View Full Version : 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
Look what I've just seen, mmm, it certainly answers loads of questions to my mind..
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for précis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)
John Little
18-Apr-10, 19:33
Now that is a very astute woman!
I like the continuation in your link;;
Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensics) evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_%28philosophy%29), not deductive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning) reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
Appeals to 'common sense';
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy);
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
8. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'
» Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)
http://www.urban75.org/images/topb.gif (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html#top)
The search for the truth in all rational thought processes begin as conspiracy theories.
Look what else is on Urban75 web site:
http://www.urban75.org/info/bullying.html
John Little
18-Apr-10, 19:57
"The search for the truth in all rational thought processes begin as conspiracy theories."
An interesting idea but one I think you just made up.
In fact the search for the truth in all rational thought processes begins with a rigorous examination of the available evidence. Ask any scientist.
It absolutely does not begin by twisting, perverting, selecting and skewing evidence to support pre-conceived versions of truth.
"The search for the truth in all rational thought processes begin as conspiracy theories."
An interesting idea but one I think you just made up.
In fact the search for the truth in all rational thought processes begins with a rigorous examination of the available evidence. Ask any scientist.
It absolutely does not begin by twisting, perverting, selecting and skewing evidence to support pre-conceived versions of truth.
And if there is no available evidence do we just let it go away?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 20:24
Without evidence we revert to rumour, superstition, supposition, and above all prejudice.
An opinion that is unsupported by evidence is merest prejudice. Conspiracists know this; what is unforgivable in them is that they murder truth in pursuit of their obsessions - which makes them a danger to society.
The sophistry that there was a mighty conspiracy of Jews to take over and dominate the world led us to great anguish and effort in the last 100 years and killed millions.
This is a serious thread, for credibility given to conspiracists leads to genocide - and has done on several occasions that I can think of.
Without evidence we revert to rumour, superstition, supposition, and above all prejudice.
An opinion that is unsupported by evidence is merest prejudice. Conspiracists know this; what is unforgivable in them is that they murder truth in pursuit of their obsessions - which makes them a danger to society.
So when Bush/Blair lied to us about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, this was just another conspiracy theory?
John Little
18-Apr-10, 20:54
There is a great difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy.
Just because some people will insist on seeing conspiracy everywhere does not mean to say that conspiracy does not exist.
One of the dangers of conspiracy theorists is that they cry wolf too often and the real conspiracies escape un-noticed. So they do us no service.
It is best to start with particularities and examine if the conspiracy actually exists. To shout conspiracy and then find none is a nugatory kind of exercise.
There are indications that Blair and Bush conspired to invade Iraq, but I do point out that there is no smoking gun to actually prove that they did.
Yet.
Eden conspired with Israel and with the French to invade Suez in 1956. He also lied to the House of Commons when he said there was no Sevres agreement. There is far more to that than meets the public eye too.
It took 20 years for the truth to emerge.
To function on a day to day basis we must needs use the best information we have available. That is how good government works.
If the information is bad or falsified then the wrong decisions are taken. That happens too.
But to see conspiracy everywhere as a default position is paranoia.
There is a great difference between conspiracy theory and conspiracy.
There are indications that Blair and Bush conspired to invade Iraq, but I do point out that there is no smoking gun to actually prove that they did.
Yet.
Irrespective of whether Bush/Blair had a chat about invading Iraq, they both stated that Iraq had W.M.D, which turned out to be lies.
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a proven fact
To function on a day to day basis we must needs use the best information we have available. That is how good government works.
Previous threads have covered this topic, and many instances were quoted about how bad intelligence had lead to some pretty abysmal decisions made by Governments both present and past
If the information is bad or falsified then the wrong decisions are taken. That happens too.
This confirms my statement above.
But to see conspiracy everywhere as a default position is paranoia.
If it means that I do not trust a word uttered by most politicians, tabloid newspapers etc, then yes, call me paranoid, but before you do I would ask you to take a look at a sentence of your post.
"It took 20 years for the truth to emerge.."
Remember the conspiracy theories about:
America tried to assasinate Castro with an exploding cigar
MI5 had a secret file on Harold Wilson
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank
etc etc
All the above have been confirmed as true, so I ask you why do we have to wait 20/30 years for the truth to emerge
John Little
18-Apr-10, 21:58
I would not dream of calling you paranoid. I do not know you well enough.
Is your default position to see conspiracy everywhere?
"why do we have to wait 20/30 years for the truth to emerge "
I suppose because those who hold power use their position to obfuscate and hide the truth and it does not emerge until their power has waned and they may be dead. There's the 20 year rule, the 30 year rule, the 50 year rule and the 100 year rule. The only document I know that is covered by the 100 year rule now is the cargo manifest of the Lusitania which will be declassified in 2017.
Why have you deconstructed my answer? I do not seem to be disagreeing with any of the points you make. WMD - yes - lies.
Bad intelligence = bad government - check. Wrong decisions taken - check.
America tried to assasinate Castro with an exploding cigar- TRUE- bright idea by Kermit Roosevelt
MI5 had a secret file on Harold Wilson- True. I have Spycatcher too.
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank- True.
Now I'm lost. Why are you telling me these things?
Remember the conspiracy theories about:
America tried to assasinate Castro with an exploding cigar
MI5 had a secret file on Harold Wilson
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank
etc etc
All the above have been confirmed as true, so I ask you why do we have to wait 20/30 years for the truth to emerge
I've known the truth about the above for ages. When were they conspiracy theories? Although I think the exploding cigar was a myth, they tried to have him poisoned. Poss by a cigar?
I don't recall anyone denying the direction that the Belgrano travelling.
MI5 would obviously have a file on Wilson, (this came out when 30 year papers were released, no one tried to deny or cover up, it was routine) as I am sure they do on all past and present cabinet members.
Tubthumper
18-Apr-10, 22:27
So what do the Conspiracy Theorists want?
(a) All the truth comes out?
(b) All the truth comes out and everyone loves them because they outed it?
(c) Everyone listens to them for once?
(d) The world stops being as it is and be's as it should be?
(e) They themselves get put in charge
(f) They themselves get put in charge and they get THEM rounded up and dealt with properly (THEM being everyone who has been in a position of power under the old scheme, you know because they're all psychopaths and stuff)
(g) The UK is disbanded and divided equally between France & the USA, because we are obviously VERY BAD and do conspiracies and other nasty stuff.
I wonder what kind of childhood the CTs suffered, that made them hate the world so much?
I've lost track here. The thread just listed someone's opinion of the charactaristics of a conspiracy theorist.
Now we seem to be arguing about what is (by example) a conspiracy theory-why?
Sorry Tubs, I didn’t see your bit-What indeed? It usually revolves around a demand for an enquiry but we have discussed on other threads, who would you trust to conduct it? Certainly not them.
America tried to assasinate Castro with an exploding cigar- TRUE- bright idea by Kermit Roosevelt
MI5 had a secret file on Harold Wilson- True. I have Spycatcher too.
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank- True.
Now I'm lost. Why are you telling me these things?
Giving you example of what were conspiracy theories but have now been proven to be facts.
Maybe in years to come we shall find out the truth about Hollie Greig, Deepcut Army Barracks, David Kelly and many more "conspiracy theories"
So what do the Conspiracy Theorists want?
(a) All the truth comes out?
Yes, for a long time I have merely thought that you are a prat. Now I know you are, so the "the truth comes out"
John Little
18-Apr-10, 22:49
Oh I see. No- these were not conspiracy theories but actual conspiracies. they existed.
Kermit Roosevelt's idea for getting rid of Castro involved the exploding cigar, the one to make his beard fall out - and they actually trained his ex girlfriend to kill him. The CIA committed over 4000 acts of sabotage in Cuba between 1960 and 1963. This is not 'THEM' out to get us. This is a vast intelligence agency trying to bring down a government they disapprove of. All exposed by Miles Copeland and others - Ex Company men do like to write their memoirs.
After the U2 incident in 1960 Eisenhower actually went on telly and told the nation that governments had to do certain things to keep track of what their opponents were doing and that he did not apologise for that- it was part of the job.
How was the Belgrano a 'conspiracy theory'. It was an enemy warship. We sank it. end of.
Wilson - what Ducati said.
Of Hollie Greig I know nothing.
David Kelly - you speculate and unless you have evidence you cry wolf.
Cry wolf too often and people see you as discredited.
But yes - you are right. Lots of maybes. However loud John the Baptist cries out the coming of a prophet- how often does the prophet prove false?
Tubthumper
18-Apr-10, 22:54
Yes, for a long time I have merely thought that you are a prat. Now I know you are, so the "the truth comes out"
I could say 'It takes one to know one' but that would be childish. I'm sad to say I haven't thought of you at all, you've just been one of the faint but annoying drones.
Does that mean I win, because at least you noticed me? :cool:
This has become an issue on the org over the months and we would do well to consider if any lesssons could be learnt from it before it gets too nasty.
I dont like Freds stance either over his opinions about world affairs and in particular the second world war but by challenging them as often as you do you give them a certain authority. I dont give them much authority myself but I do understand freds position and am prepared to accept his criticism.
Theres no need to add any more.
But it's not easy not to. :lol:
Im of an age where the things being spoken about here were still being felt in the mental life of my mother and her family when I was a child and I have a certain regard for it. Ive found some of Freds stuff disrespectful and he would do well to consider that too.
That doesnt mean he hasnt got a point about deeper aspects of human nature but thats another thread.
This has become an issue on the org over the months and we would do well to consider if any lesssons could be learnt from it before it gets too nasty.
I dont like Freds stance either over his opinions about world affairs and in particular the second world war but by challenging them as often as you do you give them a certain authority. I dont give them much authority myself but I do understand freds position and am prepared to accept his criticism.
Theres no need to add any more.
But it's not easy not to. :lol:
Im of an age where the things being spoken about here were still being felt in the mental life of my mother and her family when I was a child and I have a certain regard for it. Ive found some of Freds stuff disrespectful and he would do well to consider that too.
That doesnt mean he hasnt got a point about deeper aspects of human nature but thats another thread.
If you imagine Fred and Anfield have even a glimmering of the deeper aspects of human nature then you are seriously misguided (Or just being nice, which does you credit)
Look what I've just seen, mmm, it certainly answers loads of questions to my mind..
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for précis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)
Sounds like me ex lol. Same ol, same old.....men!
Without evidence we revert to rumour, superstition, supposition, and above all prejudice.
An opinion that is unsupported by evidence is merest prejudice. Conspiracists know this; what is unforgivable in them is that they murder truth in pursuit of their obsessions - which makes them a danger to society.
The sophistry that there was a mighty conspiracy of Jews to take over and dominate the world led us to great anguish and effort in the last 100 years and killed millions.
This is a serious thread, for credibility given to conspiracists leads to genocide - and has done on several occasions that I can think of.
But now we are told there is a conspiracy of Muslims to take over and dominate the world, we were told that Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were going to get us if we don't take steps to prevent it. We are told of Muslim terrorists all over the world conspiring to kill us. It's lead to the deaths of millions of Muslims.
Isn't it about time we learnt from our mistakes?
I could say 'It takes one to know one' but that would be childish. I'm sad to say I haven't thought of you at all, you've just been
Good, I am glad that I do not get up peoples noses as much as some people do.
But now we are told there is a conspiracy of Muslims to take over and dominate the world, we were told that Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were going to get us if we don't take steps to prevent it. We are told of Muslim terrorists all over the world conspiring to kill us. It's lead to the deaths of millions of Muslims.
Isn't it about time we learnt from our mistakes?
Fred, It is only a conspiracy theory when it suits the establishment.
When the establishment are on the defensive, it is not a theory but a "proven fact" such as WMD/Axis Of Evil/Iran building Nuclear Weapons
At the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty conference last week it emerged that 47 countries hold material which could be made into weapon grade material
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixeFBxfLzaSjs8Mb8cuFmtPOT6-wD9F5KKBO1
One country that did not attend this conference, was Israel which refuses to confirm or deny that it has Nuclear Weapons
"..Israel, which does not confirm or deny possessing nuclear arms, has refused to sign the NPT, which would require it to open up its nuclear facilities to international inspectors.."
Is there a reason why Israel will not allow International Inspectors to inspect their nuclear capabilities
Iran was represented at this meeting
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 06:47
Great thread Beks.
My sides hurt. A thread about the traits of conspiracy theorists turns into a couple turning the subject to .. Conspiracy Theories.
I have cutlery smarter than some posters I could mention.
Oh I see. No- these were not conspiracy theories but actual conspiracies. they existed.
So what about the Kennedy assassination?
For years anyone who disagreed that Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was labelled a conspiracy theorist weren't they? Despite the fact that we know that the assassination was actually a conspiracy.
So what about the Kennedy assassination?
For years anyone who disagreed that Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was labelled a conspiracy theorist weren't they? Despite the fact that we know that the assassination was actually a conspiracy.
I didn't realise that had been cleared up. So what is the truth? :eek:
I didn't realise that had been cleared up. So what is the truth? :eek:
The result of the official American Government enquiry of course, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. The investigation lasted two years from 1976 to 1978 and concluded:
The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
Didn't you know?
John Little
19-Apr-10, 09:49
Short reply cos I am at work.
No need to be nasty people. P**t is actually a very rude word indeed and I am surprised to see it on this forum.
What Fred omits is that the 1978 commission's report has never over-ridden the Warren Commission. The US government is in the curious position of having two official sets of findings on the assasination.
Weird - but no-one has seen fit to adapt one of them as the official position, though there have been rumours that Obama may re-open the matter.
Creme_Egg
19-Apr-10, 09:51
Ha ha Shocking!!!
.
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank
Could not get on the Org last night, hope not MU hack ;) But wow! the enemy ship which was intent on sinking our ships and killing even more of our military was actually "sailing away?" and we went and sank it; tut tut..that's terrible.
Of course just needs "Left hand down a bit" and that would have been alright..
The result of the official American Government enquiry of course, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations. The investigation lasted two years from 1976 to 1978 and concluded:
Didn't you know?
I thought you meant that they knew who done it :lol:
Short reply cos I am at work.
No need to be nasty people. P**t is actually a very rude word indeed and I am surprised to see it on this forum.
What Fred omits is that the 1978 commission's report has never over-ridden the Warren Commission. The US government is in the curious position of having two official sets of findings on the assasination.
Weird - but no-one has seen fit to adapt one of them as the official position, though there have been rumours that Obama may re-open the matter.
The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations also investigated the Warren Commission and were highly critical of them.
So what it boils down to is that people will believe what they want to believe and if someone comes along saying something they don't want to believe they just label them a "Conspiracy Theorist" so they don't have to believe them. Then they start trying to convince everyone else they are conspiracy theorists so no one will believe them. I've even known people stoop so low as to start threads on forums specifically for the purpose, sad really, they must be very desperate, very unsure of themselves.
Two official versions you say? So how come one of them comes as such a surprise to so many people?
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 10:41
No Fred.
People dont believe it because it sounds like a load of rubbish to them, that they share that with others is no surprise. I am sure you are registered on more than one tinfoil hat site. You seem to have a problem in not being accepted as some kind of all knowing Google King, once you get called on your "theories" and people disagree with you or call you on your own words to the point even you can see you have been caught out, a la the "Holocaust" thread, you adopt the familiar "its org bullying, its personal, its character assasination" blubbing routine. Which is quite ironic as you are not shy at throwing out disrespectful comments yourself when it suits. if anyone is desperate and unsure of themselves its you mate. Your endless preaching on the same subjects again and again and again, despite no one agreeing with you, just screams desperation and insecurity. Your just desperate to find someone like minded arent you ??
By the way you might want to edit your last post on the "Wikileaks" thread. Posting a link about American soldiers writing a letter of reconcilliation to the people of Iraq right below another link which claims their basic training "de-humanises" to the point they are just "killers" throws up an interesting contradiction.
No Fred.
People dont believe it because it sounds like a load of rubbish to them, that they share that with others is no surprise. I am sure you are registered on more than one tinfoil hat site. You seem to have a problem in not being accepted as some kind of all knowing Google King, once you get called on your "theories" and people disagree with you or call you on your own words to the point even you can see you have been caught out, a la the "Holocaust" thread, you adopt the familiar "its org bullying, its personal, its character assasination" blubbing routine. Which is quite ironic as you are not shy at throwing out disrespectful comments yourself when it suits. if anyone is desperate and unsure of themselves its you mate. Your endless preaching on the same subjects again and again and again, despite no one agreeing with you, just screams desperation and insecurity. Your just desperate to find someone like minded arent you ??
By the way you might want to edit your last post on the "Wikileaks" thread. Posting a link about American soldiers writing a letter of reconcilliation to the people of Iraq right below another link which claims their basic training "de-humanises" to the point they are just "killers" throws up an interesting contradiction.
I just post links to what the soldiers say then let people make up their own minds. I think it's best to just present the facts and let people decide for themselves.
Now on the Holocaust thread I wasn't the one desperate enough to resort to personal abuse and character assassination was I?
I just post links to what the soldiers say then let people make up their own minds. I think it's best to just present the facts and let people decide for themselves.
Now on the Holocaust thread I wasn't the one desperate enough to resort to personal abuse and character assassination was I?
Personal abuse? oh come on - too robust for you?
Anyway some people actually believe the Americans did NOT go to the Moon, and there are others who believe that 9/11 was an inside job!!! what ever next ;)
Personal abuse? oh come on - too robust for you?
Anyway some people actually believe the Americans did NOT go to the Moon, and there are others who believe that 9/11 was an inside job!!! what ever next ;)
I don't have any problems with people believing what they want to believe, I wouldn't want to be forcing people to believe what I wanted them to believe by bullying, I wouldn't want to be ridiculing anyone because they didn't believe what I wanted them to believe, I don't think there should be laws telling people what to believe.
There are two groups of people on this forum, those who believe in God and those who don't, I don't have a problem with either group. I find that many of the problems in this world stem not from what people believe but from one group trying to force their beliefs onto others.
Could not get on the Org last night, hope not MU hack ;) But wow! the enemy ship which was intent on sinking our ships and killing even more of our military was actually "sailing away?" and we went and sank it; tut tut..that's terrible.
Of course just needs "Left hand down a bit" and that would have been alright..
If the roles had been reversed would it have been met by cries of "I say old man, that is just not cricket" and leftish newspapers printing headlines like "Gotcha"
Don't think so.
Look at all furore caused by Argentinian Maradona's "Hand of God" goal against England, and that was just a football match
Metalattakk
19-Apr-10, 12:20
I
Look at all furore caused by Argentinian Maradona's "Hand of God" goal against England, and that was just a football match
Oh Jebus, the 'Hand of God' conspiracy myth rears it's ugly head now....:roll:
Everyone knows that was a perfectly fair goal. [lol]
John Little
19-Apr-10, 12:28
"There are two groups of people on this forum, those who believe in God and those who don't, I don't have a problem with either group"
Oy!!
Wot about us gnostics?
"There are two groups of people on this forum, those who believe in God and those who don't, I don't have a problem with either group"
Oy!!
Wot about us gnostics?
Gnostics believe in God.
If you mean Agnostics, I haven't made my mind up about them yet.
northener
19-Apr-10, 13:35
........."
Remember the conspiracy theories about:
America tried to assasinate Castro with an exploding cigar
MI5 had a secret file on Harold Wilson
The Belgrano was sailing away from the British fleet when it was sank
etc etc
All the above have been confirmed as true, so I ask you why do we have to wait 20/30 years for the truth to emerge
I know a lot about the Belgrano.
The 'truth' was presented by anti-Thatcher/War/Conservatives in a manner to suggest that the Belgrano presented no threat to the British Task force and was innocently 'going in the opposite direction' when she was sunk.
This is simply not the case. It is a good example of how those with malicious and mischevious intent will take a complex situation and use it to present their own simplistic (and factually incorrect) conclusion. Tam Dalyell made a complete fool of himself over this matter.
This is not a thread about the Belgrano - so I'll just make the point above about the manipulation of fact and how some people will be eager to sieze upon anything that furthers their own cause without regard for little niceties like 'credible evidence'.
And that's not a dig at you, Anfield, just a general observation upon how people think about, and present, matters.
(Edit) of course, if anyone would like to discuss the Belgrano and the reasons and facts surrounding the sinking with me, - then please feel free.......
John Little
19-Apr-10, 13:49
Agnostics I meant - yep!
Can't keep track of my a's
If the roles had been reversed would it have been met by cries of "I say old man, that is just not cricket" and leftish newspapers printing headlines like "Gotcha"
Don't think so.
Look at all furore caused by Argentinian Maradona's "Hand of God" goal against England, and that was just a football match
I notice you do not mention the 2 British Destroyers, 2 Frigates, 1 Containership and a selection on Landing craft that were sunk by the Argentinians.
And anyway Maradona's so called "Hand of God" goal to most folks I know was the funniest thing for many a long time.
I know a lot about the Belgrano.
(Edit) of course, if anyone would like to discuss the Belgrano and the reasons and facts surrounding the sinking with me, - then please feel free.......
I forgot that you are a taxi driver. Therefore I must profess to not having the same degree of knowledge about World affairs
My friend who was on HMS Sheffield also did not have this knowledge about why he was fighting a war at the other end of the world, over a group of islands which apart from strategic position was of no interest to the UK.
Sadly he never found out.
I do know that even after his death that squabbles about whether the boat was hit by one or two rockets, and whether she was "fit for purpose" were ongoing. As were the peace talks in Peru......
Thatcher did not want peace, there was an election to be won.
And anyway Maradona's so called "Hand of God" goal to most folks I know was the funniest thing for many a long time.
I don't know about that.
Some people would say that your posts are just as funny.
John Little
19-Apr-10, 17:58
"But now we are told there is a conspiracy of Muslims to take over and dominate the world, we were told that Muslim countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran were going to get us if we don't take steps to prevent it. We are told of Muslim terrorists all over the world conspiring to kill us. It's lead to the deaths of millions of Muslims.
Isn't it about time we learnt from our mistakes? "
There is no conspiracy. No sane person believes in that. The use of scare tactics to justify the spending of taxes on weaponry is well established in all governments - an enemy is necessary to the economy.
There are however a few gangs of nutcases who would like to establish a Caliphate. They are prepared to carry out terrorism to further their cause and they need to be guarded against.
Like many things in this world the truth lies neither with A nor B but somewhere in between.
And Blair and Bush lied. We all know that too.
"It's lead to the deaths of millions of Muslims."
Are you overstating again?
And yes - of course it's time we learned from our mistakes. But we never do because each generation loses the collective memory of the last and has to relearn it all over again.
Remember the main axiom of the US State department in the late 40s?
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.....
You sniff the right trails, you say largely what many people think, but you puff it out of all proportion.
My friend who was on HMS Sheffield also did not have this knowledge about why he was fighting a war at the other end of the world, over a group of islands which apart from strategic position was of no interest to the UK.Sadly he never found out.
You - a pacifist - had a friend on HMS Sheffield? who strangely told you (I presume) he did not know why he was fighting a war down there? - these Sailors were volunteers, and I suggest that he knew full well why he was down there..
Bit confused, did he write letters to you detailing his confusion?.. did he let you know what he felt about the sinking of the Belgrano, a couple of days earlier? - just wondered
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 18:24
I forgot that you are a taxi driver. Therefore I must profess to not having the same degree of knowledge about World affairs
Tell us something we dont know. Not that long ago you were lecturing me, a trained Air Planner, about airstrikes but then had to be told that Afghan was a NATO op and not a UN one. As Northerner was a member of the Royal Navy serving in the Falklands I am going to go with his version, especially based on your past record. You attempting to mock him about the subject just makes you look ridiculous. And would earn the solution to your obvious case of NBPE in many circles.
Tell us something we dont know. Not that long ago you were lecturing me, a trained Air Planner, about airstrikes but then had to be told that Afghan was a NATO op and not a UN one. As Northerner was a member of the Royal Navy serving in the Falklands I am going to go with his version, especially based on your past record. You attempting to mock him about the subject just makes you look ridiculous. And would earn the solution to your obvious case of NBPE in many circles.
As far as I can see Northerner has not actually said anything about the Belgrano, but hey like you, he is ex-forces, so his version must be true
NBPE? please enlighten me
You - a pacifist - had a friend on HMS Sheffield? who strangely told you (I presume) he did not know why he was fighting a war down there? - these Sailors were volunteers, and I suggest that he knew full well why he was down there..
Bit confused, did he write letters to you detailing his confusion?.. did he let you know what he felt about the sinking of the Belgrano, a couple of days earlier? - just wondered
Shock horror, a pacifist had a friend in the navy, should he have reported this when he signed up?
Although volunteers, a lot of forces staff at time joined up to escape dole queue, he was one.
[QUOTE=Anfield;693773]I forgot that you are a taxi driver. Therefore I must profess to not having the same degree of knowledge about World affairs
Anfield, old boy, you are a bit of a snob! Many PhDs are reduced to driving cabs. I surmise that your cab driver was attempting to educate you. I hope you handed over a decent tip!
[quote=Anfield;693773]I forgot that you are a taxi driver. Therefore I must profess to not having the same degree of knowledge about World affairs
Anfield, old boy, you are a bit of a snob! Many PhDs are reduced to driving cabs. I surmise that your cab driver was attempting to educate you. I hope you handed over a decent tip!
I think it gets a little bit lost in translationas I was not being snobbish.
In the UK taxi drivers are renowned for their take, and willingness to talk, on all aspects of everyday life
[quote=rich;693801]
In the UK taxi drivers are renowned for their take,
Are you now saying UK taki drivers are on the take.....surely not. [lol]
Tell us something we dont know. Not that long ago you were lecturing me, a trained Air Planner, about airstrikes but then had to be told that Afghan was a NATO op and not a UN one. As Northerner was a member of the Royal Navy serving in the Falklands I am going to go with his version, especially based on your past record. You attempting to mock him about the subject just makes you look ridiculous. And would earn the solution to your obvious case of NBPE in many circles.
Anfield, what the heck is an AIR PLANNER? And what difference is it if Duck is one or is not?
Just putting on a fancy hat will not add any authority to your preposterous claims.
Shock horror, a pacifist had a friend in the navy, should he have reported this when he signed up?
Although volunteers, a lot of forces staff at time joined up to escape dole queue, he was one.
And he had no idea why he was down there?:confused
John Little
19-Apr-10, 18:58
"And he had no idea why he was down there?:confused"
Must have been a bootneck...
Anfield, apropos the cappies. Did you perhaps mean "give and take"?
I think you did.
Say thank you to your Uncle Rich!
If you want a conspiracy, you might ask why the Argies had the latest version of Excocet and why French technicians based in Argentina were servicing them :mad:
Now, let me think, em, this Fred Housego bloke, didn't he win Mastermind in 1980?, Now what was his job, can't quite remember :lol:
Now, let me think, em, this Fred Housego bloke, didn't he win Mastermind in 1980?, Now what was his job, can't quite remember :lol:
Nuclear Physicist?
BTW, I think old Rich has been on the Tskal..Tlakser..Tackalacser..Bells
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 19:08
As far as I can see Northerner has not actually said anything about the Belgrano, but hey like you, he is ex-forces, so his version must be true
NBPE? please enlighten me
Work it out yourself. It isnt difficult.
The Drunken Duck
19-Apr-10, 19:18
Anfield, what the heck is an AIR PLANNER? And what difference is it if Duck is one or is not?
Just putting on a fancy hat will not add any authority to your preposterous claims.
Yes it does.
An Air Planner plans Air Operations. That means I used to plan a multitude of missions such as close air support in my 13 years in the RAF. That means that I know far more about the subject of airstrikes, which was what was being discussed in the thread where Anfield was talking like he knew something about it. In reality he was someone who is so ill informed he didnt even know who had the jurisdiction for the operation in Afghan.
If you had checked the thread you would know that. There's a hint there somewhere.
Ducati have you been reading my rant?
That's a fine thing for you to do, come over here, son, I'm wearing my rubber shoes and my tin-foil hat...and I thirst!!!!
John Little
19-Apr-10, 19:31
Watch it Ducati - he might really live in P**t****r :eek:
And would earn the solution to your obvious case of NBPE in many circles.
No, No not NBPE!!! :(
George Brims
19-Apr-10, 20:18
No need to be nasty people. P**t is actually a very rude word indeed and I am surprised to see it on this forum
Actually I have no problem being described as a Pict.
No, No not NBPE!!! :(
Still can't figure out NBPE, will get a taxi tomorrow and ask driver.
Just noticed your signature:
"There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true" Sir Winston Churchill
So even Churchill knew about conspiracies
northener
20-Apr-10, 07:26
I forgot that you are a taxi driver. Therefore I must profess to not having the same degree of knowledge about World affairs
My friend who was on HMS Sheffield also did not have this knowledge about why he was fighting a war at the other end of the world, over a group of islands which apart from strategic position was of no interest to the UK.
Sadly he never found out.
.........
If he never found out, how do you know what his thoughts were? I assume you are leading us to believe that he was killed.
We were all fully briefed upon the situation, we all fully understood the situation and we were more than aware as to what out role was.
There were three Type 42 destroyers down there, Sheffield, Coventry and Glasgow. The ships were very closely related as individual crew members were interchanged at the end of a particular draft - this tranferred Type 42 skills from ship to ship. So we all knew each other very well. So there's a very good chance I knew your friend personally.
northener
20-Apr-10, 07:38
.......I do know that even after his death that squabbles about whether the boat was hit by one or two rockets, and whether she was "fit for purpose" were ongoing......
There was never any 'squabble' about how many hits the Sheffield took.
She was hit by one Exocet missile amidships. The Glasgow (my ship) identified the incoming attack but could not raise Sheffield. There was one entry hole in the hull. How do I know? I saw it with my own eyes.
I also have the eyewitness accounts of my colleagues on Sheffield, some of who transferred to Glasgow upon our return.
A second missile failed to hit anything and fell harmlessly into the sea short of one of the frigates.
I hope this clears up any 'misunderstandings' about the actual events.
Regarding 'fit for purpose':
This was (and still is) the biggest naval engagement since WW2. It turned out to be the best proving ground for procedures and equipment in the history of Post WW2 Fleets anywhere in the world. We learned a lot.
