know, the more I think about it, the more I realise the problem is that too many scientists are just accident-prone. Maybe it's because they're absent-minded. Maybe they're just unlucky. Look at this pair. Physicists. Worked on fusion, and water cooling. Went for a walk, about to pack their walking gear back into their car, and another driver suddenly loses control and mows them down. Or this guy. Worked at a nuclear facility. Went for a walk one evening. Well, one night, actually. 11.30pm, in January, in Ontario. Left the house unlocked. Was chased into a river by a pack of wolves, it is thought. Here's someone else who went for a walk. Had been friends with Dr David Kelly (remember him? He went for a walk as well). Found dead in a field four miles from Porton Down. No suspicious circumstances, though police say he had been ‘looking at information on the internet regarding self-harm and the use of toxic substances’. His family point out that since he was a research scientist working on chemical warfare, it was a little unlikely that he would need Google to find out about toxic substances. So if you're an absent-minded scientist, my advice to you is not to go for a walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2012 And of course being a scientist does tend to lend itself to being scatter-brained. It's part of what makes you a scientist; being able to think outside the box 'n all. Case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Who was it that said conspiracy theorists want to believe a small group controls the world because they fear the truth, which is that no one is in control and it is all a bit of a rudderless ship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Carry on like this folks and he will be knocking on your door Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Who was it that said conspiracy theorists want to believe a small group controls the world because they fear the truth, which is that no one is in control and it is all a bit of a rudderless ship? I think you could say the same thing about a lot of religions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Could Jon or anyone please explain the significance of this scarlet-coloured polypropylene bucket containing a substance identified in the file name as "sand", and could they, in addition, provide insight into its pertinence with regard to the subject of the Irano-Israeli nuclear threat? To summarise: WTF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Carry on like this folks and he will be knocking on your door Or maybe this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 There's no conspiracy about Dr David Kelly. It's pretty bleedin' obvious that it was a covered up murder. They didn't even bother trying to cover up half of the evidence that didn't fit with the coroners first report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2012 Who was it that said conspiracy theorists want to believe a small group controls the world because they fear the truth, which is that no one is in control and it is all a bit of a rudderless ship?The reality is; as with most things; you can go too far in either direction while ridiculing those on the other side of the fence in the process. There are those who think absolutely nothing that could be described as a conspiracy or a cover-up has ever happened or is happening, despite documented conspiracies having happened in the past. Then there are those who think that pretty much everything that comes from the mouths of those 'in charge' is a cover-up for something sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 And of course being a scientist does tend to lend itself to being scatter-brained. It's part of what makes you a scientist; being able to think outside the box 'n all. Case closed Well this particular scientist is particularly scatter brained. EDIT - I thought as much after I wrote it. :cry: Another joke battered into submission with the comedic crowbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted September 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 7, 2012 Pah, that didn't need the 2nd sentence! Edit it Eames, quick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted September 7, 2012 Author Share Posted September 7, 2012 It will be interesting to see if the 4 yr old comes up with anything tangible. Of course, she's under police guard at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Was he even a scientist? He had an engineering background from all the reports I've seen. Moved to London in the 70s as a child with his father, went to high school in Pimlico then started working as an engineer and was a director at a design company and with an aerial photography company. Where does the nuclear scientist part come into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts