How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

sponsoredwalk

That is the most illogical post I've read in this whole thread.
First bring up recently deceased Martin Gardner for the hell of it.
Then write BLAH BLAH BLAH where Shermer makes arguments.
To top it all off add in the standard rhetoric & insults using nothing
to justify anything you say while hinting at more conspiracy "who you know....".
What's worse is that you've been asked a good few questions to which
you still haven't provided any answers & I'd say it's because you can't
offer up any because your last statements were similarly, though not as,
ridiculous. Crazy...

uprising2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That is the most illogical post I've read in this whole thread.
First bring up recently deceased Martin Gardner for the hell of it.
Then write BLAH BLAH BLAH where Shermer makes arguments.
To top it all off add in the standard rhetoric & insults using nothing
to justify anything you say while hinting at more conspiracy "who you know....".
What's worse is that you've been asked a good few questions to which
you still haven't provided any answers & I'd say it's because you can't
offer up any because your last statements were similarly, though not as,
ridiculous. Crazy...

If you've been asking me
questions in there with the
lyrics or poems your
trying to write
I havent seen them
because I havent read
anything that
you've wrote, it's a
mess and I wont be wasting
my time reading it and I
wasnt hinting at anything
, I was stating it, and so what
if he's dead, did I disrespect
him in any way, or did I
bring him up even?, schermer
did, not
me.

sponsoredwalk

As of now two people in this thread , and this thread exclusively on boards,
who prefer to ignore the content of my writing because of it's appearance
rather than get over their own personal issues as regards appearances &
address it. Funny how both people also used ridiculous arguments that really
can't be defended. Really is my loss :rolleyes:


...Just got to say it for the laugh You say you wont be responding to
my arguments because of the structure of the post yet in that same
post you actually address some of the points, I mean way to contradict
yourself

You both know where the ignore 'button' is...

uprising2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

As of now two people in this thread , and this thread exclusively on boards,
who prefer to ignore the content of my writing because of it's appearance
rather than get over their own personal issues as regards appearances &
address it. Funny how both people also used ridiculous arguments that really
can't be defended. Really is my loss :rolleyes:


...Just got to say it for the laugh You say you wont be responding to
my arguments because of the structure of the post yet in that same
post you actually address some of the points, I mean way to contradict
yourself

You both know where the ignore 'button' is...

Your structure is part of it, mainly it's the crap you write that puts me off looking at it.

If you want to go fetch your questions, put them here, leave a blank line between questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

sponsoredwalk

Wow, again you go off making statements for which you provide no
evidence whatsoever. Oh wait, every post I make is evidence because
the shape of it is visible so I guess that means you're also right that
I'm writing crap, just in the way that Atta being excluded from the 911
report also, by default, means there were exposives in the WTC

uprising2

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Wow, again you go off making statements for which you provide no
evidence whatsoever. Oh wait, every post I make is evidence because
the shape of it is visible so I guess that means you're also right that
I'm writing crap, just in the way that Atta being excluded from the 911
report also, by default, means there were exposives in the WTC

Why are you making this crap up, I posted a link about evidence being withheld about atta, I didn't say that it showed, hinted or was in anyway proof that explosives were planted, all that evidence is totally seperate, but you'd like to try muddy the waters with the usual bullsh1t trying to materialize connections where they dont exist, go back and read it again.

AnthonyHall

All this began with my allegation that Michael Shermer has not read the works of Professor David Ray Griffin, who unlike the TV professor is a real professor with a lifelong career of distinguished scholarship at Claremont Graduate University.

I called the TV professor a disgrace to the academy, not a disgrace to the economy. Shermer purposely misquoted me to direct attention away from the seriousness of my allegation.

The fact that no one in Shermer's entourage demonstrates the least interest in addressing what I allege is the great disparity between Professor Griffin's systematic scholarship and Shermer's "woo woo" pseudo-scholarship speaks volumes.

Shermer misrepresented his credentials as an economist and now Patrick Ross, one of Shermer's defenders, has successfully been sued for his defamation of the Canadian Cynic. The whole corrupt house of cards defending the indefensible and unsupportable official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is coming unglued. Its about time!

No matter how much oxytocin that Shermer and his psy ops associate Dr. Love Zak apply in their sad attempt to generate "trust" in their discredited worldview, history is moving beyond the obsolescence of these relics of the era of TV hypnosis.

Only 9/11 Truth can bring to an end the 9/11 Wars and the Islamophobia flowing from Shermeresque misrepresentations.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I respectfully disagree.

A skeptic OP http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056021377 posts an sceptical article written by a prominent skeptic (who happens to be the publisher of Skeptic magazine) about a lecture he has given to his sceptical audience about how to be a better skeptic.

If this shouldn't be in Irish Skeptics then I don't know what should.

That's a bizarre post. If you* are not sceptical about things, what the hell are you? A believer?

*I don't specifically mean you here, BB

AhSureTisGrand

mawdz wrote: »

Just to calrify beacause afer your post im unsure:

This is the Conspiracy Theory Froum?
Conspiracys are basically an widely unaccpeted and debateable expelnation for an occurance, an event, a group etc...?
That when something describe as theory it means that it was neither proven true nor false.(usually not possible to do either or just currently unexplored areas that can prove it either)

Basically you can't have a true of false (good or bad)conspiracy theory because if you do then the name changes from conspiracy theory to FACT! Every conspiracy theory is a theory, some may be wacky, some may be made up, some maybe true but the truth not revealed but untill proven otherwise it remains just a Conpiracy thoery .

I recently heard of a Conspiracy theory that this thread does not exist as it is just a glitch in all human minds which visit boards. Prove me right or wrong?

Look up the word "conspiracy"

AhSureTisGrand

Does the word "skeptic" mean here that someone is sceptical of conspiracy theories or sceptical of what most accept as the true explanation?

Monty Burnz

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Does the word "skeptic" mean here that someone is sceptical of conspiracy theories or sceptical of what most accept as the true explanation?

I think it's the second one that isn't welcome. Personally, I regard scepticism as an essential tool in the modern world. Anyone who swallows dodgy evidence for or against a CT is severly lacking in scepticism.

studiorat

I am constantly fascinated by how it is only academics who are interested other academics' "academic credentials" (what a mouthful)!

As if Hall's pissing contest is actually any meaningful measure of whether an argument carries any water or not. Personally I think there may be a grain of truth each, I don't believe for a second though, that there's a conspiracy remotely as big as Hall describes.

So we'll have a look : Shermer : PhD in History of Science 1991.
From CGU website Nov. 2007.

Though Shermer has over twenty years of collegiate teaching experience, his writing and publishing duties have kept him out of the classroom since 1998.

Until he returned to lecturing in 2007 according to the CGU site.

Browsing over Professor Hall's Globalization course it seems to have 3 books on the course, one of which is his! Good way to sell a few I suppose. There seem's to be 50% for one 3,000 word paper submitted. So not exactly the most difficult course in the world. No mention of Hall's academic background though.

Here's his rate my professor page which is a hoot! : http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=17183&page=3

You will learn nothing in this class except how to apply the word "Orwellian" to everything from America to Zoo keepers. His hatred for the right could only be expressed more by the throwing of molotov cocktails in class. Lunatic

Though it would seem he gets his fair share of starry eyed young provocateurs hanging on every word he says.
I can't help but get the feeling that even getting behind the lectern in Claremont is a lot harder to get than into than heading up a part time course in U of L.
Maybe AH would like to impress us with his bits of paper?

Brown Bomber

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Does the word "skeptic" mean here that someone is sceptical of conspiracy theories or sceptical of what most accept as the true explanation?

The word Sceptic (skeptic in US English) would mean someone who questions accepted beliefs, facts or theories. They withold belief in any given situation in the absence of evidence. In my experience I've really only seen skeptics question ideas that are outside the status quo.

It's rather easy to call yourself a skeptic and wear it as a badge of honour without actually being a true skeptic. For example, you will rarely (if at all) see a skeptic differ on opinion or challenge another who claims to be a skeptic on any issue that outside the status quo. This group are more accurately called pseudoskeptics as they are not interested in the truth if it goes against their fixed positions.

Hope that helps.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Though it would seem he gets his fair share of starry eyed young provocateurs hanging on every word he says.

That's impressive! You can tell a lot about people from a single anonymous internet post. Even their age!! What age am I?

Saved your insults for those who spoke well of Prof. Hall and nothing for those who (apparently) spoke out against him. Funny that. You wouldn't be biased would you?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The word Sceptic (skeptic in US English) would mean someone who questions accepted beliefs, facts or theories. They withold belief in any given situation in the absence of evidence. In my experience I've really only seen skeptics question ideas that are outside the status quo.

It's rather easy to call yourself a skeptic and wear it as a badge of honour without actually being a true skeptic. For example, you will rarely (if at all) see a skeptic differ on opinion or challenge another who claims to be a skeptic on any issue that outside the status quo. This group are more accurately called pseudoskeptics as they are not interested in the truth if it goes against their fixed positions.

Hope that helps.

Yes, but in the context of the CT world, accepted beliefs are that the Illuminati are behind everything, and the Freemasons, and the Bilderbergers, and the Skull and Bones, and Opus Dei, and the CIA, and the Lizards. So the true sceptic in the CT world is the person who questions those accepted beliefs.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, but in the context of the CT world, accepted beliefs are that the Illuminati are behind everything, and the Freemasons, and the Bilderbergers, and the Skull and Bones, and Opus Dei, and the CIA, and the Lizards. So the true sceptic in the CT world is the person who questions those accepted beliefs.

What is this "CT world" you speak of? And how did you become such an expert on it?

AhSureTisGrand

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The word Sceptic (skeptic in US English) would mean someone who questions accepted beliefs, facts or theories. They withold belief in any given situation in the absence of evidence. In my experience I've really only seen skeptics question ideas that are outside the status quo.

It's rather easy to call yourself a skeptic and wear it as a badge of honour without actually being a true skeptic. For example, you will rarely (if at all) see a skeptic differ on opinion or challenge another who claims to be a skeptic on any issue that outside the status quo. This group are more accurately called pseudoskeptics as they are not interested in the truth if it goes against their fixed positions.

Hope that helps.

Yeah I'm still trying to teach my iPod proper English :L

Would you agree that the word "sceptical" is relative? For example, I I were to proclaim, "I'm sceptical" the only response would be, "sceptical of what?" So perhaps you can be a sceptic in relation to one thing but not another ie it needn't be an absolute

AnthonyHall

Studiorat demonstrates my point. It is Professor Griffin, not me, who wrote ten books on various aspects of 9/11. I am not saying I agree with Prof. Griffin in every detail of his work but his oeuvre does form one of the primary monuments of academic literature in the field. Until Michael Shermer and his merry band of pseudo-skeptics do their homework and address the key works of scholarship in the field of 9/11 Studies, they are simply posturing. They are simply lending credence to those who might theorize, rightly or wrongly, that they are knowing or inadvertent operatives in a cover-up of historic proportions.

Michael Shermer is not a career academic who has gone through standard procedures of peer review for tenure and promotion. Indeed, as far as I can see he has never obtained a tenure stream appointment at an American university. If I am wrong on this point, I would appreciate being presented with the relevant evidence. Certainly Shermer has no professional claim to being an economist, a claim he did assert until I exchanged correspondence with the Dean of Politics and Economics at Claremont.

Michael Shermer does a bit of team teaching at Claremont with Professor Zak on a part-time basis in something called Transdisciplinary Studies. It seems he also helps attract some outside funding to Claremont for his involvement in research projects dealing with the application of oxytocin to capitalism's real or imagined workings. Shermer's role at Claremont is definitely ephemeral compared with that of Prof. Griffin, who has devoted his career to genuine scholarship rather than to the show business razz matazz that is the TV professor's metier.

Until 2008 I interpreted the events of 9/11 as what Chalmers Johnson referred to in a book of the same name as "blowback." Finally a colleague forced me to evaluate the available evidence including the publications of of Prof. Griffin and Berkeley Prof. Peter Dale Scott, the inventor of the term Deep Politics.

Why do Shermer and his flock of pseudo-skeptics satisfy themselves with simply taking cheap shots at the likes of me and Joshua Blakeney as messengers of unwanted news? What is preventing them from addressing the smaller and larger points in the most authoritative literature on the subject of what did or did not happen on 9/11? If I am to be demeaned because I am a professor in Alberta rather than California, then so be it. But such attacks to do apply to Prof. Griffin who, like me, outranks Michael Shermer by a long shot.

If I am to be scrutinized, the appropriate starting point for those seeking to evaluate the quality of my my academic work on 9/11 and the genesis of the privatized terror economy would be to read the relevant portions of my recent book, Earth into Property.

Let me make it clear, however, that I am simply not in the same ball park as Prof. Griffin when it comes to the subject of 9/11 Studies. I include the subject of 9/11 in Earth into Property but I put this subject in the context of a global history spanning several centuries.

So far Michael Shermer has not shown even entry level knowledge on the subject of 9/11 Studies to contribute anything of academic worth. Perhaps that will change in the future now that the TV professor's carelessness even with the truth of his own credentials has been subjected to scrutiny. In the meantime, Shermer's generalizing about how to tell real from false conspiracy theories is nothing but an expression of the man's intellectual laziness and his unwillingness to engage the relevant evidence, including the careful scholarship of Prof. Griffin.

Familiarizing myself with the work of Michael Shermer and climate change entrepreneur, Fred Guterl, at Scientific American is giving me new insights into the workings of the privatized terror economy and its agents of propaganda.

CURRICULUM VITAE

ANTHONY JAMES HALL

Professor and Founding Coordinator of Globalization Studies

Liberal Education

University of Lethbridge

Office: A812 (Globalization Studies/Liberal Education)
4401 University Drive,
Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada,
TIK 3M4

<SNIP: emails removed>
Web Sites
www.globalizationstudies.ca
http://globalizationstudies.ca/?page_id=8
www.ourowncbc.info/
http://www.youtube.com/user/Globalization1492
http://vimeo.com/channels/globalization
http://sites.google.com/a/earthintoproperty.info/colonization/home/articles-by-the-author-1
http://people.uleth.ca/~hall/index.htm
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Anthony%20J.%20Hall%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies

Born: 4 April, 1951. Toronto, Canada
Citizenships: Canadian; Irish

Academic Appointments

*May 2008, promoted to Full Professor of Globalization Studies
*August, 2006, appointed Associate Professor of Liberal Arts
*July, 2002, appointed Founding Coordinator of Globalization Studies, U of Lethbridge
*January, 1990, appointed Associate Professor of Native American Studies, U of L
* Assistant Professor, Dept. of Native Studies, University of
Sudbury, 1982-1989 (tenured, 1989)

Education

Ph.D., History, University of Toronto, 1984
Major Field Canadian History, 1763-1914
Minor Fields British Empire History, 1850 - present
Historical Geography of Ontario
Thesis Title: "The Red Man's Burden: Land, Law, and the Lord in the Indian Affairs of Upper Canada, 1791-1858" (supervised by Prof. J. M.S. Careless)

M.A., History, York University, 1976

Honours B.A., History/Political Science
Glendon College, York University, 1975

Teaching Subject
Introduction to Native Studies (Laurentian U)
Introduction to Native American Studies (U of Lethbridge)
Contemporary Native Issues
Aboriginal Peoples, Politics, and Law
Native American Politics
Canadian Indian History
History of Indian Treaties
History of Private Property in Indian Country
The Indian History of British Columbia
US Indian History
Indigenous Peoples in the Global Community
Globalization Since 1492
Capital, Culture, and Globalization
The American Empire and the Fourth World

Academic Publications

Books

Earth into Property: Colonization, Decolonization and Capitalism. Vol. 2 of The Bowl with One Spoon (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), hardcover and paperback editions, 934 pages

Selected by The Independent in UK as a Christmas pick
for one of the best books of 2010

The American Empire and the Fourth World. Vol. 1 of The Bowl With One Spoon (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003), first paperback edition, 2005

Winner of the Wilfed Eggleston Award for

best non-fiction work by an Albertan author, 2004/2005

Chapters 10 and 11 in Reader’s Digest, Through Indian Eyes: The Untold Story of Native Peoples (Montreal: Reader’s Digest, 1996)

Celebrating Together: Native People and Ontario's Bicentennial, (Manitoulin Island: Plowshare Press, 1984) 53 pp., reprinted in Rikka, Vol. 9, no. 3, autumn, 1984, pp. 1-43

Academic Essays, including peer-reviewed and commissioned articles

"Imagining Civilization on the Frontiers of Aboriginality,” in The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives, Roger C.A. Maaka and Chris Andersen, eds. (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2006), pp. 249-266

“The Colonial Genesis of the War on Terror,” Political Violence and Human Security in the Post-9.11 World, (JCAS Symposium Series 24. State , Nation and Ethnic Relations IX), Obiya Chika and Kuroki Hidemitsui, eds. (Osaka: The Japan Center for Area Studies, National Museum of Ethnology, 2006), pp. 69-79

“The Assembly of First Nations,” Oxford Companion to Canadian History, Gerry Hallowell,ed (Don Mills: Oxford University Press, 2004)

“Aboriginal People and the Meech Lake Accord: Critical Perspectives, “ in Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada: An Introductory Reader, Elspeth Cameron, ed. (Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2004)

“Native Activism,” in Canada, Confederation to Present: An Interactive History of Canada. CD-ROM, Bob Hesketh and Chris Hackett, eds., (Edmonton: Chinook Multimedia, 2001)

A Note on Canadian Treaties, in R. Douglas Francis and Donald B. Smith, eds., Readings in Canadian History, Post-Confederation. Sixth Edition, (Toronto: Nelson Thompson Learning, 2002), pp. 474-479

“Global Colonialism, 1492-2001,” Cultural Survival Quarterly, Vol. 25, no. 3, 2001, p. 35

with Splitting The Sky, “Red Tories, Red Power: ‘The Protection of Indian Rights and the Security of the Canadas,’” in Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, ed., Searching for Canada: The Red Tory Journey (Dewdney BC: Synaxis Press, 2000), pp. 29-69

"RCAP's Big Blindspots," Blind Spots: An Examination of the Federal Government’s Response to the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, (Ottawa: Aboriginal Rights Coalition, 2001), pp. 66-80

“Racial Discrimination in Legislation, Litigation, Legend and Lore, Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 32, no. 2. 2000, pp. 119-135

“Indian Treaties,” in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Year 2000 Edition (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2000), pp. 148-157

“A Note on Treaties,” in Tom Molloy with Donald Ward, The World Is Our Witness: The Historic Journey of the Nisga’a Into Canada (Calgary: Fifth House, 2000), pp. 3-10

"Cleaning Up Canada," Literary Review of Canada, Vol. 7, no. 11, September, 1999, pp. 11-12

"Who To Blame For Native Abuse: State, Churches Or All of Us?" The Literary Review of Canada, Vol. 6, no. 2, May, 1997, pp. 12-14

“Indian Treaties,” The 1997 Canadian Encyclopedia Plus (CD-ROM Edition) (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1996)

