Throughout history, people have believed the worst of others - including their own leaders. This mistrust has lead to numerous conspiracy theories, theories in which people assume that someone is plotting something bad.

Here are some examples:

1. George Bush had foreknowledge of/a hand in Sept. 11.

2. Franklin Roosevelt had foreknowledge of/a hand in Pearl Harbor (it certainly made his peace time draft look good, right?)

3. The German government is secretly rounding up the Jews for mass extermination (1942.)

4. The Spanish government is going to invade the United States (Around 1900 – it got us an empire quickly enough.)

5. The WHO/IMF/World Bank are a network of bankers that make all the effective decisions about how the world is run.

6. JFK.

7. The Christians are an evil sacrificial/cannibalistic sect trying to bring down our traditional values – (50 AD.)

The list could easily go on.

Is it safe to dismiss conspiracy theories simply because they fly in the face of what we want to believe? Are conspiracy theorists merely paranoid?

Question for debate:

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?

I voted no, but misread your question and just realised as I clicked...the question does not ask for a yes or no answer

So what I mean when I vote no is it is not better to write off theories as paranoia.

Interestingly, I just watched a detailed documentary about the John Kennedy assassination on Wednesday. Over the years I had watched and read many programs and articles discussing it, after the Oliver Stone movie caught my attention. It was only on Wednesday that something actually convinced me that Oswald acted alone. Perhaps if I had been involved in a debate I would have come across more information sooner; as it was I had always assumed some sort of conspiracy was in place 40 years ago. Now; with more detailed information on Oswalds upbringing and how/why he killed Kennedy, plus clarification on how it was possible to get an accurate shot from the book depository, and how the evidence that there was a fourth shot wasn't any good, I can see a clearer picture. I am normally a paranoid pessimist, but I think real debate of conspiracy theories will settle most of my fears

It is my belief that it is healthy and neccesary to question your leaders, to have doubts about authority. Democracy is far from perfect. It doesn't mean we have to think the worst of our presidents, prime ministers, kings or queens... just that we should never 'leave them to it'. 'He is the President, he knows best' is, in my opinion, a very scary statement.

Yeah, my topic was in response to something I read in a different topic in which people discussed the possibility of the Bush administration having prior knowledge of an airplane based attack against the U.S.

One of the people in the topic claimed that even thinking of such a thing was crazy, and that if that had been the case Bush would have been impeached already.

AND TO ALL THOSE WHO READ THE POLL: I SCREWED UP!!! I forgot to delete the second clause in the question, so the poll should read simply:

"Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate?"

I too made the mistake of robin_scotland.

I feel too often that the mere term "conspiracy-theory" is use to quelsh any and all debate about a subject. besides all a "conspiracy theory" is is an assumption based on limited information or knowledge of a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an act.

I firmly believe that oswald did NOT act alone. my biggest reason is of course the zapruder film, in which JFK's head is knocked backwards (as one would expect from a bullet from the front) anypne that has done any decent amount of rifle shooting will know that a target goes in the opposite direction of a bullet. this is basic physics: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. there are other reasons I believe there WAS a conspiracy as well, but don't feel like getting to into them.

I also firmly feel that bush, or at least people in his adminstration, knew something was up on the morning of 9/11. the biggest thing that makes me think this is that the secret service did not remove the president from the school when his location was known publicly for 24 hours beforehand. it would have been simple to change targets from the pentagon to booker elementery in that time. the only explanation is they knew the school was not a target. again, this isn't the only evidence of a governmental conspiracy of 9/11 (though I feel OUR government had little actual involvment aside from knowledge) but it would take too long to post all the evidence in support of it (instead check out WRH.COM: 9/11 basic questions

some of your other examples show how stupid it is to dismiss theories involving conspiracies. what if people had listened to the conspiracy theorist of germany that hitler was planning on taking the country over and was going to round up undesirables? (more than just jews were rounded up)

the biggest government conspiracy of all is the claim that there are no government conspiracies.

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?

When we dismiss something out of hand we lose the opportunity to learn the truth, no matter what that truth is. Another way of phrasing the question might be: should we let the attitudes of a majority of people keep us from finding out something for ourselves?

Our government doesn't do everything out in the sunshine for all to see. There are covert operations, there are actions taken on the edge of or outside of the law that would be damaging to those involved should the public hear about them. I do not find the idea of one politician being complicit in the assassination of another as so unusual--look at centuries of precedent in other countries. It just might be that those in this country have learned how to cover their tracks better.

Case in point: Why did Jack Ruby kill Lee Harvey Oswald? Who told Jack Ruby to do that? Because we don't know, does that mean that nobody else was involved? If I were Jack Ruby, why would I opt to eliminate Oswald in front of Federal marshalls and a television camera? What would have been learned from Lee Harvey Oswald had he lived?

As far as I can tell, those generally referred to as conspiracy theorists tend to know a lot more about the the objects of their obsessions than most historians. Granted, they may arrange and/or interpret their data to support a relatively paranoid conclusion, but at least they have data - which is much more than can be said for the average citizen. As the authors of The 80 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time put it, conspiracy theory is "fact mixed with conjecture, blended with error, and expressed with certitude".

If one can distinguish between fact and conjecture (the errors are usually fairly obvious) and ignore the certitude, such theories can be revealing - and often tell you a lot more than The Nation and NewsMax combined. One should be careful, though, to also distinguish between conspiracy theory and conspiracy history. There are - and always have been - people who work together to promote vested interests, often covertly. A lot of this has been well documented throughout history and is generally accepted as accurate: Watergate would be a prime example. It should also be noted that much of our current "news" contains as much "theory" as Apolloscam or the history of the Merovingian bloodline.

I treat conspiracy theories the same as I treat Fox News: if you examine them closely enough, you might come across some real bits of information and sometimes, however rarely, they actually get the story right. Well, maybe not on Fox News - but you know what I mean... in theory.

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?

The former. Sometimes "paranoia" means "having all the facts" - and, if left uninvestigated, one could miss what's really going on.

Right you are, my friend. One of the biggest factors that sparked my political interest in the last two years is so called 'conspiracy theories.' I found that the term conspiracy theory has been thrown around far too loosely, and carries with it far more negative connotation then is deserved. A theory is a theory is a theory, not fact, a theory:
The first time I ever really read into all the funny things that happened before 9.11 I became totally attuned to contradictory information as it was presented by the media, and I noticed, when questioned about Bush having previous knowledge of the possibility of attacks, many answered to the effect of: "i will not discuss conspiracy theory."

To believe that anything that questions the status quo is conspiracy is far more paranoid than conspiracy theorists are assumed to be.

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?

One should always be wary of theories, and one should always be open-minded to their ability to be either fact or fiction. If we assume anything before proof has been found then disable our ability to percieve truth in the world around us. The further our perception takes us away from the truth, well the worse off we are.

Well I'll play the heavy and be less forgiving. The vast majority of conspiracy theories I hear about sound (for the moment, until new evidence arrives) to be 100% unadulterated crap. Suitable only for distribution by e-mail, with an option to give a credit card number to help out "the cause"

Of course conspiracy theories could play out to be true, It's just that it rarely happens. So when confronted with a conspiracy theory, it's best to be skeptical. If the theory is true it will show itself as such.

...it the theory's proponents just complain about you having your head in the sand without presenting further evidence...

You know you've found a stinker.

For me, the proof of the conspiracy is on those who put it up for debate. If the Warren commission messed up, you have to prove it. Of course, Gerald Posner did a heck of a job of demolishing the little JFK assassination cottage industry that has flourished for too long. All of the items you listed were easy to debunk since each one of them contains a "gulf" which is only breached by conjecture and far-flung events that would have to occur in order for them to be true. So yes, I would say that I just don't take it seriously at all.

The interesting thing to me about conspiracy theory is the perfect illustration of human psychology it presents. People will grasp at the slightest detail that confirms their belief while simultaneously ignoring vast evidence to the contrary. Testimony in opposition is a “lie”, especially from government sources. Strangely, other accounts offering quotes from those same government sources taken out of context are embraced absolutely if they validate the conviction of the believer. If part of the conspiracy is successfully debunked, that detail is simply discarded, but never discredits the overall conspiracy in the mind of the believer.

I don’t disregard all conspiracy theory (though I do disregard most of the famous ones). If bin Laden is found a week before the next election, I would raise an eyebrow…But theories that fail the simplest reasonability test (almost all of them) I do discard.

I couldn't have said it better! I think the term conspiracy itself reflects the bias of people who want to believe what they are presented without critical analysis.

Many people look inside themselves and find that even they can do bad things to other people and lie about it, and it is NATURAL to project that onto others - especially those with the capability to do large scale bad things.

In 1970, Watergate would have seemed like a conspiracy theory. Yeah right, people would have said - the president would never use the CIA and FBI (and millions of dollars of public funds) to rig an election. What a bunch of 100% unadulterated crap.



I would suggest this test - if it CAN be possible, it MIGHT be possible, even if it is UNLIKELY.

This is perhaps the most minimal, conservative, and skeptical test for conspiracy theories. Then, the theory can be tested to see how it works with relevant facts. This two stage approach can be said to be first a test of theoretic possibility (is the theory logically sound? does it square with motivations that people sometimes have? have similar things happened before?) and secondly of actual existence.

Take one theory:

The WTO/IMF/World Bank are a dark cabal that secretly run the western world, and prop up sham democracies to placate people and keep up all in line.

Possibility - the theory is internally consistent to a point, the few bankers I know would definitely be the types of people to try to pull something like this, and MANY times in the past banks that fund governments have tried to pull strings once the government is deeply enough in debt.

Actuality – There is no reason why any of these three diverse institutions would really want to cooperate in the power play. The WTO really lacks enforcement power, and is just a forum for international business litigation and arbitration. In this case, my guess is that people fear what they don’t understand. The IMF, on the other hand, has had a role in many dubious privatization schemes in the third world, like forcing the government of Nigeria to privatize the water system which had been paid for with taxes – selling people water they had already paid for. The World Bank has lent out less than 750 billion dollars total in 50 years (as compared with Citigroup which lends out almost that much every year). These groups are all NGOs, and have boards of directors that answer to no one but themselves –oligarchies that lack territory. Thinking back to 14th and 15th century Italy, it was groups like these that displaced many of the City State Republics with corporate oligarchies. While there is no way these organizations currently have the funding to compete with the U.S., U.K. or for that matter the German or Japanese government, they (at least the two banks) have rapidly expanding finances and consequently growing power. While they are used largely by the western democracies as tools in the third world, they could one day use that power against us.

It turns out that this is not a “conspiracy” at all but rather an ascendancy of private NGOs that practice a political philosophy antithetical to the democracy they preach. By analyzing the “conspiracy theory,” we have learned many things about this issue. There are two extreme points of view – the dark cabal-ists and the prethought dismiss-ers; there are probably many other points of view as well. If the dark cabal-ists sit down and think through the facts of the situation they are concerned about to make a reasoned decision (even if that means not being a cabal-ist anymore), and the dismiss-ers do not, which of the two groups really has the better claim to logic and rationality? It looks from this like the conspiracy people do.

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?

I think its important to at least question the value of conspiracy-theory. Many people in this country brush them off as made-up bedtime stories. If thats the case, then question why is corporate America is getting all of the benefits from the government. Folks,in my opinion, most conspiracy theories are true. I really believe there is a group out there wanting to dominate the world. Why do I believe that? Its simple, GREED!

Most men will do anything, and I mean anything to achieve power. To them, their goal is to be God. We have to ask ourselves, why are most politicians and political leaders corrupt? Because we have this attitude of them that "he/she cares about people like me" or "we share the same values". Therefore, they say anything to make us have this attitude and in return we give them our trust (big mistakle!!)

Bottom line, I believe if the people were to know everything that goes on in the dark, it will cause a state of panic.

Is it better to take so-called ‘conspiracy-theories’ at face value and seek to prove or disprove them in debate, or dismiss them as paranoia?


I have a little test for new theories I hear, and then I categorize them.

I look at the theory and ask:

1. If it were true, could it be proven true?

2. If so, I try to find out more about it (if it's a theory that interests me, anyway. I don't care that much about Marilyn Monroe's drug overdose/suicide/murder)

3. Then if I say yes to one and two, I try to find out everything I can on it. Like Operation Phoenix. I heard rumors about it, put it in the 'Saltshaker' (take this with the whole shaker of salt, not just a grain) in both my mind and, in this case, on my website. Turns out, there was such a program, although it's hard to get much info on it.

4. In the case of Phoenix, it's out of the saltshaker (not all the details are, of course) and into my fact box.

Now, that eliminates alien theories (Under number 1), unless an alien walked up to me and somehow proved, while I was sober, the place we were in was well-lit, and I'd had a good night's sleep prior, that it/he/she is indeed an alien (bleeds green? Takes me for a ride in the mother ship?) All of which I must remember perfectly afterward, of course, and not under 'hypnosis'! Then I'll say yes to number one, it can be proven true (to my satisfaction, of course) and I can proceed to number 2, or to an insane asylum. Depending.

Until that happens, I leave the alien thing alone. I'm not that interested in it anyway, although if number 1 were satisfied, I'd develop an interest, I guess.

To see if a given theory might be proveable and likely, I look back at history. Especially FOIA documents, where the government is telling on itself.


Example: did the CIA try to oust Chavez and succeed in ousting Allende?


So I go back and look at FOIA documents on Chile and news reports on our meddling in Australian elections, and the overthrow of Arbenz, and so on, and I conclude that it's possible, given the CIA's past behavior. Sort of like trying to learn about a distant star when all we really have to go by is 'old light'.

Now I'm proceeding with both of these. I've been gathering information as best I can on them. American involvement in the Aristide coup in particular is well on its way to my fact box. We did, after all, have ties with a major coup leader. Aristide was, in fact, taken away in a plane and dropped off in an impoverished, dictatorial, French-influenced African nation, and he says it's against his will. A quick look at history, both old and more recent, shows an animosity toward people like Aristide and indeed for Aristide himself.

So that's how I look at conspiracy theories.

I voted no. But I would have voted yes if youi had said "look at them with a grain of salt" and then debate them. I almost NEVER taken anyhing at face value BEFORE I check it out.

I am glad you asked about conspiracy theories. I seldom give them much thought. Anything about which Oliver Stone does a movie is immediately suspect in my book.

Your post is really a statement explaining your particular method for screening theories.

Mine follows a similar path but adds a few other ingredients.

My extra ingredients include:

1. Always follow the financial/political benefits to the suspected beneficiary. In politics, it is fairly simple. Power and money go hand in hand. An example would be the Swift Boat Veterans ad. Look at the businesses or business who benefit financially from keeping the status quo in this case.

2. Always look at the motivations and size of the group of "witnesses", "participants", "victims", "players" etc. In the Swift Boat Ads, the group was small enough and had motivation enough to be dragged along because of a resentment about Kerry's anti-war statements after Viet Nam. They weren't forced to lie about their dislike for him but neither were they eye-witnesses. The financier (a homebuilder) certainly made financial gains from Republican-backed legislation passed in Texas registering homebuilders. Unlike a true consumer-friendly licensing bill, the builder-backed registration legislation prohibits law suits for shoddy workmanship and instead forces home buyers to submit to binding arbitration while abrogating their right to sue. Both Governors Bush and Perry championed this cause for homebuilders.

3. How many people have to keep quiet concerning their involvement for the conspiriacy to stay in tact? With small groups, this ingredient is easy to manage but with large groups, the payoffs necessary to keep bit players or "little people" quiet is hard to manage. You either pay them off or eliminate them. This is where most conspiracies unravel before they become very old. Unless you're "the mob", eliminating the bit players is tough without attracting unwanted suspicion.

In short, I would add to your list:

Who benefits? How do they benefit? How many players must they have to carry out the conspiracy effectively?

How do they keep the players from whistle-blowing?

How much money will the power the orchesrators gain bring them?

Who could bring down the house of cards and how much money will have to be paid to how many people to ensure not one of those people will talk?

I also use http://www.snopes.com to check out rumors.

As for the guy who invented an engine that runs on water but was given huge sums of money by oil companies for it and then those companies hid the idea? Ha Ha Ha. When Philip Morris realized American sales were going down and the government, along with the Surgeon General, was after them, they had already begun to diversify. Sure there was a conspiracy there and they are paying for it now. However, they made so much money, the billion dollar fines are but a blip on the radar screen.

Back to the guy with the water engine. Wouldn't his neighbor, his wife, the guys at his real job, his banker, his investment broker, or the guys at the country club he must have joined have known something? Where did he test it? Who might have seen him test it? Wouldn't the Oil Company have sold itself to a competitor and jumped directly into revolutionizing the world's auto fleet at a profit that would have made their old profits look like monopoly money?

By the way, I think Rush Limbaugh killed Vince Foster and then tried to frame Hillary Clinton. He did it to pay the housekeeper hush money and to have material for six months worth of radio shows. I know that because my old company used to manufacture those extra large nose-pieces for the single engine planes that were used to smuggle drugs into Mena, Arkansas, for the Clintons to sell.

I've got to sign off now. If I say any more, another one of my dogs may again be run over by a black Suburban driven by G. Gordon Liddy and with a passenger resembling Chuck Colson.

How many millions of Americans knew that Franklin D. Roosevelt couldn't walk? It was a conspiracy of sorts between the White House and the press. The press did not show photos in the paper or on newsreels of Roosevelt in the wheelchair. It was for an obvious reason: so the people wouldn't lose faith in him because he was a "cripple."

A few hours ago I finished watching a CNN special about "The First Patient." In it Dr. Sanjay Gupta covered a lot of the secrets that doctors and medical staff kept from the public about the Presidents and the illnesses they had. It was fascinating. One segment talked about a physician known as "Dr. Feelgood" who, while he was not the President's official physician, gave him injections and pills. One witness testified that this doctor had President on amphetamines while he was visiting Krushchev, and he remembered the doctor giving Kennedy an injection in the throat area!

Another segment dealt with the fact that while President Ronald Reagan was still in the hospital under sedation after the attempted assassination, his "Troika" was there in the hospital at 6:30 a.m. the morning after his surgery and had him sign some kind of farm bill! That should have been illegal. As a matter of fact, George H.W. Bush should have been acting President until President Reagan was declared by his doctors to be well enough to take up the reins of the Presidency again.

Of course, if no one ever questions, the truth about these things doesn't come out.
Who would have thought that a President of the United States would order his minions to break into the opposition party's headquarters to find out their strategy and to be re-elected? But it happened.

This stuff is different from "Bat Boy" and space monkey babies on the front covers of the tabloids.