One of the main highlights was the fact that Type 42's (which were designed as anti-aircraft ships to fight the Soviets) were not equipped with enough close-range weaponry to stall off tradional 'iron bomb' attacks. Plus there was some concern about the amount of damage caused by burning cabling.
northener
20-Apr-10, 08:00
As far as I can see Northerner has not actually said anything about the Belgrano, but hey like you, he is ex-forces, so his version must be true
..
My version of events is based upon eyewitness accounts, the accounts of my colleagues and friends, accessable verifiable facts, widely available literature and my own, very relevant, experiences.
My version of events is based upon eyewitness accounts, the accounts of my colleagues and friends, accessable verifiable facts, widely available literature and my own, very relevant, experiences.
You didn't make it up and post it on the internet then?
Where's the credibility in that?? :lol:
There was never any 'squabble' about how many hits the Sheffield took.
The official MOD report into the sinking of the Sheffield concluded that: "..the warhead did not detonate..".
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf
Whilst "..Some of the crew and members of the Task Force believe however that the missile's warhead did in fact detonate upon impact.."
(The Battle for the Falklands, Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins,)
That to me would suggest a squabble.
Regarding 'fit for purpose':
This was (and still is) the biggest naval engagement since WW2. It turned out to be the best proving ground for procedures and equipment in the history of Post WW2 Fleets anywhere in the world. We learned a lot.
One of the main highlights was the fact that Type 42's (which were designed as anti-aircraft ships to fight the Soviets) were not equipped with enough close-range weaponry to stall off tradional 'iron bomb' attacks. Plus there was some concern about the amount of damage caused by burning cabling.
So the ship was not "fit for purpose" . The QE2 and Canberra were also used in this conflict, were they "fit for purpose" as well?
Given Bekismans view that any vessel in are was a legitimate target would the Argentinians have been justified in attacking unarmed ships?
northener
20-Apr-10, 10:59
The official MOD report into the sinking of the Sheffield concluded that: "..the warhead did not detonate..".
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9D8947AC-D8DC-4BE7-8DCC-C9C623539BCF/0/boi_hms_sheffield.pdf
Whilst "..Some of the crew and members of the Task Force believe however that the missile's warhead did in fact detonate upon impact.."
(The Battle for the Falklands, Max Hastings & Simon Jenkins,)
That to me would suggest a squabble.......
You're backpedalling, Anfield.
This is what I was replying to:
....I do know that even after his death that squabbles about whether the boat was hit by one or two rockets...
A completely different subject and you know it.....
Regarding the alleged explosion/non-explosion, yes there is still two schools of thought upon this. I personally believe it (the warhead) did not explode.
But what relevance has that to your original statements? None, I believe. Unless, of course, this is some crude attempt to somehow prove that there is some sort of official cover up.
northener
20-Apr-10, 11:01
....
So the ship was not "fit for purpose" . The QE2 and Canberra were also used in this conflict, were they "fit for purpose" as well?
Given Bekismans view that any vessel in are was a legitimate target would the Argentinians have been justified in attacking unarmed ships?
You're just coming out with ill-informed opinion now. Not facts.
Admit it, Anfield. you are way out of your depth on this one.
Given Bekismans view that any vessel in are was a legitimate target would the Argentinians have been justified in attacking unarmed ships?
The MV Atlantic Conveyour was an unarmed Merchant Naval ship and the Argentinians sunk it!!!
You're just coming out with ill-informed opinion now. Not facts.
Admit it, Anfield. you are way out of your depth on this one.
So you saying my post (which included official MOD report) is "ill-informed opinion"
northener
20-Apr-10, 11:24
So you saying my post (which included official MOD report) is "ill-informed opinion"
A crude attempt at deflection, Anfield. Which has failed miserably, I hasten to add.
You know very well I was referring to your 'fit for purpose' waffle.
Because that's the bit I quoted from your post in my reply saying you were using 'ill informed opinion'. Nothing to do with the MOD report whatsoever.
Next.
Regarding the alleged explosion/non-explosion, yes there is still two schools of thought upon this. I personally believe it (the warhead) did not explode.
But what relevance has that to your original statements? None, I believe. Unless, of course, this is some crude attempt to somehow prove that there is some sort of official cover up.
So if people who where there say it did explode, and others, who were not there, said it did not explode. Who would you sooner believe?
This is how conspiracy theories start and to remind you of Bekismans Churchill signature (before a rapid change)
" There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true" Sir Winston Churchill.
Going back to "fit for purpose" there has been a lot of talk lately about the equipment being used in the Iraq/Afghanistan being unsuitable for the job in hand. This equipment, some of which has been in use for a number of years, has been criticised by both serving soldiers and their commanding officers and at least one officer has resigned his command as a protest.
If the MOD knew thattheir defence systems were not as efficient as they should have been in detecting air attacks then surely they breached their "duty of care" in sending the navy out in ships which were not fit for purpose.
As to who decided that two large unarmed passenger ships should also join in this conflict, well that beggars belief
I've not been following this thread, done myself a disservice there, it's gertin' intrestin' now!
Thatcher did not want peace, there was an election to be won.
Think Gordy is desperately trying to emulate her by tasking the Ark Royal to go and do her bit for Blighty in the hope of bolstering his election chances, 'cept this time she's being a ferry boat.:confused
NBPE? please enlighten me
:lol: Google not your friend on this one?
The MV Atlantic Conveyour was an unarmed Merchant Naval ship and the Argentinians sunk it!!!
Do you not ask yourself what & why an unarmed RORO container ship was doing in the middle of a dangerous war zone?
So the ship was not "fit for purpose" . The QE2 and Canberra were also used in this conflict, were they "fit for purpose" as well?
Given Bekismans [my emphasis] view that any vessel in are was a legitimate target would the Argentinians have been justified in attacking unarmed ships?
Blinking Hell Anfield - you don't half tell some porkies. the lies must be queuing up behind your teeth..
I quite often quickly peruse your burble, but missed this one that you sneaked in.
Now folks THIS is what I actually posted, how the hell any right thinking person san interpret this to mean anything else is a mystery - but wait, Anfield has stated a number of times he's a pacifist. Really? I know many Quakers and they do not LIE.
#31 But wow! the enemy ship which was intent on sinking our ships and killing even more of our military was actually "sailing away?" and we went and sank it; tut tut..that's terrible. Of course just needs "Left hand down a bit" and that would have been alright..
