the-psychology-of-conspiracy-denial

[DiveCon]

csi fraud: Researchers craft fake dna evidence
by john timmer | last updated august 18, 2009 3:22 pm

if there's one application of modern genetics that the public has not only accepted but embraced, it's the use of dna testing in criminal investigations. Courts have accepted dna evidence as definitive, and it's difficult to imagine a movie or tv show that focuses on law enforcement but declines to use dna testing as a plot device. The reason is simple: Given a valid dna sample, the tests can match it to its source with probabilities that exclude the rest of our planet's population. Those probabilities still hold, but some researchers have now looked into whether it's possible to fake a valid dna sample, and they have come up with a disturbing answer: Just about any molecular biology lab has the tools to do so

csi fraud: Researchers craft fake dna evidence

ok, let me get this straight.

It is possible to fake a dna sample therefore the government did fake the dna samples. You somehow rationalize this as some kind of evidence that 19 muslims never hijacked 4 planes.

My rice crispies make more sense than you.....

I have no idea if 19 muslims hijacked planes and either do you
what I know is the investigation was a cover -up and the buildings
did not collapse for the reasons given by NIST

the evidence says you are wrong
but you've denied evidence before so it wont surprise me to see you do it again

 

[eots]

What evidence is that ..the NIST computer simulation ?

 

[Fizz]

I have no idea if 19 muslims hijacked planes and either do you

i told you my rice crispies make more sense than you!!

 

[eots]

ya rice crispes ...what the fuck are you on boy ?

 

[eots]

William Christison (1928 - 2010) – Joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit responsible for political analysis of every country and region in the world.
Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking 3/30/07:

"David Ray Griffin’s Debunking 9/11 Debunking is a superb compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. Government story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous series of lies. Tragically, the entire course of U.S. foreign and domestic policies since that date has grown out of these almost certain falsehoods. This single book could (and should) provide the basis for the United Nations‚ International Court of Justice, or some specially constituted global body (independent of the U.S.) to investigate with highest priority, and publicly report its findings about, the charge that unknown elements within the U.S. Government, and possibly some individuals elsewhere closely allied to the U.S., caused or contributed to causing the events of September 11 to happen."

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Fizz]

ya rice crispes ...what the fuck are you on boy ?

what part didnt you understand?

here... i will type it really slow for you to read again.

my

rice

crispies

make

more

sense

than

you.

 

[eots]

ya rice crispes ...what the fuck are you on boy ?

what part didnt you understand?

here... i will type it really slow for you to read again.

my

rice

crispies

make

more

sense

than

you.

WOW !!..WHAT A LOON !!....GIVE YER HEAD A SHAKE BOY

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rov_A5bSsug]YouTube - U.S. GOVT. DESTROYED 9-11 CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE - 343 MURDERED FIREFIGHTERS CRY FOR JUSTICE[/ame]

 

[Ringel05]

Conspiracy Theories Explained | Psychology Today

shhhhh, stop using actual science

divecon some editorial magazine article ..science lol,..lol..lol

The truth is out there

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

The truth is out there - Vol. 23, Part 7 ( July 2010)

Hofstadter’s (1966) essay on the ‘paranoid style’, in which he examined right-wing conspiracy theories, effectively set the tone of much of the research that was to follow. The paranoid style, Hofstadter (1971, pp.2–3) argued, was a result of ‘uncommonly angry minds’, whose judgement was somehow ‘distorted’. Following this vein, some scholars came to view conspiracy theories as a product of psychopathology, such as extreme paranoia, delusional ideation or narcissism (e.g. Groh, 1987; Plomin & Post, 1997). In this view, the incorrectness of conspiracy theories was usually assumed a priori and, more than this, the delusional aspect of conspiratorial beliefs was thought to result in an incapacity for social or political action (e.g. Hofstadter, 1971).

While it is possible that some people who believe in conspiracy theories suffer forms of psychopathology, this in itself is an incomplete explanation given how widespread conspiracy theories are (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009; Waters, 1997). Hofstadter, however, has remained influential for his interest in why people acquire conspiracy theories, suggesting that a belief in conspiracy theories was more likely to emerge among those who felt powerless, disadvantaged or voiceless, especially in the face of catastrophe. To use a contemporary example, believing that the 7/7 London bombings were perpetrated by the British or Israeli governments may be, for some individuals at least, a means of making sense of turbulent social or political phenomena.

To the extent that conspiracy theories fill a need for certainty, it is thought they may gain more widespread acceptance in instances when establishment or mainstream explanations contain erroneous information, discrepancies, or ambiguities (Miller, 2002). A conspiracy theory, in this sense, helps explain those ambiguities and ‘provides a convenient alternative to living with uncertainty’ (Zarefsky, 1984, p.72). Or as Young and colleagues (1990, p.104) have put it, ‘[T]he human desire for explanations of all natural phenomena – a drive that spurs inquiry on many levels – aids the conspiracist in the quest for public acceptance.’