"Treaties, Trains, and Troubled National Dreams: Reflections on the Indian Summer in Northern Ontario, 1990," in Law, Society and the State: Essays in Modern Legal History, Louis A. Knafla and Susan W.S. Binnie, eds. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995), pp. 290-321

"Strangulating Liberal Arts and Native American Studies in Alberta," Literary Review of Canada, Vol. 4, no. 6, June 1995, pp. 17-18

"Who Killed Dudley George?: Reflections on Ipperwash and Gustafsen Lake," Canadian Dimension, Vol. 29, Dec. 1995/Jan. 1996, pp. 8-12

"Many Nations, Few States," Semiotextes Canadas (New York: Semiotexte, 1994), pp. 39-46

"The Politics of Aboriginality: Political Fault-Lines in Indian Country," Canadian Dimension, Vol. 27, no. 1, Jan./Feb., 1993, pp. 6-10

"Blockade at Long Lake 58," Anne-Marie Mawhiney, ed., Rebirth: Political, Economic, and Social Development in First Nations, (Toronto: Dundurn, 1993), pp. 66-89

"Canada as Indian Country," The Literary Review of Canada, November, 1993, pp. 14-18

"Canada as Indian Country," The Literary Review of Canada, December, 1993, pp. 20-23

"A Canadian Perspective in Native Studies," Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, Vol. 20, nos. 1-2, 1993, pp. 79-86

"Blockades and Bannock: Aboriginal Protests and Politics in Northern Ontario, 1980-1990,Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 7, no. 2, 1991, pp. 58-77

"Theoretical Discourse in Native Studies," Association for Canadian Studies Newsletter/Bulletin de l'Association d` études canadiennes, Vol. 14, no. 1, 1992, pp. 41-43

"The Future of Native Studies in Canada," The Literary Review of Canada, Vol. 1, no. 5, May, 1992, pp. 10-13

"The Politics of Aboriginality: Political Fault-Lines in Indian Country," Canadian Dimension, Vol. 27, no. 1, Jan./Feb., 1993, pp. 6-10

"The Future of Native Studies in Canada," The Literary Review of Canada, Vol. 1, no. 5, May, 1992, pp. 10-13

"Indian Summer, Canadian Winter" Report on the Americas (Special Edition) The First Nations, 1492-1992, Vol. 25, no. 3, Dec., 1991, pp. 34-37, 46

"Tony Hall Responds," Report on the Americas, Vol. 26, no. 1, July, 1992, pp. 11-12

“Aboriginal Issues and the New Political Map of Canada” in J.L. Granastein and Kenneth McNaught, eds. "English Canada" Speaks Out (Toronto: Doubleday Canada, 1991), pp. 122-140

"The St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Company Versus the Queen: Indian Land Rights as a Factor in Federal-Provincial Relations in Nineteenth-Century Canada" in Kerry Abel and Jean Friesen, eds., Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1991) pp. 267-286

"Review Article" on Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: W.W. Norton, 1988) in The American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 15, no. 1, Winter, 1991, pp. 105-108

"Native Self-Government: Comments on the Federal Proposals," The Network: Newsletter of the Network on the Constitution, Vol. 1, no. 5, Oct., 1991, pp. 7-8

"Fed Up With Being Left Out in the Cold," Canadian Politics 90/91, Gregory S. Mahler and Roman R. March, eds. (Guilford Connecticut: Dushkin Publishing Group, 1990) pp. 23-24

"Where Justice Lies: Aboriginal Rights and Wrongs in Temagami," in Matt Bray and Ashley Thompson, eds. Temagami: A Debate on Wilderness (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1990) pp. 223-53

"Native Limited Identities and Newcomer Metropolitanism in Upper Canada, 1814-1867," David Keane and Colin Read, eds. Old Ontario: Essays in Honour of J.M.S. Careless, (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1990) pp. 148-173

"What Are We? Chopped Liver? Aboriginal Affairs in the Constitutional Politics of Canada in the 1980s, The Meech Lake Primer: Conflicting Views of the 1987 Constitutional Accord, Michael Behiels, ed. (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1989) pp. 423-56

with Michael Posluns, "Assembly of First Nations", The Canadian Encyclopedia (Second Edition) (Edmonton: Hurtig, 1988) Vol. 1, p. 135 (aussi publié en francais)

"Indian Treaties", The Canadian Encyclopedia (Second Edition), Vol. 2, pp. 1056-1059 (aussi publié en francais)

"The Royal Proclamation of 1763", The Canadian Encyclopedia (Second Edition), Vol. 3, p. 1897 (aussi publié en francais)

"John Aisance", Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Francess G. Halpenny, gen ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988) Vol. 7, pp. 11-12 (aussi publié en francais)

"Closing an Incomplete Circle of Confederation: A Brief to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Federal Government on the 1987 Constitutional Accord", The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Vol. 6, no. 2, 1986, pp. 197-221

"Robert Brooking," Dictionary of Canadian Biography, Vol. 12, 1990, pp. 127-28 (aussi publié en francais)

"The Genesis of Native Studies in Canada" in Canada's Sub-arctic Universities/Les universites canadiennes du moyen nord, Peter Adams and Doug Parker, eds. (Ottawa: Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies, 1987) pp. 192-205

The N'ungosuk Report: A Study in Aboriginal Language Renewal, (West Bay: Two Bears Cultural Survival Group, 1987) 37 pages

"Home Ground: The Struggle for Native Rights During the Trudeau Years”, Horizon Canada, Vol. 4, no. 38, Nov. 1985, pp. 902-907 (aussi publié en francais)

"The Politics of Indian Policy: The Indian Reserve at Coldwater and the Narrows", Horizon Canada, Vol. 7, no. 83, Oct. 1986, pp. 1988-1992 (aussi publié en francais)

"Self-Government or Self-Delusion? Brian Mulroney and Aboriginal Rights", Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Vol. 6, no. 1, 1986, pp. 77-90

"The Kawartha Indian Missions: The Larger Picture", Heritage: Proceedings of the Kawartha Conference, A.O.C. Cole and Jean Murray Cole, eds. (Peterborough: Historical Atlas Foundation, 1981) pp. 13-21

"A Consideration of `The Newcomers....Inhabiting a New Land'", The Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 62, no. 2, June, 1981, pp. 252-57

"Getting It Right: The Films vs. the Facts as told by a Canadian Historian", Cinema Canada, no. 47, June, 1978, pp. 14-19


Recent Presentations

The Haldimand Deed in International Perspective, invited presentation at Kanata Community Centre in the Mohawk Village of the Six Nations Reserve, 7 November, 2010

A Red Tory View of Tea Parties, Conservatism, Revolutions and Such: Notes for the Book Launch of Earth into Property”at Ben McNally’s Bookstore, 366 Bay Street, Toronto, Nov. 2, 6 pm, 2010

at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggyTFlCoB7U


*Breaking Through a Wall of Police Protection for International Crime: The Trial of Splitting The Sky as a Trial of the Cheney-Bush-Rumsfeld Cabal of War Profiteers, presentation for Montreal 9/11 Truth, 5 December, 2009
at
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20091204151919219

*Should George W. Bush Be arrested in Calgary Alberta and Tried for International Crimes," Annual Invited Guest Speaker of the Sociology Department at the University of Winnipeg, March 6, 2009

at
http://www.voltairenet.org/article159233.html
http://911blogger.com/node/19540

*The Lies and Crimes of 9/11: A Canadian View of the War on Terror's Origins, Paper presented at Edmonton Questions 9/11: Convention and Film," Stanley A. Milner Public Library Theatre, 6 September, 2008
at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10117

*Teaching About Globalization in University and High School, A Presentation to Social Studies Teachers with Special Reference to the new Grade 10 Curriculum in Alberta,” Lethbridge Collegiate Institute, 22 January, 2007

*Employing Digital Communications Networks in the Teaching of Humanities and Social Sciences,” invited presenter to Netera Days 2006: Connecting Alberta’s Pockets of Excellence, 27 October, 2006, University of Lethbridge

*The New Media and the Teaching of Globalization Studies, Interface 06, Alberta-wide conference on the New Media hosted by the Curriculum Re-Development Centre and the Alberta Distance Education and Training Association, University of Lethbridge, 11 May, 2006

*“Overview of Canadian History.” Presented at a conference entitled “Canada-Our Home, Know Your Country: Its History, Politics, Law and Media.” Organized by the Canadian Islamic Conference, World Islamic Call Society, and the Taric Islamic Centre, Days Hotel, Toronto, September 3-4, 2005.

*The Colonial Genesis of the War on Terror, 1492 to present, presented at a conference entitled “Political Violence and Human Security in the Post-9.11 World.” Organized by the Japan Center for Area Studies, National Museum of Ethnology. UN University in Tokyo, December 18-19, 2004.

*The American Empire and the Fourth World: After the Election, A Presentation by Tony Hall, University of Lethbridge. Organized by the Faculty of Arts at the University of Regina, 19 November, 2004. Published as “Where Is America Going? A Call to Resist the Onslaught of a New American Century,” Canadian Dimension, January/April, 2005

*From Columbus to Abu Ghraib, From Conquest to Disinformation, Organized as the Toronto launch of The American Empire and the Fourth World by Another Story Bookshop, Toronto, 7 July 2004.

*Bandung, The Non-Aligned Movement, and the Fourth World, for New Horizons of Knowledge, Native Studies Colloquium Series, University of Manitoba, 13 October, 2004.

*British Columbia, The Fourth World, and Globalization, with a special tribute to George Manuel. Organized jointly by McGill-Queen’s University Press and the Union of BC Indian Chiefs in Vancouver, 26 February, 2004.

