Are Conspiracy Theorists 'Nuts"

Michael Hardner · March 16, 2018

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Heydrich's staff kept minutes of the Wannsee conference. They outlined the reasons for, and the plans for the final solution. The records from the Nuremberg trials and Eichmann's trial detail to attempted extermination of the Jews. The administrators of the final solution kept careful records of the numbers of people sent to the gas chambers, the number of people sent to slave labour camps, even the net profit estimated per slave before they perished. They recorded the gold taken from the teeth of the prisoners. If you read up on the Nuremberg trials, you cannot escape the horror inflicted on the Jews of Europe, as well as homosexuals, communists, socialists and the mentally challenged.

This is the thing. It WAS the ultimate conspiracy. The Nazis, though, controlled the media and had Germany under complete control. Maybe this is why conspiracy theorists need to come up with a conspiracy against the conspiracy: it shows that to pull off something of this scale you need complete control.

With 9/11 "Truth" (and it's overlapping anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Mossad warned Israelis to get out), Sandy Hook and other less odious but not-less-ridiculous theories you have no such control. You have open media, although the conspiracy nuts will deny that.

I don't know if they are actually "nuts". Some are naive, some are liars so there's a nut mix there....

Queenmandy85 · March 16, 2018

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't know if they are actually "nuts". Some are naive, some are liars so there's a nut mix there...

I suspect a lot of it is entertainment. I used to believe all the urban folklore that I heard because it was entertaining. With conspiracy theories, there is the obvious fact that very few people can keep a secret. The second fact, or rule of thumb, is in a criminal investigation, the obvious suspect is usually the perpetrator. (still presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.) It is fun to delve into fictional theories, but that is all they are, fiction. Conspiracy theorists are not nuts, just suffer from arrested maturity. Also, there is the potential for a lot of money for the scammers who write the books.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Queenmandy85

Michael Hardner · March 16, 2018

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It is fun to delve into fictional theories, but that is all they are, fiction. Conspiracy theorists are not nuts, just suffer from arrested maturity. Also, there is the potential for a lot of money for the scammers who write the books.

I agree that there is an element of court jester in this, but at the level we're seeing it's pernicious.

When I was a kid the US government had public service messages on TV telling people not to spread rumours. Now they use them to get elected.

taxme · March 16, 2018

21 hours ago, eyeball said:

Nonetheless pieces of detonation cord would have been as obvious and conspicuous as fresh daisies the minute the dust cleared.

Perhaps but there is no way on Earth the detonation cords would have been missed. I ask again have you ever been to the site of a fairly large controlled detonation within minutes of the dust clearing? I've been to several and they pretty much all look the same, rubble, dust and little pieces of detonation cord everywhere.

No doubt at the time no one was looking for detonation cords as no one probably gave a thought to explosives being used to bring the towers down. A few days after the towers were brought down all the debris was removed and quickly shipped off to China along with the cords no doubt. They had ships already waiting to take the debris away. Now that was fast. The hell with a proper investigation. The fix was in and the culprits got away with this crime.

After a controlled demolition detonation cords will be found. The cords probably would have been found if a proper investigation had been done. There would be no reason for them to remove the debris right away if there was nothing to hide. Even the firemen at the scene reported hearing what sounded like explosives going off in the basement. I for one will not be calling them liars.

taxme · March 16, 2018

19 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Can I just state right here that I'm not going to engage you further in this foolishness, and no amount of "aha, it's because you can't!" will get me to change my mind.

Over to you, but there's no point in it for you.

Foolishness my butt. It was a simple question that you either refuse to answer or cannot answer. I need someone here to explain to me as to why the Germans wanted to get rid of the Jews. What was that reason? Over.

taxme · March 16, 2018

9 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is the thing. It WAS the ultimate conspiracy. The Nazis, though, controlled the media and had Germany under complete control. Maybe this is why conspiracy theorists need to come up with a conspiracy against the conspiracy: it shows that to pull off something of this scale you need complete control.

With 9/11 "Truth" (and it's overlapping anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Mossad warned Israelis to get out), Sandy Hook and other less odious but not-less-ridiculous theories you have no such control. You have open media, although the conspiracy nuts will deny that.

I don't know if they are actually "nuts". Some are naive, some are liars so there's a nut mix there....

Again I ask you. For what reason or why did the Germans want to go after the Jews? There must be a reason for the Germans to want to take this action. Maybe there was no conspiracy at all for the Germans to want to get rid of the Jews in the first place seeing that you do not believe in conspiracies. Maybe it was all bull chit, eh? Just asking.

taxme · March 16, 2018

16 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Heydrich's staff kept minutes of the Wannsee conference. They outlined the reasons for, and the plans for the final solution. The records from the Nuremberg trials and Eichmann's trial detail to attempted extermination of the Jews. The administrators of the final solution kept careful records of the numbers of people sent to the gas chambers, the number of people sent to slave labour camps, even the net profit estimated per slave before they perished. They recorded the gold taken from the teeth of the prisoners. If you read up on the Nuremberg trials, you cannot escape the horror inflicted on the Jews of Europe, as well as homosexuals, communists, socialists and the mentally challenged.

Anti semitism was not a German phenomenon. It was wide spread, even in Canada. What set the nazis apart was they industrialized the attempt to kill all jews in Europe.

But why would the Germans want to get rid of the Jews? What was their reason for wanting to do this? No one here seems to be able to answer that simple question. Even you have avoided and not yet answered it. If I wanted to get rid of someone or some group then there must be a reason why I want to do this, right? I don't think that anyone will want to go out and kill every blue man and woman just for the fun of it. Do you?

Scott Mayers · March 16, 2018

On 15/03/2018 at 2:25 PM, taxme said:

Why then have there been many skeptics put in jail in some European countries like Austria for instance for denying the holocaust? It would seem that a simple ignore of those people would be enough for those who did believe a 6 million holocaust did happen. Putting people in the gulag for questioning or challenging any event is kind of ridiculous, don't you think? If a country has to throw people into the gulag for daring to question anything than that tells me that there must be something to hide. Shut them up put them in the gulag so as to put the fear into others who may try to do the same. If you do not want to see that there is something wrong with this picture than what more can be said.

But let me ask you this question. Why did the Germans want to slaughter so many Jews in the first place? What did the Jews do that pizzed off the Germans? Over to you.

If you understood my own questioning of the reason 'why' skepticforum.com placed the topic of "Holocaust Denial" you'd know that I do agree that you should be rightfully skeptical if you are sincerely questioning something. I disagree with the stance of placing that topic distinct as though it presented an opinion UNIQUELY as "skeptical". It should not have its own heading for precisely the nature of history and politics to be something everyone has a right to question. Instead, it would be LESS biased to allow people to present their opinions in the various subject areas such as, "conspiracies" or "history" or "politics", ...NOT its own heading as "Holocaust denial" because it SUGGESTS the opinion that anyone's skepticism is certainly 'denial' when that is not necessarily the case.

The topic of the World Wars era of early last century is complex and worthy of skepticism if only to give justice to the appropriate mindset of the rationale of all the parties involved. To me, today's Israeli government and its basic origins as a Zion for Jewish-only power is itself "National Socialist" or "Fascist" to me and many others....even within the skeptic community. But just as the politics of today's "Identity politics" have also a strong division within the skeptic community, questions of what can or cannot be questioned about history is also divided among us. So I agree that it is alright to question this topic.

But, my own personal concern is that the 6 million people is futile to argue simply because it only deals with a statistical factor that we cannot be sure to determine without some sort of 'faith' one way or the other. It is irrelevant to me also because it DISTRACTS us away from determining the rationale of Germans, regardless of their faults, precisely for the reason you are asserting about the rights of people to BE skeptical without feeling threatened or be silenced.

With regards to the Jews in Germany, they WERE initially asked to voluntarily leave. In fact one distinct difference that sold National socialism rather than Communistic Socialism was because the Nazi party interpreted it impossible to actually find solace between all people WHEN you have specific CULTURES always win by default of their solidarity. As such, they actually believed that they were mimicking the STRENGTH that the Jews, as they believed, held strong based ON their own 'nationalistic' strength. So they believed they were only taking the advantages OF the Jewish community's power to rule in the many areas they had by using it against them by fostering a strong "German Indigenous" identity. That meant doing what it took to foster DISTINCT recognition of the Germans aboriginals from all other groups by strengthening their in-group identities to the degree of a religion, ....like Judaism, but unlike others, such as Christianity for its more universal acceptance.

Jews to them proved stronger than any other group. They also disagreed with any others that threatened the means to IDENTIFY their distinct "nationality" by those who segregated themselves or represented a strong penalizing factor to the German people following WWI due to the extreme measures against the population as a whole by the collective nations treating any German arbitrarily as 'at fault', even if particular peoples NOT in control were a part of that penalizing. So they viewed others somewhat rightfully as being 'anti-German' and what fostered their own Nationalism to beat what they felt was the inevitable strengths that were used against them.

I'm a skeptic and don't think it is useful to argue whether a holocaust occurred by 6 or 1 Million Jews. It is a useful distraction that even the Jews (Nationalist ones) themselves demand the topic be kept in front when it continues to hide the logical factors that even they too helped contribute to such abuses, ...as is happening today with the West Bank, etc. It is useful to Christian Nationalists too in that they want a means to fulfill future biblical ideals that rest with Jewish control of the temple in Jerusalem. It is useful to all those wanting to distract us from the ACTUAL causes of problems even here in Canada with our own tendencies to strengthen cultural segregation for the sake of CONSERVING the cults/religions and their power in our law-making. The support and rise of our Indigenous Nationalism being purposely enhanced even by non-Natives here will certainly lead to a latter repeat in the future when and if the Aboriginal population in power supersedes the non-aboriginal ones in the future in a similar way to what happened with the Germans.

These are the kinds of issues we should be discussing, not some incontestable data precision about how many people one side harmed over the other in the past. We should be trying to determine (WITHOUT prejudice) the rational thinking aspects of the individuals and groups involved that lead to the event, "The Holocaust", given it is not something ANY individual or group wants. Often the strong opposing sides of power tend to control the dialogue rather than the vast majority of all those in between, especially those without ANY 'group' or cult identity, association, or belief about some innate right of ownership to special inheritances based solely on genetic ancestry.

Scott Mayers · March 17, 2018

3 hours ago, taxme said:

But why would the Germans want to get rid of the Jews? What was their reason for wanting to do this? No one here seems to be able to answer that simple question. Even you have avoided and not yet answered it. If I wanted to get rid of someone or some group then there must be a reason why I want to do this, right? I don't think that anyone will want to go out and kill every blue man and woman just for the fun of it. Do you?

I agree this is a good question, btw, taxme. What most don't want to recognize is how their own roles as individuals or favored groups play an equal but opposite role in creating and/or fostering the abuses. It DOESN'T happen in a vacuum. Some will interpret this to mean that you then must be further victimizing the victim but what is or is not 'victim' or 'perpetrator' is only noticed when the overt violence is seen. Yet when you think of it, is it not more heinous SHOULD one harm another with any means that acts WITHOUT accountability? The only reason, for instance, that more men are imprisoned in jails are because men are generally more direct and ABLE to act out with overt evidence of the abuses. Yet women, who make up half the population, cannot possibly be interpreted as defaulted as most 'innocent'. Rather, their general tendency to be unable to harm directly with the way they are also raised distinctly from men make them more likely to ACT OUT their crimes indirectly such that they are harder to notice. Obviously both men and women are at fault but the men tend to look as the demons with extreme distinction compared to women.

We need to look at the extremes as opposite but 'equal' (like Newton's third law: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.) So while I may not agree necessarily agree with all you might have to say, you are appropriate to raise this question.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

Scott Mayers · March 17, 2018

13 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is the thing. It WAS the ultimate conspiracy. The Nazis, though, controlled the media and had Germany under complete control. Maybe this is why conspiracy theorists need to come up with a conspiracy against the conspiracy: it shows that to pull off something of this scale you need complete control.

With 9/11 "Truth" (and it's overlapping anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that Mossad warned Israelis to get out), Sandy Hook and other less odious but not-less-ridiculous theories you have no such control. You have open media, although the conspiracy nuts will deny that.

I don't know if they are actually "nuts". Some are naive, some are liars so there's a nut mix there....

Why does EVERYONE associated with doubt, though, get an assigned presumption of guilt BY the incidental association? It drives me "nuts" when I see particular news 'reporters' opt to describe all people associated with a stance against tearing down Confederate statues in the U.S. as "white supremacists" (for instance, that is). This in fact ACTS as a form of media 'conspiring' against the mere association as it deviates from 'reporting' to become a form of biased advocacy. Reporters are supposedly trained to use NEUTRAL terms to describe stories at distance. If they have opinions, they are 'editorials' but the confusion of the difference of journalists in power are hard to determine when or where they are uniform without alternative co-journalists taking counter challenges. And the fact that most are of in some favor to some strong commercial interests of one sort or another, the 'reporting' itself is often presented in clever ways to appear less biased than they are.

For every 'conspiracy theorist' accusation, there is an opposing 'conspiracy' theorized against them. And it only feeds upon itself except for those willing to recognize that unless you can provide rationale for WHY it is impossible for such a conspiracy to exist, antagonist against a conspiracy is just as questionable. It's like how calling one a 'troll' is sufficient to empowering the accused TO 'troll'. If they are going to be labeled as though the label itself is sufficient to assure it is true, this makes those with sincere views feel violated justify BEING more violent in reaction.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers

Queenmandy85 · March 17, 2018

3 hours ago, taxme said:

But why would the Germans want to get rid of the Jews?

The short answer, like many people in Europe and North America, a number of Germans did not like Jews. It was what they learned as children at home, in school, and in church.

Anti-semitism has been waxing and waning throughout the history of Christian Europe. It was growing in Russia near the end of the Imperial age. It was under the Tsar that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was forged. Martin Luther was particularly anti-semetic. Randolph Churchill was criticized for associating with Jews. In France, Dryfus was primarily convicted because he was Jewish.

The collapse of Germany in 1918 came as a shock to troops at the front. They were completely unaware of conditions at home and the only explanation to the soldiers was they were stabbed in the back. The 'stab in the back' mantra was seized on by Ludendorff after an off-hand remark by a British Office at dinner. It was actually Ludendorff who ordered the armistice. In the chaos at the end of the war, a few of the leaders of the revolution were Jewish. Most were not, but it was the jews who were blamed for the collapse. (The officer who recommended Hitler for one of his Iron Crosses was Jewish. Anti-semitism reaches a fever pitch in times of great social stress such as the plague in 1348 - 1350, and in the collapse of the German Empire in 1918.

Those soldiers who were already particularly anti-semetic, hearing they were "betrayed " by Jews and communists, was enough to create the conditions for the final solution. Goebbels was a believer in the big lie. Tell a lie loud enough and often enough, and people will believe it. Once they acquired the levers of power and passed the Enabling Act, people like Heydrich realized there was no limit to what they could do.

Queenmandy85 · March 17, 2018

Taxme, there are a lot of books detailing the Nuremberg trials and the history of Germany in the 20th Century. John Toland's biography of Hitler and Edward Crankshaw's book on the Gestapo. Another is Albert Speer's book, Inside the Third Reich.

Scott Mayers · March 17, 2018

27 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

The short answer, like many people in Europe and North America, a number of Germans did not like Jews. It was what they learned as children at home, in school, and in church.

