Contender #1: "The other side is engaged in a conspiracy!"
Contender #2: "No we're not. YOUR side is engaged in a conspiracy!"
Contender #1: "No, YOU are!"
Contender #2: "No, YOU are!"
Etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Been there, done that. Saw the sequel. I remember in the 1990's when people on the right said Clinton was going to institute martial law by executive order, take everyone's guns and haul them off to concentration camps. Now the left is engaging in similar talk. Same old stuff, just from the other side. Why? Because their opponents are in power, and they're scared. *yawn* Backbones are in short supply these days it seems. So are brains. There are still people who believe the Pentagon was hit by a US launched guided missile, and that the airplanes flown into the Twin Towers were remote-controlled and operated by Zionist agents intending on leading the US military into wars in the middle east to rid Israel of its Arab neighbors, so the Jews can take over the world, etc. When the authors of such conspiracy talk are confronted about what happened to the passengers of the aircraft (especially flight 77 since it was "obviously" a missile that hit the Pentagon) the reply is always "That's right, Bush has a lot of explaining to do." It couldn't possibly be that the burden of proof lies on them to cough up evidence to support their pet theory, and nevermind the fact that Osama has since come forward in that well-known tape and outright admitted he planned and executed the September 11th attack. There are people who are still convinced this "Zionist plot" is the absolute truth, no matter how shaky the evidence may be.
Another good one is the Warren commission report on the JFK assassination. We've all heard the stories about the grassy knoll, the "magic bullet" etc... Well, some ballistics and forensic experts recreated the JFK shooting, down to the exact lot number of ammunition used. They even had anatomically complete torso models - bones, flesh, etc, all synthetic but ballistically as close as you can get without using a cadavre, and placed in EXACTLY the same positions and relative distances present at the time of the original shooting. Guess what? One shot from the rifle penetrated exactly as the "magic bullet" did, the only exception is it did not penetrate into the leg of the fellow in front of JFK because it struck two ribs in his torso, whereas Oswald's bullet only struck one. The resultant difference in energy from striking an extra rib while traveling sideways through the body accounts for this bullet in the test lacking enough energy to penetrate into the simulated leg. Had it only struck one rib it would have lodged in the simulated leg. Otherwise the wound dynamics were 100% IDENTICAL to what happened in the assassination. Yet... people still believe it was impossible for Oswald to have been the only shooter, and that there were extra people involved in the shooting on that grassy knoll, etc. It just turns out that reality is full of surprises, and sometimes what seems the most unlikely case is the correct one. Occam's razor is not foolproof you know. This is the problem with conspiracy theories is that they tend to take on a life of their own, and continue on even after there's evidence to cast at LEAST a reasonable doubt on them. Is it 100% conclusive? No, but it certainly looks like there's a simple and logical explanation. What the experiment does prove is that Oswald didn't need any help.
This is why I take a dim view of conspiracy theories and outrageous accusations. If there's little or no supporting evidence, I largely ignore them no matter who they're directed at, or view them with a large amount of skepticism until supporting evidence - CREDIBLE supporting evidence - is brought forth. Do some homework on the "Big Lie" theory and Goebbles sometime. The severity of an accusation or your personal dislike for an individual should not be the basis for drawing conclusions in regards to such allegations. Look for the evidence and draw your conclusions based on that. Saying "Well, IT'S BUSH!!" as though everyone is supposed to automatically "understand" and agree with your sentiment isn't good enough for me, nor is it good enough for a lot of other people. I want hard facts, and lots of them, not opinion-based rhetoric.
Question what you're told, especially when it sounds agreeable with your own opinions. Otherwise you're just being led like sheep.
|