*From British Columbia to Kurdistan, Iraq, and the West Bank: Aboriginal Title as an Emerging Concept in International Law and Global Geopolitics. Presentation for the Law and Society Series of the UBC Law School, Green College, 25 February 2004.

*Red Tories vs. Right Wingers: The Royal Proclamation vs. The American Declaration of Independence.” Presented on November 16, 2003, at a conference entitled, “Challenging Empire: Citizenship, Sovereignties, and Self-Determination.” Organized by Parkland Institute at the University of Alberta.

*The American Empire and Aboriginal Title.” Paper presented on September 19, 2003, at a conference entitled Delgamuukw, Mabo, and Yselta: Native Title in Canada, Australia, and the United States.” Organized by Research Unit for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Calgary, Faculty of Social Sciences. Paper published at Turtle Island web site.

*The Declaration of Independence vs. The Royal Proclamation of 1763: Revolution and Empire in the Genesis of Globalization. Paper presented on July 10, 2003 at the British World Conference, Calgary Institute for the Humanities, University of Calgary.

*Academic Freedom in Dangerous Times, Presentation organized by the University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association at the U of S Faculty Club, 2 March, 2002.

*What Is Globalization, Presentation to the Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs, Lethbridge Alberta, 14 November, 2002.

*Activism and Power.” One of three presenters for a CBC Radio “Ideas” show looking a Protest and Power. Organized on 14 June, 2002 by the Calgary Institute for the Humanities at the EPCORE Centre for the Performing Arts.

*Featured Presenter, “Leonard Peltier Teach In,” University of Alberta, 32 June, 2001, Sponsors include Woodsworth-Irvine Socialist Fellowship, Edmonton and District Labor Council


Book Reviews

Sandra Lambertus, Wartime Images, Peacetime Wounds: The Media and the Gustafsen Lake Standoff (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004) in Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 86, no. 3, 2005, pp. 562-564

“Patricians of Dissent,” review article on Gore Vidal’s Imperial America and Lewis Lapham’s Gag Rule, The Globe and Mail, 24 July, 2004, pp. D8-D9

Theodore Binnema, Common and Contested Ground: A Human and Environmental History of the Northwestern Plains (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002) in Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 72, no. 3, 2002, pp. 450-451

“Review Article,” Constance Backhouse, Colour-Coded: A Legal History of Racism in Canada, 1900-1950 (Toronto: The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and the University of Toronto Press, 1999) and James W. St. G. Walker, “Race,” Rights and the Law in the Supreme Court of Canada (Waterloo: The Osgoode Society for Legal History and Wilfred Laurier Press, 1997) in Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 32, no2, 2000, pp. 119-135

Roger L. Nichols, Indians in the United States and Canada: A Comparative Perspective (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999) in The International History Review, Vol. 22, no. 4, December, 2000, pp. 904-907

Jack Glenn, Once Upon an Oldman: Special Interest Politics and the Oldman River Dam (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1999) in Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 26, no. 3. 2000, pp. 389-390

Alan C. Cairns, Citizens Plus: Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian State(Vancouver: UBC Press, 2000); Tom Flanagan, First Nations? Second Thoughts (Montreal: McGill Queen’s University Press, 2000);Bruce Clark Justice in Paradise (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1999) in The Globe and Mail, 19 August, 2000, p. D4

Laurie Barron, Walking in Indian Moccasins: The Native Policies of Tommy Douglas and the CCF (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997) in Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 80, no. 1, March, 1999, pp. 126-129

“Airbrushed History,” review of J.L. Granatstein, Who Killed Canadian History? (Toronto Harper Collins, 1998) in Canadian Forum, May, 1998, pp. 38-40

Michael Asch, ed., Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada: Essays on Law, Equality, and Respect for Difference (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1997) in Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 24, no. 1, 1998, pp. 130-131

Ingebourg Marshall, A History and Ethnography of the Beothuk (Montréal: McGill-Queen’s, 1996) in The Globe and Mail, 12 October, 1996, p. D17

J.R. Miller, Shingwauk’s Vision (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996) in Catholic New Times, Vol. 20, no. 16, Sept. 22, 1996, p. 6

Edmund Danziger Jr., The Chippewas of Lake Superior (Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1990) in Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 73, no. 2, June, 1992, pp. 257-259

James B. Waldrum, As Long as the Rivers Run: Hydroelectric Development in Native Communities in Western Canada (Winnipeg: The University of Manitoba Press, 1988) in Musk-Ox, Vol. 38, 1991, pp. 88-89

"Review Article" on Francis Jennings, Empire of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies and Tribes in the Seven Years War in America (New York: W.W. Norton, 1988) in The American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 15, no. 1, Winter, 1991, pp. 105-108

D.N. Sprague, Canada and the Metís, 1869-1885 (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier Press, 1988) review in Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism, Vol. 17, nos. 1-2, 1990, pp. 304-306

J. Anthony Long and Menno Boldt, eds., Governments in Conflict?Provinces and Indian Nations in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988) review in American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 14, no. 2, spring, 1990, pp. 178-181

Frank Cassidy and Robert L. Bish, Indian Government: Its Meaning in Practice (Lantzville, B.C.: Oolichan Books, 1989) review in Canadian Public Policy, Vol. 16, no. 2, June, 1990, pp. 230-231

Roy MacGregor, Chief: The Fearless Vision of Billy Diamond (Toronto: Viking, 1989) review in The Globe and Mail, 22 April, 1989

MacGregor, Chief, review in Canadian Historical Review, Vol. 71, no. 2, June, 1990, pp. 305-307

Joan Clark, The Victory of Geraldine Gull (Toronto: Macmillan, 1988) review in The Globe and Mail, 28 May, 1988

As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows: A Reader in Canadian Native Studies, Ian A.L. Getty and Antoine S. Lussier, eds. (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1983) review in The Globe and Mail, 3 March, 1984

Gerald Killan, David Boyle: From Artisan to Archaeologist (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983) review in Anthropologica, Vol. 36, no. 1, 1984, pp. 78-80


Presentations to Government and Expert Witness Work in Court

"Closing an Incomplete Circle of Confederation", brief to the Joint Committee of the Canadian Senate and the House of Commons on the 1987 Constitutional Accord, presented on August 27, 1987. Testimony published in Committee's Minutes of Proceedings, 14:61-14:73, part 3 of brief published in the appendix of issue no. 14. The brief is published in its entirety in The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Vol. 6, no. 2, 1986, pp. 197-221.

"Who Will Speak for the Distinct Society of Canada?" brief to the Senate Submissions Group on the Meech Lake Accord, presented on March 18, 1988. Testimony published in Sub- missions Group Proceedings, 5:50-5:60. The brief is published in Humanist in Canada, Vol. 21, no. 2, Summer, 1988, pp. 3-6

Oral presentation to Select Committee of the Ontario Legislature on the Official Report of Debates of Legislative Assembly of Ontario, no. C-24, 198 April 13, 1988, C-1243-C-1251

Oral presentation to the Special Committee of the Canadian House of Commons to study the Proposed Companion Resolution to the Meech Lake Accord (Charest Committee), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, issue no. 14, Friday, April 27, 1990, pp. 27-39

Written brief and oral testimony presented to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Process for Amending the Constitution of Canada, (Beaudoin-Edwards Committee) Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, issue no. 10, (Ottawa: 1991) pp. 91-108. The written brief to the Committee appears as an appendix to issue no. 10, pp. 1A-43A.

Written presentation to the Task Force on Museums and First Peoples, 1991

Participant in Seminar on the Reform of Federal Institutions. Organized by the Federal Minister of Constitutional Affairs and by the Network on the Constitution. The Seminar proceedings were summarized in a Network publication entitled Taking Stock: The Network Seminars on Canadian Federalism (Ottawa: Network on the Constitution, 1991) pp. 61-78

Oral presentation on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations to the Joint Committee on the Renewal of Canada (The Dobbie-Beaudoin Committee). 8 January, 1992

Oral presentation to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, Lethbridge, Alberta, June, 1993

"The Fur Trade and Aboriginal Rights: History, Education and Constitutional Meaning," Prepared for Leroy Little Bear and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1994

"Aboriginal-Crown Treaties in the History and Constitution of Canada: Basic Principles, Basic Interpretations," Prepared for Leroy Little Bear and the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples,1994

Adviser to Research Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, "Research Priorities Over the Next 10-20 Years," March 26 and 27, 1996

Intervention on Treaty 8 Tribal Association’s Motion before the National Energy Board of Canada. Intervention on behalf of Indigenous Ecology Alliance, 20 March, 1998. (Transcript of testimony in Vol. 50 of Hearings on the Alliance Pipeline Application)

Expert witness for the defense in the case of Harley Frank vs the Crown, 1998-1999, Court of Queen’s Bench, Lethbridge, Alberta. The case revolved around a jurisdictional dispute involving the Canadian Wheat Board, Jay’s Treaty, and Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Defendant lost.

Expert witness for the defense in the case of USA versus Pitawanakwat, Portland Oregon, autumn, 2000. Gave expert testimony at the request of Pitawanakwat’s legal representatives, the Federal Public Defenders Office. Defendant won. The US State Department’s request to extradite Pitawanakwat back to Canada was denied. The defendant was granted the protection of the “political offenses exception” clause in Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the USA. See Kirk Martin, “US Judge Won’t Extradite Canadian Native Activist,” The Globe and Mail, 23 November, 2000, p. 1

Recognized in February of 2005 by the Superior Court of Ontario, North Bay Ontario, as an expert witness qualified to give expert testimony on “the history and politics of constitutional relations between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples in Canada and beyond.” This constitutional case started with a charge by the RCMP against three individuals for “defrauding the public” for publishing membership cards in an organization known as the League of Indian Nations of North America. Dr. Hall was on the witness stand for 22 full days. The Crown stayed the charges in February of 2006.

