Do you think that Conspiracy Theories are worth investigating further?
What is your feeling about the term "Conspiracy Theory"? Does this have a bad connotation and meaning to you?
The simple answer is no.
The more complete answer is that unless the people who are claiming the conspiracies exist are willing to accept evidence that does not support that theory, or if the issue is more than 10 years old, there is little to be gained, because no positive proof will ever be available to prove or disprove the allocation. In my state, we have a state capitol building, the tallest in the nation. Tours are given daily, and comments are made how Huey Long was shot in the hallway. The volunteer tour guide will point out the window toward a major industrial concern that has been in the state for more than a century and imply that it was behind the assassination. No proof is offered, just an opinion. Everyone ignores it because there is nothing to back it up.
I know people think the moon landing was faked, the Holocaust never happened, that 9-11 was an inside job masterminded by the U.S., Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy, and the list goes on. No one has come up with anything concrete to support any of those theories. Please do not bombard these questions with all the unproven and claims that are in dispute. We are not going to disprove or approve any of those alleged conspiracies.
There is a lot of evidence against the moon landing being legit. Just saying.
There is more evidence that it actually occurred and a lot of the contrary "evidence" is questionable.
@MrsBkay - This is what scares me about this country. People who otherwise seem intelligent have discounted the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. The conspiracy nuts just ignore any proof that is inconvenient to their delusions. Sad.
Actually, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations ruled that a) there were at least 2 shooters, and b) JFK was most likely killed as a result of conspiracy.
What disturbs me, Larry, is that Bush's "conspiracy theory" is widely accepted. I did for 10 years. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it false.
A lot of Germans didn't believe the conspiracy theories about Hitler, either.
lone77star: You are right, because I disagree with you does not make your theory false. Thus,y, just because you believe it, does not make it right. The Holocaust has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Theories are easy. Evidence is hard.
I sure do. Don't know why, just the curious cat in me, I suppose.
Being curious is an admirable trait. I listen & read about conspiracies, but usually a little research will cause me to cast it aside as being less than credible. As an old reporter, I heard a lot of claims about a lot of things that were not tr
Curiosity's good. I agree with Larry on researching, but sometimes your sources can be misinterpretations or otherwise dead wrong.
9/11 is an example of this. Thousands of scientists and other professionals disagree with Bush conspiracy theory.
I am fascinated by them but I choose not to let them dictate how I live. I do think there is some truth to "some" of them.
Yes, there have been some conspiracies in the history of planet Earth. Some people act as if they're all a fantasy. If a fantasy, then Hitler wouldn't have happened.
Everyone likes a good story--but these theories about things that happened 50 years ago (Kennedy assassination) or nearly 150 years ago, Lincoln, really accomplish nothing. In these cases, two good men were killed. That is the important fact.
The term ("conspiracy theory") is generally used to scoff at citizens with legitimate concerns and/or questions regarding any action by the federal government. Not exclusively, but commonly that is the case. Those who use the term fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. Government officials, elected or otherwise, with something to hide.
2. Ideological purists (especially on the left), who automatically mock those who question official governmental "explanations" (such as the magic bullet theory following the assassination of President Kennedy).
3. The nonthinkers among us, many millions strong, who accept without reservation whatever the talking heads on TV have to say.
It's one of the earlier, but still useful, terms designed to marginalize those who do not agree with them.
Does "conspiracy theory" have a "bad" meaning? In my book...nah. It is what it is. This is a warring universe, and the term is just one more weapon in the war between darkness and light.
Well said. Not all "conspiracy theories" are created equally. Heck, Bush comes up with a conspiracy theory about Osama and everyone eats it up.
But Osama, who you'd think would gladly take credit for the biggest coup in history, denied doing it
Some Conspiracy Theories are worth investigating further when the "official" explanation makes no logical sense, such as the Single Bullet Theory. One bullet went through JFK, hit other objects, and was found on JFK's hospital stretcher in pristine condition? A lot of things that occurred on 9/11/01 certainly left one looking for alternative explanations. Then there are the proven conspiracies that are proven in court cases, such as industries manipulating research.
The term "Conspiracy Theory" certainly has a negative connotation for many. Once that term is used, many will stop listening any further, as they believe all such theories are claptrap, when in reality some are pure garbage while others are eventually proven to be correct years and decades later. Each conspiracy theory should be weighed on its own merit.
I think the term "conspiracy theory" does carry a negative connotation these days, but I don't think all conspiracy theories are 100% nonsense and should be discarded immediately simply because they bear the title.
For instance, the JFK Assassination is a great example of how, ultimately, the official story that was told initially has turned out to be false. The US House Select Committee ruled that JFK was mostly likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and that there were definitely at least 2 shooters who fired at the president. They ruled out the majority of popular conspiracy theories surrounding the event, but it still proves that the official story isn't always the truth, and it proves that not all conspiracy theories are rubbish.
Some theories certainly merit further investigation (as with JFK), but not all are worthwhile in that aspect. Some are just about making waves and shaking your fist at the government with no real purpose or evidence backing it. There's a lot of nonsense to filter through for the few theories that bear any real weight.
E. Howard Hunt's deathbed confession into his participation in the JFK assassination certainly blows the lid on the "lone gunman" theory.
And if someone wanted to hide a major crime, wild conspiracy theories would help cover
What if E Howard Hunt was............lying! Do you even consider that possibility? Deathbed confessions are notoriously unreliable at best and there is no physical evidence that Hunt participated in the JFK assassination except his own!
@p2m, deathbed confessions notoriously unreliable? Where do you get this?