Anti-semitism has been waxing and waning throughout the history of Christian Europe. It was growing in Russia near the end of the Imperial age. It was under the Tsar that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was forged. Martin Luther was particularly anti-semetic. Randolph Churchill was criticized for associating with Jews. In France, Dryfus was primarily convicted because he was Jewish.

The collapse of Germany in 1918 came as a shock to troops at the front. They were completely unaware of conditions at home and the only explanation to the soldiers was they were stabbed in the back. The 'stab in the back' mantra was seized on by Ludendorff after an off-hand remark by a British Office at dinner. It was actually Ludendorff who ordered the armistice. In the chaos at the end of the war, a few of the leaders of the revolution were Jewish. Most were not, but it was the jews who were blamed for the collapse. (The officer who recommended Hitler for one of his Iron Crosses was Jewish. Anti-semitism reaches a fever pitch in times of great social stress such as the plague in 1348 - 1350, and in the collapse of the German Empire in 1918.

Those soldiers who were already particularly anti-semetic, hearing they were "betrayed " by Jews and communists, was enough to create the conditions for the final solution. Goebbels was a believer in the big lie. Tell a lie loud enough and often enough, and people will believe it. Once they acquired the levers of power and passed the Enabling Act, people like Heydrich realized there was no limit to what they could do.

That would be a simplistic answer and actually falls for the same vulnerability. (If "telling a lie loud enough and often enough" applies to the 'ever-present conspiracy in all times against the Jews too' ) Given Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all derive from Judaism, there will be both an absurd stance by some favorable to a historical view of anti-Jewish sentiment as to pro-Jewish sentiment. Its amazing we hear of little notice of the pre-Judea origins other than THROUGH the authorities of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic history as though there is consensus to treat the Egyptians and Greeks (and even ancient Romans) as violent abusers or pre-civilized humans biasing all present groups. The winners define what is 'true'. Thus Christians were considered as everyday victims of Roman persecution, just as Jews were. So every culturally defined group tends to be both victim and perpetrator at different times. The ancient Jews were considered the 'terrorists' at the turn of the 'common era'. But now many treat the Romans as the persecutors.

The problem is just as much POSITIVE association with cult groups as to the NEGATIVE. That is why I'm against this "multiculturalist (TM)" stance here in Canada. They are trying to feign ZERO negative associations with culturally-defined groups and impose negative ones on the 'secular' or non-culturally defined groups, such as 'white' and 'male'. And who do they point to as arbiters of the whites and males (et al) as the culprits? : CULTURALLY defined groups of 'whites' and 'males' et al. (<-- means and all similar relatives) SOLUTION: stop the governments from making laws concerning culturally-related concepts, like religion or art. These things are inappropriate to be IMPOSED from on high as though WE all accept specific people's superiority (or inferiority) of behaviors associated with 'art'(ifactual) realities of our ancestors. Our ancestors do not pass on GENES for culture. So supporting this idiocy IS the problem. As long as you define ANY select people as rightful inheritors of artistic concepts and ENHANCE powers of them uniquely to persist, YOU are the problem to which CAUSES haters whether now or in a following generation.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Scott Mayers
punctuation.

eyeball · March 17, 2018

20 hours ago, taxme said:

After a controlled demolition detonation cords will be found. The cords probably would have been found if a proper investigation had been done.

No, you're completely out to lunch. As I said the cords would would have been immediately obvious and as conspicuous as daisies growing in a field of green grass.

taxme · March 17, 2018

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

No, you're completely out to lunch. As I said the cords would would have been immediately obvious and as conspicuous as daisies growing in a field of green grass.

But how could that happen when the powers to be had all the debris removed from the site very quickly. No one at the time would probably be looking for cords. Anyway, you and I were not there at the time so let's just call this a draw and leave it at that. You and I will never agree on anything anyway.

eyeball · March 17, 2018

1 hour ago, taxme said:

You and I will never agree on anything anyway.