Beginning in September, 2006, Consultant and Advisor to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, Winnipeg Manitoba


Publications Edited

The Phoenix, Summer, 1983

The Canadian Journal of Native Studies (member of editorial board since 1987)

The Warriors Tribute, Vol. 1, no. 1, 22 March, 1989


Academic Conferences Organized

With Rodney Bobiwash organized Americana Indigenismo: Indigenous Peoples, the FTAA, and the Fourth World, April, 19, 2001, Quebec City. The conference was part of The Peoples’ Summit to coincide with the gathering of the leaders of 34 governments who met to negotiate terms for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas

Journalistic Publications

Regular Column

Canadian Forum, 1992-1998

“The Treaty Circle,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 71, Dec., 1992, p. 25

"Judging the Judges," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, Jan/Feb, 1993, pp. 28-29

"Questioning the Inquiry," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, Mar., 1993, pp. 27-28

"Many Nations, Few States," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, April, 1993, pp. 24-25

"Queen Kim's Canada," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, May, 1993, p. 33

"Faces of Facism," Canadian Forum Vol. 72, June, 1993, pp. 28-29

"Tory Fences," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, July/Aug, 1993, pp. 26-27

"The Silent Vote," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, Sept., 1993, pp. 30-31

"Somalia McLuhanisms," Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, Oct., 1993, pp. 26-27

"NAFTA or NAFTT?," Canadian Forum. Vol. 72, Nov., 1993, pp. 27-28

“Dead Air,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 72, Dec. 1993, p. 17

"Knocking the Negotiators," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Jan.-Feb., 1994, p. 37

"Making Trouble," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Mar., 1994, p. 33

"Tory Pretenders," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, April, 1994, pp. 34-35

"The Age of Treaties," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, May, 1994, p. 27

"Fractured Territory," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, June, 1994, p. 29

"Victorian Sovereigntists," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, July-Aug., 1994, p. 29

"Mixed Roots," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Sept., 1994, p. 27

"Imperialism and Canada," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Oct., 1994, p. 47

"New Democratic Tories," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Nov., 1994, p. 38

"The Queen's Allies," Canadian Forum, Vol. 73, Dec., 1994, p. 29

"Alberta's Revolution," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Jan./Feb., 1995, p. 29

"The Abo All-Stars," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Mar., 1995, p. 29

"Big Racist Thing," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, April, 1995, p. 31

"Where is Here?," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, May, 1995, p. 33

"The Unforgiven," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, June, 1995, pp. 6-7

"Lennarson of Lubicon," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, July/Aug., 1995, pp. 6-7

"The Godfather's Heirs," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Sept., 1995, pp. 5-6

"Definitely Not Aimless," Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Oct. 1995, pp. 6-7

Manufacturing Contempt, Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Nov., 1995, pp. 6-7

“Ethnics and Monet,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Dec. 1995, pp. 6-7

“Privatizing the Constitution,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Jan./Feb. 1996, pp. 6-7

“Dion the Decentralist,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, Mar., 1996, pp. 4-5

“The Rule of Politics,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 74, April, 1996, pp. 4-6

“Levant the Lobbyist,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, May, 1996, pp. 6-7

“Between the Jihad and McWorld,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, June, 1996, pp. 5-7

“Equal Injustice,” The Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, July/Aug., 1996, pp. 5-6

“Christian Love,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, Sept., 1996, p. 5

“Fourth World Fundamentals,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, Oct., 1996, pp 4-5

Peoples in Captivity,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, Nov., 1996, pp. 6-7

“Political Judges,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 75, Dec., 1996, pp. 6-7

"Royal Omission," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Jan./Feb., 1997, pp. 5-6

“Magazine Meglomania,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, March, 1997, pp. 5-6

"Who Silenced Clayton Matchee?" Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, April, 1997, pp. 5-6

"Stranger to History," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, April, 1997, pp. 5-6

"Anti-Federalist Tyranny," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, June, 1997, pp. 6-7

"Playing Both Sides," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, July-Aug., pp. 5-6

"Assembling the First Nations," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Sept., 1997, pp. 5-6

"Hogocracy," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Oct., 1997, pp.5-6

"Choosing Your Dictatorship," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Nov., 1997, pp. 5-6

"Mackenzie Valley II, Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, December, 1997, pp. 5-6

"Make Anti-MAI Hay," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Jan./Feb., 1998, p. 5-6

"Whose Sorry Now?" Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, Mar., 1998, pp. 6-8

"The Politics of Monarchy," Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, April, 1998, p. 6-8

Who Is Killing Canadian History?” Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, May, 1998, pp. 5-6

“Indian Wars North and South,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, June, 1998, pp. 6-7

“Engendering Childcare,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, July-August, 1998, pp. 5-6

"Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide Close to Home," Canadian Forum, June, 1999, p. 31

“Engendering Childcare,” Canadian Forum, Vol. 76, July-August, 1998



Newspaper Articles in Commercial, Aboriginal, and Alternative Press (partial list)

"First Ministers Revealed their Biases in Accord", The Toronto Star,19 June, 1987; "Native Communities are Still Colonies in Confederation", Northern Life, 7 October, 1987; "Native People - A Search for Dignity", The Globe and Mail, 2 August, 1988; "Push on the Verge of Coming to Shove," The Globe and Mail, 20 October, 1988; "Fed Up With 27 February, 1989; "As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows," The Globe and Mail, 25 July, 1989; "Flaws in the Law Stack Odds Against Native People," The Globe and Mail, 26 September, 1989; "Warriors Forgotten on Remembrance Day," The Globe and Mail, 10 November, 1989; "Canada's Bitter Legacy of Injustice," The Globe and Mail, 16 March, 1990; "Cutting into the Action," The Globe and Mail, 18 June, 1990; "Warriors, Myths and Legends," The Vancouver Province, 29 July, 1990; "Québécois Ignoring Brothers in Arms,The Calgary Herald, 21 July, 1990; "Attack on Human Rights: Hidden Realities Behind the Oka Crisis," The Winnipeg Free Press, 31 July, 1990; "Politicians, Police, Lonefighters and Mohawks," Kainai News, 20 September, 1990; "Meech Lake Mistake Back Again," The Calgary Herald, 21 November, 1990; "Treating Native Activists Like Common Criminals," The Globe and Mail, 26 March, 1991; "A Thickening Atmosphere of Animosity Between Natives and Quebec," The Ottawa Citizen, 27 September, 1991, p. A.11; "Canada Round Excludes Natives," The Calgary Herald, 5 October, 1991, p. A5; "Treaties Are Living Agreements, The Calgary Herald, 18 Feb., 1991, p. A5; "Getty Undermines Triple-E Senate Bid," Lethbridge Herald, 24 Jan., 1992, p. A4; "Constitutional Reform is Canada's Toughest Test," Calgary Herald, 11 Feb., 1992, p. A5; “Serving Up Slices of the New Senate," The Globe and Mail, 4 August, 1992, p. A11; "Debating an Agreement That's Really No Agreement at All," The Globe and Mail, 28 September, 1992, p. A19; "Native The Ottawa Citizen, 20 October, 1992, p. A11; "Document a Power Grab by the First Ministers,” The Calgary Herald, 25 September, 1992, p. A5; "Vote is Nothing More Than a Political Gimmick," The Calgary Herald, 20 October, 1992, p. A5; "A Taste of the Politics of Exclusion," The Globe and Mail, 14 May, 1993; "Alberta Government Strangles Native Studies," The University of Toronto Varsity, 19 Jan., 1995; "The Philosophical Conflict That Animates Gustafsen Lake, The Globe and Mail, 5 Sept., 1995, p. A21; "Revealing Slip: Parizeau Played Dangerous Game With Toxic Political Symbols," The Ottawa Citizen, 1 Nov., 1995, p. A17; "Klein's Multi-Corp Morass," The Lethbridge Herald, 29 Jan., 1996, p. A4; "AFN's Reckoning with Self-Rule," The Ottawa Citizen, 29 July, 1997, p. A11; "Native Voices Raised," Calgary Herald, 17 April, 1997, p. A19; "Pork Barrel Politics in the Global Economy," Red Deer Advocate, 14 Oct., 1997, p. A4; "Indian Government-In-Waiting Or Just a Lobby Group", Edmonton Journal, 29 July, 1997, p. A7; "Turning a Blind Eye to Aboriginal Unrest," Edmonton Journal, April 17, 1997, p. A15; "First Nations Forgotten At Pipeline Probe," Edmonton Journal, 4 November, 1997, p. A15; "Musquean Land Rights," Edmonton Journal, 3rd February, 1999; "Separating Children from Their Parents," Edmonton Journal, 18 March 1999; "Taber Shooting," Edmonton Journal, 30 May, 1999;"Ghost of Elvis," Edmonton Journal, 18 Aug. 1999; "Don't Bury the Tragedy at Gustafsen," Vancouver Sun, 21 Jan. 2000; “CBC Neglected Its Mandate in Trudeau Coverage,” Windspeaker, December 2000, p.5, “Confronting The Hard Realities of Canada’s Ongoing Indian War, The Radical, Vol. 3, no. 5, January, 2001, pp. 1,2, 17; “Government Violates Crown Laws at Second Battle of the Plains of Abraham,” Discourse and Disclosure, July, 2001, pp. 1-2; “Cynicism Fuels B.C. Vote on Aboriginal Rights,” Winnpeg Free Press, 27 August, 2002; “What’s Left of the Left?,” Winnipeg Free Press, 23 May, 2002; Making Sense of the New Indian Act,” Winnipeg Free Press, 15 August, 2002; Opposition to Monarchy a Liberal Party Tradition,” Lethbridge Herald, 23 October, 2002; “The Crossroads of Globalization,” Winnipeg Free Press, 25 November, 2002; “Effort to Undermine True Conservatives Devious,” Saskatoon Star Phoenix, 13 November, 2003