Yes, Hunt could've lied, but what's the motivation?
Too many facts don't jive with the "official stories" of 9/11 and JFK.
It depends on the theory.
George Bush and his administration gave us their "conspiracy theory" of 9/11, and nearly everyone bought it, including me (for 10 years).
Some people's eyes glaze over and they lump all "conspiracy theories" in one bucket along with "alien abductions," "faked moon landings," "no Holocaust," and the like. The problem with labeling is that frequently the label doesn't fit, but even some reporters who should otherwise know better make this topic into one big generality. And such generalities are rarely, if ever, true. "Everyone knows," "all conspiracy theories," etc.
The term "conspiracy theory" has been used inappropriately by too many in the news media to marginalize others with whom they disagree. They dismiss ideas without really investigating. Or they depend on the pronouncements of others without fully vetting those pronouncements.
Take the work of AE911Truth.org, for instance. Some in the media have called these guys "conspiracy theorists." Mislabeling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn't automatically make them one. The AE911Truth group uses scientific method to investigate hypotheses (theories) of the World Trade Center building collapse, not conspiracies. But because their research calls into question the Bush "conspiracy theory" about Osama Bin Laden, they are called "conspiracy theorists" or worse. What they have already discovered may uncover a conspiracy, but that's a different topic altogether. They're demanding an unbiased investigation into 9/11.
But isn't 9/11 old news?
Not in the slightest! Why? Because policy is still be written based upon 9/11. Laws are still being created based on that event. People continue to die because of it, including thousands of innocent men, women and children. U.S. drone strikes are indiscriminate murdering machines. And wake up folks, they're now in America, too.
Some people don't want to look. They're afraid. Does this description match our fellow hubber, Larry Wall? Or Don Fairchild? Do they really think that all people labeled as "conspiracy theorists" failed logic in college, or watch too much TV?
Fact: Mayor Giuliani committed a felony by cleaning up the 9/11 site before an investigation could be performed. Can't do an autopsy without the body.
Asymmetric damage never leads to symmetrical collapse. Chopping a tree on one side doesn't result in the tree collapsing through itself (path of greatest resistance), and yet that's what the government is trying to sell us.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But without proof and is collaborated by reliable sources, the idea still remains a theory.
Larry, I'm afraid you make no sense at all. "The idea?" What idea. There were dozens of ideas mentioned, and many were fact, not theory.
Fact: Felony destruction of crime scene evidence by Mayor Giuliani.
Fact: Asymmetric damage... Get the idea?
One should always question what is presented to them before accepting what they are being told no matter who is doing the telling.
IE: the "Gulf of Tonkin" event that led to the US putting large numbers of troops into Vietnam. At the time many of us said that it didn't make much sense and wasn't enough reason to enter a war with no goals that had already been fought and lost by the French. 30 years later then Secretary of Defense McNamara admitted that it was fabricated, shortly before he died.
The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon where a 757 jet somehow made a perfectly round hole and left no aircraft debris.
What happened to the 2 giant engines that would have made a horizontal figure-8?
Where did the tail and wing sections go? They would have been sheared off on impact. (Remember that unlike the towers the Pentagon is a hardened building so parts of the plane should have been left outside the blast area and the engines wouldn't have completely melted, each would have left their own hole in the wall.)
But if you look at flight 800 there is no reason to believe that it was shot down. The exact same accident was successfully replicated with another 747 and there was no explosive residue in the wreckage.
If you look at the JFK magic bullet? At the moment it struck the governor was turned around talking to Kennedy making the "convoluted" flight path a straight line. I don't really believe that only Oswald was involved or that it was just Oswald and Ruby but I don't think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll.
We know that there was a conspiracy between the various banks and financial institutions when the crash came because they were working together to hide their toxic loans. They all transferred their bad loans to "holding companies" the day before they were audited and took them back the day after. This takes a lot of coordination between numerous institutions and the auditing agency. We have the paper trail to show this and it has come out in court trials.
One could easily say that there is a conspiracy keeping these crooks out of prison after stealing Trillions of dollars from the American people and for bailing them out in the first place. It involves the top Republicans and Democrats right up to the President and they all should be tossed out into the streets penniless.
so don't accept these theories without examining the evidence, but don't discount them just because they are labeled "conspiracies" either. Make educated decisions.
Is this question .....Like , serious ! Conspiracy theories are just that , investigations into the chance of conspiracy!?!?
Well if they raise unanswered vital questions-then perhaps they should.
by Adamowen 7 years ago
Do you have any questions that you think need to be answered about the 9/11 attacks?With the recent anniversary of the tragic event, it's been in high debate whether or not a new investigation should be looked into and many people have lots on unanswered questions still. Do you have any? and do you...
by deegle 9 years ago
Who is to blame for conspiracy theories? The ones that reports or exposes them or the ones that conceals activities that get discovered then gets leaked to those that reports or exposes them?
by Keith Ham 6 years ago
I've heard it all a thousand times and more. The this, the that, the whatever, the evil organizations. In fact, just moments ago I received a comment on how FB was invented by the CIA, isn't that crazy? I know some of you do believe this stuff and I don't mean to offend, I know there is conspiracy...
by sannyasinman 8 years ago
. . and that the official explanation is a physical impossibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkXeNawH … r_embedded
by Specialkizza 9 years ago
I ask this question to all readers and myself. I ask that everyone who frequents this topic to please reply. Feel free to elaborate and converse. Thank You. Its both for me. I can't remember when I felt more passionate about something. I'm from NYC and a vet, so these theories, especially 911...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
What makes people attracted to conspiracy theories?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|