In addition, it is also thought that conspiracy theories offer explanations of the world that are not contradicted by information available to adherents. In the context of extremism, Hardin (2002) has discussed what he calls a ‘crippled epistemology’: in some cases, extremism is not an irrational response, but rather stems from the fact that people have very little correct or accurate information. Sunstein and Vermeule (2009) apply a similar perspective to conspiracy theories: those who believe in conspiracy theories may be responding rationally and logically to what little information they receive, even if that information appears absurd in relation to wider, publicly available knowledge.

Other scholars have extended or revised Hofstadter’s original powerlessness conjecture in order to explain how adherents come to hold conspiracy theories. Some have suggested that an inability to attain goals leads to conspiracy theories (Edelman, 1985; Inglehart, 1987), while others view conspiracy theories as affording adherents a means of maintaining self-esteem (e.g. Robins & Post, 1997), coping with persecution (Combs et al., 2002), reasserting individualism (Davis, 1969; Melley, 2000), expressing negative feelings (Ungerleider & Wellisch, 1979) or reaffirming imagined positions of exclusive knowledge (Mason, 2002). These contrasting theories, however, share the distinguishing assumption that conspiracy theories are a rational attempt to understand complex phenomena and deal with feelings of powerlessness. In this sense, such beliefs reveal not psychopathological minds but the lived experience and consciousness of groups of individuals (Sanders & West, 2003).

 

[eots]

shhhhh, stop using actual science

divecon some editorial magazine article ..science lol,..lol..lol

The truth is out there

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED AS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY DOES NOT EXIST..ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE FIRST RESPONDERS FEATURED HERE ARE SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONAL THINKING NOT GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND REASON ?..CAN YOU EVEN FORM A INTELLIGENT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ?

 

[DiveCon]

divecon some editorial magazine article ..science lol,..lol..lol

The truth is out there

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED AS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY DOES NOT EXIST..ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE FIRST RESPONDERS FEATURED HERE ARE SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONAL THINKING NOT GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND REASON ?..CAN YOU EVEN FORM A INTELLIGENT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ?

no, it doesnt you delusional moron

 

[eots]

The truth is out there

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED AS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY DOES NOT EXIST..ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE FIRST RESPONDERS FEATURED HERE ARE SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONAL THINKING NOT GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND REASON ?..CAN YOU EVEN FORM A INTELLIGENT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ?

no, it doesnt you delusional moron

No what doesn't you drooling cretin ?..what kind of response is that to the question ?

 

[Fizz]

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED AS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY DOES NOT EXIST..ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE FIRST RESPONDERS FEATURED HERE ARE SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONAL THINKING NOT GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND REASON ?..CAN YOU EVEN FORM A INTELLIGENT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ?

HAHahahahahaha!!!!!!

now crimes exist until they are proven not to?!!!

how the fuck does a first responder get entitled to know what evidence was gathered?

airplanes were fucking flown into buildings... it was shown live on TV. how much more fucking evidence do you need?!!

 

[eots]

The truth is out there

Viren Swami and Rebecca Coles look at belief in conspiracy theories

THE ENTIRE PREMISE IS COMPLETELY FLAWED AS IT ASSUMES THAT THE CRIME OF CONSPIRACY DOES NOT EXIST..ARE YOU TRYING TO IMPLY THAT THE FIRST RESPONDERS FEATURED HERE ARE SUFFERING FROM DELUSIONAL THINKING NOT GROUNDED IN LOGIC AND REASON ?..CAN YOU EVEN FORM A INTELLIGENT RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ?

HAHahahahahaha!!!!!!

now crimes exist until they are proven not to?!!!

how the fuck does a first responder get entitled to know what evidence was gathered?

airplanes were fucking flown into buildings... it was shown live on TV. how much more fucking evidence do you need?!!

we are all privileged to the evidence gathered idiot boy it is in the NIST report
no plane hit the wtc 7 and the planes alone do not explain the nature of the collapse

 

[Fizz]

no plane hit the wtc 7

nobody is claiming one did.

and the planes alone do not explain the nature of the collapse

again, nobody is making that claim.

 

[Ringel05]

no, it doesnt you delusional moron

No what doesn't you drooling cretin ?..what kind of response is that to the question ?

You pick one specific and twist it to your "benefit". Who's being delusional?

 

[eots]

no plane hit the wtc 7

nobody is claiming one did.

and the planes alone do not explain the nature of the collapse

again, nobody is making that claim.

you said planes flew into buildings what more evidence is needed

 

[Fizz]

no plane hit the wtc 7

nobody is claiming one did.

and the planes alone do not explain the nature of the collapse

again, nobody is making that claim.

you said planes flew into buildings what more evidence is needed

correct.

 

[eots]

No what doesn't you drooling cretin ?..what kind of response is that to the question ?

You pick one specific and twist it to your "benefit". Who's being delusional?

you are...you have zero specifics..yet form opinions

 

[eots]

nobody is claiming one did.

again, nobody is making that claim.

you said planes flew into buildings what more evidence is needed

correct.

well thats just crazy how do you know explosives did not play a roll ?

 

[DiveCon]

you said planes flew into buildings what more evidence is needed

correct.

well thats just crazy how do you know explosives did not play a roll ?

lack of evidence of explosives