2 + 2 = 4...do you agree or not?

taxme · March 17, 2018

3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

2 + 2 = 4...do you agree or not?

2 + 2 = 22. Do you agree with that?

eyeball · March 18, 2018

My sense is that conspiracy theorists aren't nuts they're merely morons.

Penderyn · March 18, 2018

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

My sense is that conspiracy theorists aren't nuts they're merely morons.

Millions of people of all sorts were murdered, especially Russian prisoners and Jews, the Nazis having trained on Socialists and Communists, and the Nazis were full of ill-conceived eugenicist bilge, like so many at the time. The problem is the total chaos at the end of the War, with vast numbers of hungry people wandering about after the liberation of the camps and the spread of disease made numbers almost impossible to calculate, which left people, in effect, to think of a number. It is this that makes the 'haulocaust' deniers able to get way with a bit of their nonsense - woolly estimates turned into 'facts' suit so many interests. I knew blokes who liberated the camps: you ask them if there were mass murders!

eyeball · March 18, 2018

I have no doubt.

taxme · March 20, 2018

On 3/18/2018 at 6:39 AM, Penderyn said:

Millions of people of all sorts were murdered, especially Russian prisoners and Jews, the Nazis having trained on Socialists and Communists, and the Nazis were full of ill-conceived eugenicist bilge, like so many at the time. The problem is the total chaos at the end of the War, with vast numbers of hungry people wandering about after the liberation of the camps and the spread of disease made numbers almost impossible to calculate, which left people, in effect, to think of a number. It is this that makes the 'haulocaust' deniers able to get way with a bit of their nonsense - woolly estimates turned into 'facts' suit so many interests. I knew blokes who liberated the camps: you ask them if there were mass murders!

No one is trying to dispute as to what went on during the holocaust and the war that took place. But there is nothing wrong with questioning anything that has been is reported where others have been shown a different story as to what may have took place during the holocaust or war. Facts can be easily turned into lies. It has happened this way for centuries where the victors can decide as to what will be told as facts and what will be spread as fiction. Always remember that you and me and thee here were not present at the time that all this stuff took place. We only have to go by what others say.

taxme · March 20, 2018

On 3/17/2018 at 7:25 PM, eyeball said:

My sense is that conspiracy theorists aren't nuts they're merely morons.

All astronauts sent into space have to stay under the Van Allen radiation belt. If they do not they will get pretty much fried by radiation according to a NASA Orion Engineer named Kelly Smith. NASA cannot quite figure out as to how they are going to be able to get an astronaut thru the belt without that astronaut being bombarded with radiation that could kill him/her.

Which now begs the question as to whether Americans did really go to the moon. If they had gone to the moon then why has it been so long for them to have not gone back yet? By now one would think that there would be astronauts living on the moon today. How did those first astronauts that supposedly landed on the moon get back and survived for decades after if what this NASA spokesperson said they would be killed by radiation? She should know, she works for NASA. So did America really go to the moon and back? You be the judge.

Of course there is going to be a few skeptical people here who will challenge what this NASA person had to say. And of course it will be considered once again as just conspiracy nonsense being spread and told by NASA "morons" again. Why are there so many people who do not believe in conspiracies? This moon landing sure looks like one big lie and conspiracy.

Website: Live Leak

Queenmandy85 · March 21, 2018

2 hours ago, taxme said:

This moon landing sure looks like one big lie and conspiracy.

Here is the problem with that. About two dozen astronauts have gone to the moon, either in orbit or on the surface. The conspiracy theory is that they were actually on a set with a film crew. That is nine missions. So, you have the people who built the sets, the film crews and the astronauts them selves. Add the administrators and you probably have 40 + people with direct knowledge. How do you keep something like that secret. In the last 40 years, how do you explain not one of these people spilled their guts. That defies human nature.

The truth is, they spent very little time in the radiation belt and received more radiation after they passed beyond the belt though still not enough to do any lasting harm. A trip to Mars will need more protection.