Other Articles Combining Journalistic and Academic Approaches

“The Hauntings of Colonialism,” Canadian Dimension, January/February, 2007

“Where Is America Going? A Call to Resist the Onslaught of a New American Century,” Canadian Dimension, January/April, 2005, pp. 13

“Making Sense of the News in 2004,” Canadian Dimension, March/April, 2004, pp. 10-11

“Imperialism, Conquest, Indigenous Peoples, Aboriginal Title, Treaties, and International Law: The Occupation of BC, Iraq, and the West Bank; The Extradition cases of Sitting Bull, Leonard Peltier, James Pitawanakwat and John Graham”, March 3, 2004

at
http://www.grahamdefense.org/news_ahall.htm

“The Denigration of ‘A Great National Question:’ The Campbell Referendum on Aboriginal Title in British Columbia,” Kairos Solidarite, Vol. 11, no. 1, spring, 2002, pp. 19-20

“The Iraq Crisis and the Concept of Global Civil War,” Parkland Post, Vol. 7, spring/summer, 2003, pp. 8-9. Also published in The Winnipeg Free Press, 15 August, 2003

“Making Sense of the New Indian Act,” The Winnipeg Free Press, 15 August, 2002

"Lighting A Candle or Exploding Bombs in North America and Kosovo," published on many web sites including Turtle Island and LISN, 1999, (75 pages)

"Hogocracy and Municipal Law in Alberta,” Encompass, Vol. 2, no. 1, Oct., 1997, p. 7

“Residential Schools: Far from Shingwauk’s Teaching Wigwam,” Catholic New Times, Vol. 20, no. 16, Sept. 22, 1996, p. 6

“Did Ralph Klein Break the Law,” Canadian Dimension, Vol. 30, No. 3, May-June, 1996, pp. 57-60

Alex Roslin, A Conversation With Tony Hall, The Nation (Serving the James Bay Cree Nations), Vol. 3, no. 9, April 1, 1996, pp. 16-18

"Aboriginal Issues and the New Political Map of Canada," Native History Study Group Newsletter, April, 1991, pp. 1-4

"Putting Aboriginal Issues on the Canadian Political Agenda," Canadian Dimension, Vol. 25, no. 4, June, 1991, pp. 15-18

"Aboriginal Futures - Awakening Our Imaginations," Canadian Dimension, Vol. 25, no. 5, 1991, pp. 15-17

"Who Speaks for Canada? The Meech Lake-Free Trade Connection", Humanist in Canada, Vol. 21, no. 2, Summer 1988, pp. 3-6

"Racism, First Nations and the Constitution," Peace Magazine Vol. 7, no. 2, March, 1991, pp. 23, 29

"Chernobyl Darlington and the Nuclear Energy Time Bomb", Humanist in Canada, Vol. 19, no. 4, Winter 1986/87, pp. 3-5

"Whose Birthday Is It Anyway? Bias in the Bicentennial", This Magazine, Vol. 18, no. 5, Dec., 1984, pp. 34-37

Broadcast Media Work

Samples of Recent Media Exchanges

Face to Face with Jack Etkin, #49, Professor Anthony J. Hall on Earth into Property, 12 October, 2010

http://vimeo.com/15783266

The Peter B. Collins Show, “The History of Imperialism, with Prof. Tony Hall, 6 November, 2010

http://peterbcollins.com/2010/11/06/the-history-of-imperialism-with-prof-tony-hall/


Guest on Canadian Broadcasting shows including Morningside, Commentary, As It Happens ("For the Record"), Wild Rose Forum, Media File, This Country, The Calgary Newshour, Point Blank, The Lead, Face Off, Ideas. On CFCN Lethbridge, Aboriginasl Peoples’ Television Network, Six Nations Radio, Talk Shows on QR770 Radio Calgary, Actualité on Radio Canada, Public Broadcasting Radio Network in USA, Counterspin on Newsworld, Wrote and presented 26 opinion pieces for “Mid-day Express” on CBC Alberta Radio.


Video Tapes Produced

First Nations, First Ministers (part 1) 1 hour, 1983
First Nations, First Ministers (part 2) 1 hour, 1984
A Long and True Alliance, 20 minutes, 1986

16mm Films Directed

Flight Plan, 1970
Sky Surfers, 1976
Serpent River Paddlers, 1978
Seasons of the Mind, 198
(All these films have been aired by the CBC. As well some have been distributed by the National Film Board, Famous Players Theatres and TV Ontario. They are all available in school and library collections across the country.)

Internet Productions

Between 2003 and 2010 Hall has produced several hundred hours of downloadable lectures, video conferences, iPod and itune files, You Tubes, Vimeos etc. available at, for instance,

www.globalizationstudies.ca
http://globalizationstudies.ca/?page_id=8
www.ourowncbc.info/
http://www.youtube.com/user/Globalization1492
http://vimeo.com/channels/globalization
http://sites.google.com/a/earthintoproperty.info/colonization/home/articles-by-the-author-1
http://people.uleth.ca/~hall/index.htm
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Anthony%20J.%20Hall%20AND%20mediatype%3Amovies


Academic Associations

Board of Directors, Canadian Indian/Native Studies
Association, 1985-1991

Member, Canadian Historical Association

Member, Ontario Historical Association

Member, National Advisory Council of the Network on the Constitution

Member, Native History Study Group of the Canadian Historical
Association



Community Involvement

Board of Directors
Canadian Association in Support of Native People
1982-1986

Vice-President
Canadian Alliance in Solidarity With the Native Peoples
1984-1985

President
Canadian Alliance in Solidarity With the Native Peoples
1985-1986, 1990-1993

Board of Directors
Canadian Alliance in Solidarity With the Native Peoples
1996 -1997

Founder, and Corresponding Secretary, Indigenous Ecology Alliance.
1997-

Member of the Southern Alberta Council on Public Affairs, 1990-2004

Adviser, Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Regular presentations to Lethbridge Senior Centre

Advisory Board, Islamic History Month Canada

studiorat

AnthonyHall wrote: »

Michael Shermer is not a career academic who has gone through standard procedures of peer review for tenure and promotion.

I bet that sticks in your throat something rotten Tony. So this begs the question, if Mr. Shermer is so unqualified as you suggest why turn up at his talk with a video camera?

Let me elaborate, Shermers been hawking the same talk around for the last few years. Why bother going at all?

studiorat

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's impressive! You can tell a lot about people from a single anonymous internet post. Even their age!! What age am I?

Sorry, BB am I missing something here?

Brown Bomber

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Does the word "skeptic" mean here that someone is sceptical of conspiracy theories or sceptical of what most accept as the true explanation?

The word Sceptic (skeptic in US English) would mean someone who questions accepted beliefs, facts or theories. They withold belief in any given situation in the absence of evidence. In my experience I've really only seen skeptics question ideas that are outside the status quo.

It's rather easy to call yourself a skeptic and wear it as a badge of honour without actually being a true skeptic. For example, you will rarely (if at all) see a skeptic differ on opinion or challenge another who claims to be a skeptic on any issue that outside the status quo. This group are more accurately called pseudoskeptics as they are not interested in the truth if it goes against their fixed positions.

Hope that helps.

Brown Bomber

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Yeah I'm still trying to teach my iPod proper English :L

Would you agree that the word "sceptical" is relative? For example, I I were to proclaim, "I'm sceptical" the only response would be, "sceptical of what?" So perhaps you can be a sceptic in relation to one thing but not another ie it needn't be an absolute

Yeah absolutely. I'm really not the best person to ask but it's a bit muddled because some poor armchair skeptics and therefore skeptics as a group have bastardised the term sceptical. Think of a Skeptic, a person who identifies with the beliefs of other skeptics and considers themselves part of a group, seperately from someone being sceptical about something/anything/everything. As far as I can tell you have to opt-in to be a skeptic. They are big into science, logic and materialism and the like; also magic for reasons I don't understand. Houdini was a skeptic as far as I know. Carl Sagan http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan, a true skeptic is the grandaddy of them all from what I know. But this is just my own poor understanding.

Brown Bomber

studiorat wrote: »

Sorry, BB am I missing something here?

nevermind.

I think Shermer from what I've been able to stomach of him ticks all the boxes of Cass Sunstein's "cognitive infiltration" to a T.

Sunstein advocates that the Government's stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups." He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called "independent" credible voices to bolster the Government's messaging (on the ground that those who don't believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false "conspiracy theories," which they define to mean: "an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

The paper's abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

AnthonyHall

Hello Studioart. Because after I presented my paper in Edmonton on "The Lies and Crimes" of 9/11" I became increasingly concerned about the damage being done to society by the failure to come to grips with the toxic public mythology supporting the imperial incursions of the so-called Global War on Terror.

Its only after I observed the lack of any disciplinary rigor in Michael Shermer's wild generalizing about "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" that I started looking into his professional relationship with Claremont. On seeing his performance it immediately occurred to me that there is no way this presenter could have much experience dealing with the demands of anonymous peer review. Sure enough, when I subsequently went to the trouble of checking, I learned that my suspicions had some basis in fact.

