95% of the general public have no understanding of science other than the wafting-through they got in their elementary, secondary, or undergraduate educations - perhaps if they did a degree in hard science or engineering *and* did research, they'd have a good understanding of what science is and how it is done. *No* journalist I've ever come across has any understanding - and in my experience, they cannot be taught. I was the Press Officer for my research group at the University of Florida, presided over by Prof, who'd done his PhD at Oxford, had been a lecturer at Cambridge, and was the founder of the Chemistry Department at UEA Norwich in 1962. In addition to the letters PhD after his name, he had three more - FRS. The newspapers had started calling him at one point, and he didn't want to waste his time on them, so he had a graduate student - me - waste my time. My first - and last - interview with a reporter ended up with me spending two hours talking to a guy who had no real understanding of anything, really, and much less science or chemistry, putting things in as simple a form as I could. He showed me his resultant story, and it was just wrong, he'd made it more "sexy" and refused to fix it - something about prior restraint... The day it came out, I got called on the carpet by Prof. "BLOODY HELL, what did you tell this guy? This is absolute bloody nonsense, it has nothing to do with what we're doing..." and so forth, for about ten minutes, in which Prof ripped the story to shreds. And I told him that I'd spent two hours talking with, explaining, and asking the reporter questions to ensure that he knew what was going on, and figured I'd done my job. Of course, the reporter produced an "absolute load of bollocks, utter codswallop" (as Prof put it) and the paper printed it. After that, we put out paragraph-long press releases in simple English which didn't say much of anything, and refused interview requests... And the public knows what the press "knows", and the internet has made it much worse.
The official 9-11 story is utter balderdash, and it's obvious to anyone with any knowledge of science who has taken a cursory look at it. Same case for the "vaccines" and the Great Plague - there is no way they could have been more effective than placebo - and the masks and the rest were stage props in a psychodrama. Same case for the official story of the JFK and RFK assassinations - Carlos Hathcock and a team of snipers at Quantico tried to replicate the shot that killed JFK and could not, after a week of trying, and powder residue was found on RFK's scalp and neck, the entry wound was above and behind RFK's right ear, per Dr Thomas Noguchi, the LA coroner who examined the body - Sirhan Sirhan was no closer than six feet away and in front.
If you haven't any knowledge sufficient to make a critical examination of any event, calling it a name - "conspiracy theory" - will suffice for you and others. Similarly, calling someone a "racist" or "transphobe" removes all objections to bad policies. These tactics work, that's why they're used - as well as others, summarized here: https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/for-reference-the-25-rules-of-disinformation If you actually read my substack piece, leave a comment
I certainly agree that calling something a "conspiracy theory" doesn't render it false - the very fact that conspiracies exist is proof enough of that. Interesting point that it's similar to modern accusations of bigotry - a pejorative in the absence of an argument.
Of course, some have argued Tuskagee isn’t a conspiracy at all: https://www.spiked-online.com/2004/01/08/tuskegee-re-examined/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Thanks! I didn’t know that actually. I'll have a read.
Closer to Tekumloops imo, but I understand there are arguments to the contrary.
95% of the general public have no understanding of science other than the wafting-through they got in their elementary, secondary, or undergraduate educations - perhaps if they did a degree in hard science or engineering *and* did research, they'd have a good understanding of what science is and how it is done. *No* journalist I've ever come across has any understanding - and in my experience, they cannot be taught. I was the Press Officer for my research group at the University of Florida, presided over by Prof, who'd done his PhD at Oxford, had been a lecturer at Cambridge, and was the founder of the Chemistry Department at UEA Norwich in 1962. In addition to the letters PhD after his name, he had three more - FRS. The newspapers had started calling him at one point, and he didn't want to waste his time on them, so he had a graduate student - me - waste my time. My first - and last - interview with a reporter ended up with me spending two hours talking to a guy who had no real understanding of anything, really, and much less science or chemistry, putting things in as simple a form as I could. He showed me his resultant story, and it was just wrong, he'd made it more "sexy" and refused to fix it - something about prior restraint... The day it came out, I got called on the carpet by Prof. "BLOODY HELL, what did you tell this guy? This is absolute bloody nonsense, it has nothing to do with what we're doing..." and so forth, for about ten minutes, in which Prof ripped the story to shreds. And I told him that I'd spent two hours talking with, explaining, and asking the reporter questions to ensure that he knew what was going on, and figured I'd done my job. Of course, the reporter produced an "absolute load of bollocks, utter codswallop" (as Prof put it) and the paper printed it. After that, we put out paragraph-long press releases in simple English which didn't say much of anything, and refused interview requests... And the public knows what the press "knows", and the internet has made it much worse.
The official 9-11 story is utter balderdash, and it's obvious to anyone with any knowledge of science who has taken a cursory look at it. Same case for the "vaccines" and the Great Plague - there is no way they could have been more effective than placebo - and the masks and the rest were stage props in a psychodrama. Same case for the official story of the JFK and RFK assassinations - Carlos Hathcock and a team of snipers at Quantico tried to replicate the shot that killed JFK and could not, after a week of trying, and powder residue was found on RFK's scalp and neck, the entry wound was above and behind RFK's right ear, per Dr Thomas Noguchi, the LA coroner who examined the body - Sirhan Sirhan was no closer than six feet away and in front.
If you haven't any knowledge sufficient to make a critical examination of any event, calling it a name - "conspiracy theory" - will suffice for you and others. Similarly, calling someone a "racist" or "transphobe" removes all objections to bad policies. These tactics work, that's why they're used - as well as others, summarized here: https://streamfortyseven.substack.com/p/for-reference-the-25-rules-of-disinformation If you actually read my substack piece, leave a comment
I certainly agree that calling something a "conspiracy theory" doesn't render it false - the very fact that conspiracies exist is proof enough of that. Interesting point that it's similar to modern accusations of bigotry - a pejorative in the absence of an argument.
I like the list of points from H. Michael Sweeney. In googling him, I found this book, which probably needs a modern update in the online age: https://www.amazon.com/Professional-Paranoid-H-Michael-Sweeney/dp/0922915547
It would need considerable updating - think about the Pegasus software - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZVj1_SE4Mo
Dancing Israelis are more interesting to me than Building 7.