Stand by for weasel words...
This is how conspiracy theories start and to remind you of Bekismans [my emphasis] Churchill signature (before a rapid change) " There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true" Sir Winston Churchill.
Thanks for yet another mention of my good self Anfield, but do you really think you had any effect in my changing my signature? nah, thought Winston's new quote would apply to you, asl it certainly seems to fit particularly well in this thread (I've got loads more) ;)
Thanks for yet another mention of my good self Anfield, but do you really think you had any effect in my changing my signature? nah, thought Winston's new quote would apply to you, asl it certainly seems to fit particularly well in this thread (I've got loads more) ;)
I have no doubt whatsoever that you have the entire Churchill library, together with recordings of wartime and peacetime speeches etc
A bit of a coincidence though that you change your signature it when I pointed out relevance to this thread, or is that another conspiracy theory?
With regards the Belgrano, I took it that you meant that all vessels in vicinity were legitimate targets. If I have misinterpreted this then I apologise.
Do you not ask yourself what & why an unarmed RORO container ship was doing in the middle of a dangerous war zone?
Sighs once more, Anfield you really should do a little more research, the Atlantic Conveyor was not a Roll on Roll off ship but a specialised container carrying vessel, she was carrying vital material for our military personnel.
I have no doubt whatsoever that you have the entire Churchill library, together with recordings of wartime and peacetime speeches etc A bit of a coincidence though that you change your signature it when I pointed out relevance to this thread, or is that another conspiracy theory?
With regards the Belgrano, I took it that you meant that all vessels in vicinity were legitimate targets. If I have misinterpreted this then I apologise.
Yep, you misinterpreted.. and as you have apologised; I accept.
Churchill, nah, you silly chap, don't have "an entire Churchill library, together with recordings of wartime and peacetime speeches etc" maybe I could borrow yours? however I DO have a portrait of him in my Lounge 'the right man at the right time' verstehen mein freund?
What's this fixation about regularly changing my signature? how about this one; he had pacifists in mind.. ;)
Sighs once more, Anfield you really should do a little more research, the Atlantic Conveyor was not a Roll on Roll off ship but a specialised container carrying vessel, she was carrying vital material for our military personnel.
Laughs again. Golach you really should double check your facts before posting.
The following was taken from the Royal Navy web site, so I will not doubt its authenticity
"..The Cunard Roll-on/Roll-off container ship Atlantic Conveyor.."
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/falklands-conflict/atlantic-conveyor/
Sighs once more, Anfield you really should do a little more research, the Atlantic Conveyor was not a Roll on Roll off ship but a specialised container carrying vessel, she was carrying vital material for our military personnel.
Atlantic Conveyer was transporting, amongst other things, Sea Harriers and helicopters. The Argentinean pilot (from a television interview I saw a few years ago) that attacked her, thought he was attacking an Aircraft Carrier. Nothing else he knew of could have knocked back a radar blip that big. When he reported back that he had hit a carrier with an Excocet the Arg. command must have thought they had won!
They nearly did, the loss of equipment was very nearly terminal. The whole battle plan relied on the Helicopters. Hence the eventual well publicised 'yomp'
This thread is great, it started by listing the traits of a conspiracy theorist, then you get a procession of people demonstrating them[lol]
northener
20-Apr-10, 13:31
So if people who where there say it did explode, and others, who were not there, said it did not explode. Who would you sooner believe?
This is how conspiracy theories start ......
No conspiracy at all in this case, Anfield. Some of the guys on board near the point of impact felt that the level of damage was akin to that of an exploding warhead. Many others (including the MOD) believe that this level of damage was not consistent with an exploding warhead.
In other words, the physical damage to the structure of the ship was not consistent with an explosion caused by a correctly functioning warhead. The general consensus of opinion is that the lack of obvious structural damage and the large fire that broke out were consistent with the high-speed impact and subsequent fuel 'burnout' indicated a faulty warhead.
Believe me, even an impact from a poxy 1000pound bomb travelling at 500mph can wreak an enormous amount of damage without actually exploding.
If the MOD knew thattheir defence systems were not as efficient as they should have been in detecting air attacks then surely they breached their "duty of care" in sending the navy out in ships which were not fit for purpose....
You're way off the mark there, Anfield. Any weapons platform is designed with certain limitations. The notion of having an all-encompassing warship isn't easily transferred to reality. Restraints such as realistic goals, budget, unit size and ability to deploy all come into play. Duty of care doesn't come into it.
All warships have weak areas, the 42's was close range defence - not a detection issue. They were excellent at that. They were designed for a long-range AA role on a 'picket line'...in other words the frontline with sodall between you and the enemy. And picket ships will suffer heavy losses. And we did.
And there's only you using the terminology "not fit for purpose".
The gaps in one warships weaponry is normally offset by weaponry from an acccompanying ship. The problem is that operational necessity means that this cover will not always be available 24/7. Type 42's were teamed up with Type 22 frigates which had a phenomenal close-range missile system called SeaWolf. Unfortunately, this 42/22 combo was not practical at the time Sheffield was hit.
If you want to know the exact details surrounding the play of events leading up to the Sheffs' sinking - then I'll be more than happy to oblige, if not, then you'll just have to trust me when I say detection wasn't an issue in the Sheffields' demise. Breakdown of comms and an unusual (and at that time unknown) circumstance were more to blame.
No conspiracy at all in this case, Anfield. Some of the guys on board near the point of impact felt that the level of damage was akin to that of an exploding warhead. Many others (including the MOD) believe that this level of damage was not consistent with an exploding warhead.
In other words, the physical damage to the structure of the ship was not consistent with an explosion caused by a correctly functioning warhead. The general consensus of opinion is that the lack of obvious structural damage and the large fire that broke out were consistent with the high-speed impact and subsequent fuel 'burnout' indicated a faulty warhead.
You raised some salient points there Northerner, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree as we are deviating away from main point of thread
Laughs again. Golach you really should double check your facts before posting.
The following was taken from the Royal Navy web site, so I will not doubt its authenticity
"..The Cunard Roll-on/Roll-off container ship Atlantic Conveyor.."