Yes, Shermer has shopped around that "Why People Believe Weird Things" presentation quite a lot. Its legitimate to ask why the University of Lethbridge would pay good money for this repeat of a warmed over repeat. But, then, folks in a Canadian town on the eastern slopes of the Rockies can possibly become too easily dazzled by the presence of a genuine show business personality. Certainly I could feel the intense animosity of the audience when I stood up to intervene as I did.

How do you see Shermer and his work? How do you see my efforts to identify the important primary and secondary works that offer an entry point into serious investigation? Are you content to confine your own study of power's workings to intuitive judgment calls aimed at distinguishing true from false "conspiracy theories?" At what point does the use of the tired term "conspiracy theory" become a block to the kind of vigorous engagement with evidence that one would expect from genuine skeptics?

Is there some way we can discuss this subject in terms that favor respectful dialogue rather than exchanges of insults.

Anyway, thanks for your interest.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is this "CT world" you speak of? And how did you become such an expert on it?

I'm as much of an expert as you are. I'm commenting on what I see on this very board - are you going to tell me that there aren't threads here on all of those sinister organisations pulling the strings behind the scenes?

Edit: your tone on this board is always very aggressive, it's pretty annoying to be honest.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm as much of an expert as you are.

On what???
this? ... http://www.ctworld.co.uk/about.asp

Connecticut?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm commenting on what I see on this very board - are you going to tell me that there are threads here on all of those sinister organisations pulling the strings behind the scenes?

And?

On the politics board there are threads about Unionism, Republicanism, Trade Unions, Libertarians, Fianna Fail, The Green Party, Fianna Gael etc. Does it mean that everyone who starts a thread in the politics forum is part of a politics world? And that they all think the same way and will vote the same way?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Edit: your tone on this board is always very aggressive, it's pretty annoying to be honest.

I'm sorry if you find it annoying but I can't understand why. I've merely asked you to clarify the vague label "CT World" from your own post. Something you've failed to do.

It's something you seem quite fond of "Illuminati fans", "cranks", "amateur sleuths", etc

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm sorry if you find it annoying but I can't understand why. I've merely asked you to clarify the vague label "CT World" from your own post. Something you've failed to do.

If you can't figure out that one, I think our shadowy masters with their evil plots can sleep quite safe at night.

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If you can't figure out that one,

So is that you can't or won't clarify?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think our shadowy masters with their evil plots can sleep quite safe at night.

More riddles.

Who are our "shadowy masters" and what are their "evil plots" you refer to? If I didn't know better I'd think you were pulling a Shermer.

AnthonyHall

UN Official, Professor Richard Falk (Special Rapporteur on Israel-Palestine) is being smeared by reactionaries seeking to divert attention from the systematic violations of human rights particularly in Gaza and the West Bank. Will Michael Shermer disgrace himself and the Claremont faculty yet again by joining in the tarring and feathering of this renowned Princeton Professor of International Law and this courageous UN jurist on human rights? Whose interests does Shermer serve and advance when he slanders educators far more accomplished and principled than him with his wild scatter-gun attacks that demean the ideals of scholarly and sceptical inquiry?

See

Part One
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEgnJuqPxQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Part Two
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb6JQq08oDY
Part Three
http://www.youtube.com/embed/J_OvmdZqA-c

YoCuzwaasup

"IF" ... (And it a BIG) ... "IF" ...

IF: (A conjunction)
1 introducing a conditional clause
• On the condition or supposition that ...
* In the event that ...

ad hominem-
• attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain

We LIVE ... in a "Negative world. Stop lights ... Rather than "Go lights", TV shows & Movies that ... "For 25 of the 30 minutes" or "An hour and a half of the two hour movie" ... it's: "PLOTS", "SCHEMES" or "CONSPIRACIES" & the "IRONIC" ... (not Skeptical) THING about them is ... in the last part of the presentation ... EVERYONE ... (At least that's everyone that is not MAIMED or DEAD) ... goes home to live their happy ... paradoxical lives. (No trauma debriefing, no therapy ... NO LAWYERS (Yea RIGHT)! As a FIRE FIGHTER ... I see ... Public adjuster, Claims adjuster ... (you're friendly "Good neighbor" insurance man) would gladly ... "Adjust" your JAW ... if you encroach on his: "DEAL".

We live in a "Dog eat DOG" World. Even with father Bush's (1991) "New World Order" Speech" About Rule of Law instead of the "Law of the Jungle" ...
"There still has to be ... A "KING" of that jungle.

Who's "Way" ... IS IT GOING TO BE? Like in the Movie ... "Gangs of New York" ... or The today's modern VERSION ... "THE GANGS OF THE MIDDLE EAST" ... I guess it's the Guy (Or Gal) with, "THE BIGGER GUNS" (a.k.a. America)
Am "Logical" so far? I don't want to appear, "A swindler trying to sell an invisible suit to a vain pompous king.

SCREECH ===============
I'm tired of this ...

What if "I" changed direction? Not it the way, my tittle: (Divergence) suggests ... (to lead you away ... BUT, "To lead you ... BACK TO?

In our day of "CHANGE" ... I think we need to be: "BROUGHT BACK TO BASICS". We're told to "Think ... "Critically". Well ... "Why am "I" ..."Escorted out by security" or worse ... "Taserered" ... when I express my, "Critical thinking?" a.k.a. Philosophy that differ's or conflict's in opinions, interests, wishes, to yours. (I Thought we lived in the Land of the free ... the Home of the BRAVE ... No today we live in a "Democracy" (A monarchy) not a "Republic".

We live in a time that, "Democracy" rules the laws of "The great men of this "Globalization scheme". The "DON'T" get their hands dirty. They follow the "LEAD" (Like so many of the "Things" they do) of King David in the Bible, when "Theocracy" once ruled.

The Bible "Hah" ... I said it! Am I now "One of your "Catch phrase's" that you can lable and discredit?
Let's look up ... discredit.
Discredit-
•cause (an idea or piece of evidence) to seem false or unreliable.
That sounds like "Skeptic" even worse "SEPTIC" ... A wound or part of the body) infected with bacteria.
This is what "Michael Shermer is: "A Bacteria".
Of course I am too ... ("A Bacteria") BUT ... I'm spreading a "Healthy Bacteria". If your Bacteria (or mind) is: "SEPTIC" ... any good Dr.(or contemporary) would give you an "Antibiotic" to hopefully, "SAVE YOUR LIFE"!
Thus deter a malpractice suit for negligent of professional activity or treatment. So I guess Dr. Shermer is not a real Dr. being he is not being, investigated of: "Abuses of power." It only a: "Philosophy magazine" and though he doesn't realize it ... He is following the Biblical account laid out for him ... for this time.

Like the ancient "Philosophisers" ... He is just a "Modern Philosopher" who denies the possibility of knowledge, or even "RATIONAL" belief.
You label those that differ with your philosophy: the dismissive "TERM" "Conspiracy theorist" so I ... label you ... "Cynic". A hypocrite.

Is there a Conspiracy? The Bible ... with it's "CONCISE" concerning information of this time ... says "YES!" "EVENTS" that you "admit" (in your excuse for "facts") magazine ... PROVES THE BIBLE, "Accurate".

Historical King David ... (The "Boy who took out an 'Experienced Military Giant" with a "Projectile" {Sling & a Stone} then, lopped his head off to finish the job) ... Yes ... he ruled when Theocracy was at it's hight.

God warned the people to follow His "Ways", (a.k.a. His Laws).
Today ... We still have God's laws, (because God's WAYS WORK.) BUT ... THEY ARE being "Piggybacked on" BY "ONE" ... who KNEW, (KNOWS God) ... "ALL TO WELL"!

The "Conciseness" of Scripture is so .... "Harrowing"!
I feel for those under "Democracy" rather than submitting to Theocracy".

Here is a "Fact" or for the septic mind ... a "Coincidence", (an accident.)
As I stated earlier ... "We LIVE ... in a "Negative world" HOW NEGATIVE?
Look up the root word for "Democracy" (DEM or DEMO) and after the first 39 NEGATIVE meanings (unusual), The 40'th one you will see ... "Who's Rule" you are under ... It's a demon or demonic rule: an evil spirit or devil.
• a cruel, evil, or destructive person or thing
Yes, Scripture is CONCISE in today's modern times ... Isaiah 14
God bless

PS. The 33 word is: "Democracy" was this an accident? Secret Societies 33 degree? ... What Judeo-Christians are warned to be skeptical about ...

AnthonyHall

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/05/27/jonathan-kay-defends-the-sacred-myth-of-911/

Waking-Dreams

I guess Conspiracy Theories provide great “entertainment value” for some people. They connect the dots, sit around and high-five each other on what a great sinister plot they’ve uncovered which the dumb masses have swallowed whole.



Apparently, some people desperately want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings, that if they can’t find anything sinister enough that’s plain for all to see, they’ll go one further and dream up something totally off-base, which not everyone is clued into (maybe because they think it’s ludicrous?).

It’s no secret that some people will twist whatever facts they have in front of them and make ‘em fit with what they already believe (creationists, anyone?). A bit like working backwards to find supporting evidence for a position you think, no wait, a position you just KNOW is true. Yet, when there’s no real supporting evidence to be found, they’ll make up ANYTHING in an attempt to uphold their belief.

What CT pushers like David Icke and Alex Jones benefit the most from, is all the attention they receive. They start a movement, and pretty soon they are sitting on what must be a very lucrative business where “spreading the word” becomes the MO while who knows what kinds of figures are being generated behind the scenes from ad revenue and donations. People donate to these causes not realising that all it’s really paying for is to give these delusional/paranoids a nice career as “informed speakers” and book sellers. The same goes for the Zeitgeist crowd.

