The Top Ten Conspiracy Theories - If You Believed One Of Them

[Verbal]

I've never been convinced by the Stephen Milligan explanations.

 

I'm not surprised. He was a lousy Tory MP.

[Halo Stickman]

Norman Baker, MP for Lewes, has probably done the most public work on the death of Dr. Kelly. He took a sabbatical from his shadow ministerial post to write a book about it. He concludes that Kelly was likely murdered, but stops well short of implicating anyone in government circles. One of his theories is that an Iraqi cell took Dr Kelly out.

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Strange-Death-David-Kelly/dp/1842752170

 

I'll never forget the day myself. I was in Parliament on business at the time and was with two civil servants. Their immediate reaction was that he'd been "done". At the time, I was a little disturbed that they reached the conclusion so readily.

 

Thanks for posting that link, Pap.

 

People like Halpin and Baker are obviously passionate in their belief that Dr Kelly didn’t commit suicide, but isn’t passion sometimes problematic? Isn’t it the case that the more passionate we are about something, the less objective and impartial we’re likely to be? And the more time, money and effort we invest in our passion, the less objective and impartial we become.

 

For example, like the overwhelming majority on this forum I am a passionate Saints’ supporter. If I read that an inquiry had found that Portsmouth had better supporters than Saints, I would immediately think that can’t be right and protest about it. Perhaps I’d feel so passionate about it that I would take a year out and spend lots of my own money writing a book entitled Saints Have Better Supporters Than Portsmouth. During the research, I would seek out all the examples that showed that Saints had the better supporters, whilst ignoring anything to the contrary. But imagine, just imagine, the further into the research I got, the more I started to turn up evidence that Portsmouth did indeed have better supporters – I know, I know, it’s repugnant to even imagine such a thing! But suppose that did happen, how likely is it that I would change my views and alter the title to Portsmouth Have Better Supporters Than Saints? Not only is it unlikely, it just would never happen!

 

But, hey Pap, I’ve just subjected us to that horrible thought experiment without even reading Baker’s book! Perhaps he’s objective and impartial throughout, and it is me that is displaying a lack of objectivity and impartiality. I’ll try to find some time to read it and let you know what I think.

[jjsaint]

Isn't Norman Baker regarded by most (i.e. the rational general public) as a bit of a loony? Just sayin'.

[pap]

Isn't Norman Baker regarded by most (i.e. the rational general public) as a bit of a loony? Just sayin'.

 

I'm not entirely sure most of the general public would even know who Norman Baker is. I'm certainly only aware of him through his critically acclaimed work. Does he have a history of embarrassing gaffes that would have caught the public's imagination?

 

Anyway, could just be a case of Baker getting flak because he's over the target.

[Verbal]

Isn't Norman Baker regarded by most (i.e. the rational general public) as a bit of a loony? Just sayin'.

 

Indeed. And like other conspiracy theorists he's nothing more than an internet troll with a narcissistic scumbag's disregard for the feelings of those who live closely with such tragedies. In addition to "theorising" about Kelly, he's also concluded that Robin Cook was murdered because - ta da! - "he was walking MOD land."

 

However, this particular scumbag is also number two at the Home Office, imposed on Theresa May by Clegg's palpable lack of talent, or rational minds, in the LibDem ranks. This means we have the first conspiracy theorist to be in charge of the National Crime Agency, drug and alcohol policy and forensic science.

 

So a loon, yes. But one with power. Such is the bottomless pit that is this coalition.

[pap]

Indeed. And like other conspiracy theorists he's nothing more than an internet troll with a narcissistic scumbag's disregard for the feelings of those who live closely with such tragedies. In addition to "theorising" about Kelly, he's also concluded that Robin Cook was murdered because - ta da! - "he was walking MOD land."

 

However, this particular scumbag is also number two at the Home Office, imposed on Theresa May by Clegg's palpable lack of talent, or rational minds, in the LibDem ranks. This means we have the first conspiracy theorist to be in charge of the National Crime Agency, drug and alcohol policy and forensic science.

 

So a loon, yes. But one with power. Such is the bottomless pit that is this coalition.

 

The feelings of those left behind must be paramount?

 

In the specific cases of Kelly and Cook, both are seen to have been people that could have halted the seemingly inevitable path to war, a war that directly or indirectly, has cost the lives of over a million people, turned Iraq into a sectarian hell-hole and cost the UK most of what remaining moral authority it could still claim to have.

 

In cases with such obvious public interest, is it really fair to say that the feelings of Kelly's and Cook's families are the most important factor at play?

[pap]

This thread seems to have died a death. A couple of interesting links/resources for anyone interested.

 

First up, an article of the way that the BBC has reported 9/11 that claims that the BBC is in breach of its charter by not presenting a balanced view.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036

 

Next, a video referenced in the same article which backs this up. The Beeb were doing a show on conspiracy theories and were interviewing Dr Niels Harrit. He only agreed to the interview on the basis that he could have his own people record it in its entirety. The video is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it's clear from the outset (and throughout) that the BBC reporter already has a point of view. Second, most of the interview is spent attempting to discredit the interviewee, instead of discussing the issues at hand. Additionally, all of the old tricks you see on here are used again. Harrit continually tries to keep the interview focused on hard evidence. The interviewer is constantly trying to get him to produce a theory. It's a long watch at 2hours, but it's an interesting insight into how mainstream media handles the subject, and there is definitely a case to suggest that the BBC isn't treating the material impartially.

 

[video=youtube;XF334x-xWz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334x-xWz8

Edited 25 November, 2013 by pap

[hypochondriac]

Probs going to stay out of this one, ta.

 

Enjoy.

 

This thread seems to have died a death. A couple of interesting links/resources for anyone interested.

 

First up, an article of the way that the BBC has reported 9/11 that claims that the BBC is in breach of its charter by not presenting a balanced view.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/911-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-the-bbcs-role-in-distorting-the-evidence-and-misleading-the-public/5359036

 

Next, a video referenced in the same article which backs this up. The Beeb were doing a show on conspiracy theories and were interviewing Dr Niels Harrit. He only agreed to the interview on the basis that he could have his own people record it in its entirety. The video is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it's clear from the outset (and throughout) that the BBC reporter already has a point of view. Second, most of the interview is spent attempting to discredit the interviewee, instead of discussing the issues at hand. Additionally, all of the old tricks you see on here are used again. Harrit continually tries to keep the interview focused on hard evidence. The interviewer is constantly trying to get him to produce a theory. It's a long watch at 2hours, but it's an interesting insight into how mainstream media handles the subject, and there is definitely a case to suggest that the BBC isn't treating the material impartially.

 

[video=youtube;XF334x-xWz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF334x-xWz8

 

Can't help yourself.

[pap]

Can't help yourself.

 

Neither can you, but I put in a tad more effort