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/history/battles/falklands-conflict/atlantic-conveyor/
Indeed Anfield I will conceed that point to you, score golach 20 - anfield 1 [lol]
northener
20-Apr-10, 14:58
You raised some salient points there Northerner, but we are just going to have to agree to disagree as we are deviating away from main point of thread
Aye, fair comment, old chap.
No more ripping sea-stories from me.:Razz
Ha-haaaar, Jimlad.
The Drunken Duck
20-Apr-10, 15:38
They nearly did, the loss of equipment was very nearly terminal. The whole battle plan relied on the Helicopters. Hence the eventual well publicised 'yomp'
Bit of trivia for you.
The only Chinook to survive the Atlantic Conveyor strike was a MK1 serial number ZA718 which was coded BN at the time. And that's only because it was on an airtest after re-assembly onboard. It was known then, and still is today, as "The Survivor" (for good reason) and has always remained coded "BN" no matter what the code is for the particular Squadron it serves on. It's a legend within the RAF and has actually been flown in at least one case by two generations of RAF Chinook Pilots.
It has served in, obviously, the Falklands, Bosnia, The Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Falklands it flew hundreds of hours without scheduled servicing and never missed a beat despite being maintained with no manuals, tools or lubricants !!, it also miraculously survived hitting the water at 100 knots on a night sortie when the Pilot was caught out by a snow storm and suffering disorentation during the ensuing whiteout, on inspection on landing it was found to have suffered nothing more than dents to the airframe and damaged radios and was back flying right away. The Pilot, Sqn Ldr Langworthy, was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross for his skill in recovering the aircraft.
In 1999 in Bosnia it somehow avoided being downed by TWO surface to air missiles fired at it simultaneously despite the onboard countermeasures failing.
In 2006 Flt Lt Craig Wilson was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross for bravery at the controls of "BN" while in Helmand province. The second of three she has earned with different stick monkeys.
In 2010 "BN" again had a Pilot who won a Distinguished Flying Cross (her third) for bravery after the Pilot took a round to the head which fragmented on his flying helmet, although stunned and wounded he continued flying and, despite the aircraft also taking damage to the flying controls, landed safely. The Pilots name this time was .. Flt Lt Fortune.
"BN" has a space reserved in the RAF Museum. An honour extened to no other aircraft since its formation.
"BN" is currently at Camp Bastion still pushing its luck after more than 30 years service.
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/4661/za718th.jpg
Maybe we could use the this Chinook to help with current Volcanic Ash problem.
The Drunken Duck
20-Apr-10, 17:40
Maybe we could use the this Chinook to help with current Volcanic Ash problem.
Its a Helicopter. Its not a Hoover.
:D
Its a Helicopter. Its not a Hoover.
:D
Maybe we could collect all ash and send it to the "Kalahari (H)ash Club"
You can't beat a bit o' wokka wokka wokka!
John Little
20-Apr-10, 18:54
Oh my godfathers!
There's an outbreak of Org cameraderie! :eek:
I think I like it.
The Drunken Duck
21-Apr-10, 07:58
Oh my godfathers!
There's an outbreak of Org cameraderie! :eek:
I think I like it.
Me too.
I tell ya .. "BN" .. that chopper can do ANYTHING !!
PS .. Phill, how right you are .. its the best sound in the world !!
NapalmDeath74
23-Apr-10, 17:53
I am not attempting to deny that conspiracies theories exemplify flawed arguments. Yet what are we left with if conspiracy theories are simply recognized as shrewd, but fallacious arguments that exploit audience weaknesses? The answer, I suggest, is precious little. If we wish to more fully account for how conspiracy theories function in twenty-first century world, then we must be able move beyond treating conspiracy theories solely as flawed arguments. Specifically, I wish to argue that conspiracies fulfill two roles-the argumentative role traditionally studied that asserts that some powerful entity is engaged in a grand scheme to control or deceive the masses, and what I shall call the coded social critique role-an underlying message that critiques various social, political, or economic institutions and actors. In other words, the point of dispute in the competing theories and government accounts is equally over the different institutions' ethos and legitimacy as it is over the facts of the 9/11 etc.
John Little
23-Apr-10, 20:19
Ah but that is really a false dichotomy - there is a third force- ie the rest us us muggles who are left on the sidelines wondering what the hell is going on.
Conspiracy theorists believe that THEY are out to get them.
THEY probably are out to get the conspiracy theorists - who in fact deserve to be got for being such suspicious chiels in the first place.
But the vast majority just go to work, get on with their lives, pay their mortgages and wonder if the oil companies are in a vast conspiracy to put up the price of petrol.
Perhaps some conspiracies matter more thanothers.
Neil Howie
24-Apr-10, 21:23
What I find interesting is how conspiracy theories are adopted as the consensus view.
I may have been viewed slightly odd if I stated in 1998 that I believed there was a secret organisation plotting the downfall of the capitalist West. A few years later, post 9-11 and that becomes an accepted viewpoint.
I would agree that there is a range of conspiracy paranoia from "this could happen", to the extreme reds-under-the-bed tinfoil hat time.
To be a good conspiracy theory, it has to be relevant, not proven .. yet, but could if just the right people talked, or the wrong document got left on a train etc.!
Undoubtedly there is a few on this site, who would consider global warming a govt progaganda conspiracy. And what about fluoride in your drinking water, or the MMR?
By listing ten characteristics of conspiracy theorists, it is a convenient way to label and therefore denigrate their argument before even listening to what they say.
But who would believe anyone like me who writes under a psuedonym? [para]
"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes" is a Latin phrase from Virgil's Aeneid. It means "I fear the Greeks even if they bring gifts".
John Little
24-Apr-10, 21:26
LOL - is that not just another way of saying just because you are paranoid dosn't mean they are not out to get you?
Neil Howie
24-Apr-10, 21:30
Sorry I should have made it clear I was referring to the author quoted in the original post!
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
[quote=Neil Howie;696596]
Undoubtedly there is a few on this site, who would consider global warming a govt progaganda conspiracy.
quote]
It isn't!? :(
John Little
24-Apr-10, 22:00
Course it is - Green taxes and all that.
You pay more!
git it? [lol]
Course it is - Green taxes and all that.
You pay more!
git it? [lol]
See, I knew it I knew it.. blinking robbery that is..:(
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.