Scrutable

Interesting list of some conspiracy theories that turned out to be based in fact.

Add to that list the Post Office scandal/cover up/conspiracy.

https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... roved-true

On a similar vein is George Monbiot's Guardian piece on speaking to a local conspiracy theorist - why do you believe outlandish conspiracy theories with no basis in fact when there are nasty real life ones that are there for you already?

Interestingly, this follows him moving to Totnes which is a hotbed of "alternative thinking" and the focus of one of Marina Spring's first investigations as BBC Disinformation Correspondent.

Also, from personal anecdote, one of MrsFF's old friends lived there, and chatting after their wedding discovered they believed in chemtrails and government cover-up of aliens... although it was good to see, via Facebook, that with the arrival of the pandemic they became fervently pro-vaccination, so maybe finding their way out of that rabbit hole.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... dApp_Other

Contaminated blood scandal

The inquiry has also heard how several batches of minutes and background papers involving the work of the Advisory Committee on the Virological Safety of Blood were shredded between 1994 and 1998. The files were destroyed at a time when officials were told there was “considerable potential for litigation” over infected blood and after ministers were charged in France over the scandal in poisoning haemophiliacs.

Beginning to think accusations of corporate cover-up and dirty tricks at Boeing might turn out to be based on fact.

Terrorist atrocities are quite frequently, in fact, conspiracies by terrorist organisations to commit those atrocities. People can and do get convicted of conspiracy in relation to such criminal acts. At the same time, a proportion are individual actions, rather than conspiracies, such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which was planned and carried out by an individual, not conspiring with anyone else.

This is why it is confusing to talk about "conspiracy theories" relating to such atrocities, such as 9/11. It was in fact a conspiracy, but the boring kind, rather than the more complex multi-lateral kind of conspiracy favoured by "conspiracy theorists".

I think we can say that there was conspiracy in the police relating to the investigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan, because the police were trying to protect various unsatisfactory situations relating to police informants and corrupt actions by police officers.

Whatever was going on in relation to the Deepcut Barracks deaths, how they actually occurred and how they were initially investigated, the subsequent investigations have revealed a lot of relevant misdeeds and incompetence in both the investigating police and the army managing the barracks. Whether there was any explicit collaboration in either institution, or between them, to try and cover various things up, or just the coincidence of various individuals each individually trying to protect themselves from having their misdeeds and/or shortcomings exposed, remains unclear.

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 10:07 am

Terrorist atrocities are quite frequently, in fact, conspiracies by terrorist organisations to commit those atrocities. People can and do get convicted of conspiracy in relation to such criminal acts. At the same time, a proportion are individual actions, rather than conspiracies, such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which was planned and carried out by an individual, not conspiring with anyone else.

... /snip

In Bold: Terry Nichols might dispute that. With good reason.

Opti wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 10:50 am

IvanV wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 10:07 am

Terrorist atrocities are quite frequently, in fact, conspiracies by terrorist organisations to commit those atrocities. People can and do get convicted of conspiracy in relation to such criminal acts. At the same time, a proportion are individual actions, rather than conspiracies, such as the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which was planned and carried out by an individual, not conspiring with anyone else.

... /snip

In Bold: Terry Nichols might dispute that. With good reason.

OK, my mistake. It was a conspiracy and Nichols was in fact convicted of conspiracy. Not a good example to have chosen.

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 7:08 am

On a similar vein is George Monbiot's Guardian piece on speaking to a local conspiracy theorist - why do you believe outlandish conspiracy theories with no basis in fact when there are nasty real life ones that are there for you already?

Perhaps because the more widely known ones don't have the cachet of the obscure, convoluted ones that make believers feel special because they know things the rest of us don't?

Is a conspiracy more complex or larger scale than a cover up? What's the difference?

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 11:21 am

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 7:08 am

On a similar vein is George Monbiot's Guardian piece on speaking to a local conspiracy theorist - why do you believe outlandish conspiracy theories with no basis in fact when there are nasty real life ones that are there for you already?

Perhaps because the more widely known ones don't have the cachet of the obscure, convoluted ones that make believers feel special because they know things the rest of us don't?

Is a conspiracy more complex or larger scale than a cover up? What's the difference?

He tries to answer why it might be in his article. I think it can be summarised as: the untrue ones are such that you can't do anything about them, so you don't have to worry about making an effort and get to just blame all your problems on someone else instead (George says it a bit more compassionately than that, though).

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... y-theorist

There was a conspiracy in the US and UK to misrepresent the reliability of intelligence information on Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 11:42 am

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 11:21 am

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 7:08 am

On a similar vein is George Monbiot's Guardian piece on speaking to a local conspiracy theorist - why do you believe outlandish conspiracy theories with no basis in fact when there are nasty real life ones that are there for you already?

Perhaps because the more widely known ones don't have the cachet of the obscure, convoluted ones that make believers feel special because they know things the rest of us don't?

Is a conspiracy more complex or larger scale than a cover up? What's the difference?

He tries to answer why it might be in his article. I think it can be summarised as: the untrue ones are such that you can't do anything about them, so you don't have to worry about making an effort and get to just blame all your problems on someone else instead (George says it a bit more compassionately than that, though).

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... y-theorist

A point also made in the article is that it’s much easier to believe in conspiracies about people someone doesn’t like, such as Jews in this case.

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Mon May 06, 2024 11:21 am

Is a conspiracy more complex or larger scale than a cover up? What's the difference?

A conspiracy involves secretly plotting to do something dodgy (usually illegal), while a cover up just involves hiding something (e.g. you could cover up an innocent mistake, or something dodgy you'd done as an individual). I'd say cover-ups are a feature of conspiracies, but the conspiracy has to also involve planning to commit mischief. So you'd conspire to burgle an office then you'd cover up that crime as part of the conspiracy.