I always wonder why the people (followers) who get caught up in this malarkey -- instead of spending so much time and effort “spreading the word”, posting blogs or links on their Facebook pages (even going so far as handing out flyers and trying to “enlighten” the rest of us mere mortals) -- why they don’t so something productive that would actually make a REAL difference to a human life. Such as getting involved in some local charity work; volunteer for the Samaritans or Childline or any of the many other organisations that actively help other human beings in the real world. Much better to do that than continue to indulge their egos in juvenile fantasies about secret societies and lizard people, no?

ed2hands

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I guess Conspiracy Theories provide great “entertainment value” for some people. They connect the dots, sit around and high-five each other on what a great sinister plot they’ve uncovered which the dumb masses have swallowed whole.



Apparently, some people desperately want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings, that if they can’t find anything sinister enough that’s plain for all to see, they’ll go one further and dream up something totally off-base, which not everyone is clued into (maybe because they think it’s ludicrous?).

It’s no secret that some people will twist whatever facts they have in front of them and make ‘em fit with what they already believe (creationists, anyone?). A bit like working backwards to find supporting evidence for a position you think, no wait, a position you just KNOW is true. Yet, when there’s no real supporting evidence to be found, they’ll make up ANYTHING in an attempt to uphold their belief.

What CT pushers like David Icke and Alex Jones benefit the most from, is all the attention they receive. They start a movement, and pretty soon they are sitting on what must be a very lucrative business where “spreading the word” becomes the MO while who knows what kinds of figures are being generated behind the scenes from ad revenue and donations. People donate to these causes not realising that all it’s really paying for is to give these delusional/paranoids a nice career as “informed speakers” and book sellers. The same goes for the Zeitgeist crowd.

I always wonder why the people (followers) who get caught up in this malarkey -- instead of spending so much time and effort “spreading the word”, posting blogs or links on their Facebook pages (even going so far as handing out flyers and trying to “enlighten” the rest of us mere mortals) -- why they don’t so something productive that would actually make a REAL difference to a human life. Such as getting involved in some local charity work; volunteer for the Samaritans or Childline or any of the many other organisations that actively help other human beings in the real world. Much better to do that than continue to indulge their egos in juvenile fantasies about secret societies and lizard people, no?

Nice speech man . Regarding the highlighted bit though, there's plenty of people who desperately DONT want there to be an elaborate government conspiracy pulling strings. You're missing the wood for the trees.

Edit: I'm not a Zeitgeist fan or the rest you mentioned.

33

Dave! wrote: »

Hey folks,

Just saw that Michael Shermer (publisher of Skeptic magazine) wrote a new article for Scientific American on this subject. I haven't gotten a chance to read it yet, but some of ye might be interested in it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director



What do we think? I'll post my own thoughts when I get a chance

It takes a combination of a few things, suspicion, insight, knowledge, intelligence, wisdom and thinking outside the box, then you put that up against the norm and analyse it, you seek holes in both sides, sit down and think, then come to a conclusion, is it bollox or does it warrant further thought.
I've seen CTer's all tarred with the same brush, but we are very much different from thought to thought, like all mankind really, we are all different, some I believe, some I don't, others I havent an interest in to bother looking further, this last example is what some take, they smply don't look or don't want to look, and I understand that.
But you must always strive to look beneath the surface, govt's lie, they all le, some more than others and some for different reasons, but you owe it to yourself to always question known liar's, thats the truth.

Waking-Dreams

I say that apparently some people want there to be some sinister conspiracy because there seems to be no disconfirming evidence you can show them that will seemingly change their minds on certain issues. They have already assumed the conclusion and are attempting to piece together the evidence like a diligent lawyer would. Plus, the stronger the yearning, the greater the confidence in what they believe. The brain is adept at supplying a conveniently biased array of evidence and arguments to bolster its opinion and as humans we often tend to ignore (usually unconsciously) our own fallibility.

It’s also why persuading others can sometimes be a futile endeavour. To be honest, I didn’t come into this sub-forum to try and seriously change anyone’s mind. I was doing a boards search and came across the OP’s link to the Shermer piece on how to tell the difference between true and false conspiracies. As for speeches, nah, I’ll leave that to the people who love to eat this stuff up and regurgitate the ignorance of others. I’ll admit, it’s entertaining to say the least but I’m just an observer who is a little jaded and apathetic from hearing the same kinds of stories being repeated again and again, with the usual array of rhetoric thrown in for dramatic effect.

The funny thing is that even though conspiracies get debunked all the time, new believers are always coming to the fore. For instance, even now 10 years after 9/11 people are still using the same old tired arguments and “evidence” of an inside job that was debunked years ago. Many conspiracy theorists scrutinise any evidence that rubbishes their position. Yet evidence that supports their position is often evaluated uncritically. Anything contradictory is downplayed or ignored.

That’s the biggest problem. If something cannot be falsified then you can never be proven wrong and so can keep the whole spiel going on ad infinitum.

I don’t mean to tar all CT’s with one brush as there is obviously many different levels where some conspiracies are rejected on certain grounds yet other plots are deemed plausible on the exact same grounds. There is no area more plagued by erroneous beliefs and credulous points of view than the sphere of Alternative Medicine, Conspiracy Theories and New Age wishy washy flapdoodle. Take any particular story and you will find examples of at least one of the following: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; exposure to a biased example; reasoning by representatives; exaggeration of a kernel of truth; terminological confusion; confirmation bias; illusory correlation… the list goes on.

We are pattern-seeking primates, and I wish more people really understood exactly how this evolved mechanism actually works.

I love the irony of how conspiracy theorists espouse a “Question Everything!” attitude. They’re all for questioning authority and mass media information, except when it comes to their own sources. “Question everything, except for what we’re telling you on our website.”

33 wrote: »

But you must always strive to look beneath the surface, govt's lie, they all le, some more than others and some for different reasons, but you owe it to yourself to always question known liar's, that's the truth.

I agree in principle, but how do you look further, when the rabbit hole is plagued with conspiracy nuts and people with cognitive biases? People don’t trust the media yet they trust what some blogger writes because they are genuine and trying to uncover the truth? Sometimes it just seems like the blind are leading the blind. The Internet has a lot to answer for.

Governments do indeed lie, but it does not follow that therefore any plausible conspiracy is valid because of past/current deception.

Anyways, as Ben Goldacre says in ‘Bad Science’: You can’t reason people out of positions they didn’t reason themselves into.

ed2hands

Interesting take on it and some of what you say is quite true. I do realise you're trying to appear at least not to tar CTers with the same brush.


You said: "The funny thing is that even though conspiracies get debunked all the time, new believers are always coming to the fore."

Some get debunked (proven wrong by incontravertible evidence), but many many others have been far from debunked. The debunkers have been debunked if you will:).

And this:
"I agree in principle, but how do you look further, when the rabbit hole is plagued with conspiracy nuts and people with cognitive biases? People don’t trust the media yet they trust what some blogger writes because they are genuine and trying to uncover the truth? Sometimes it just seems like the blind are leading the blind. The Internet has a lot to answer for."

It's quite easy to look further. Scratch the surface of biased blogs or whatever to check the science/history/facts and slap them on the table for examination. Conspiracy theories have been put forward (and many proven correct) for millennia; the internet is just a medium is it not?

Waking-Dreams

ed2hands wrote: »

But many many others have been far from debunked.

And they never will. That’s one of my points. They can never be debunked because “they covered it up” or there just isn’t enough evidence to be found.

It’s basically like me saying you can’t disprove it to my satisfaction, so therefore it’s entirely plausible that I can go on believing this is likely.

That’s sort of why CT’s have been around and will be around for a long, long time. The Internet has just exacerbated the phenomenon.

ed2hands wrote: »

It's quite easy to look further. Scratch the surface of biased blogs or whatever to check the science/history/facts and slap them on the table for examination. Conspiracy theories have been put forward (and many proven correct) for millennia; the internet is just a medium is it not?

But what passes for a biased blog? I don’t deny that such things exist. But this is what I mean by people examining confirmatory evidence uncritically and anything to the contrary is heavily scrutinsed. Ben Goldacre has presented lots of damning evidence and is repeatedly dismissed as being in the pockets of “big pharma” (he’s actually one of their biggest critics) and any number of other ad hominems. Lots of folk would consider his blog as biased. So you can’t win, can you?

I mean, here we have Dr. Andrew Wakefield who I believe spoke this past weekend in Ireland along with Jim Corr and others, and people are going to give this man their attention when his actions and methodology surrounding the MMR hoax would surely make him a contemptible character worthy of derision. Yet, I’ve heard people accept this guy (based on “having met/spoken to him”) as an authority figure and still, STILL swallow the MMR/Autism link hogwash.

Ah yes, Wakefield has assumed the mantle of victimhood, that he has been on the receiving end of a vicious smear campaign. He belongs in the ranks of faith healers and other hucksters.

Maybe you agree with me on this, but there are tons of people who are credulous enough about these scare stories to swallow them whole and think they are more informed than the average citizen, when really, they’ve just proved how naïve and easily led THEY are.

Anyways, that’s all I wanted to say. Enjoy your stories people but don’t let them define your life.

Waking-Dreams

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

I mean, here we have Dr. Andrew Wakefield who I believe spoke this past weekend in Ireland along with Jim Corr and others, and people are going to give this man their attention when his actions and methodology surrounding the MMR hoax would surely make him a contemptible character worthy of derision. Yet, I’ve heard people accept this guy (based on “having met/spoken to him”) as an authority figure and still, STILL swallow the MMR/Autism link hogwash.

Ah yes, Wakefield has assumed the mantle of victimhood, that he has been on the receiving end of a vicious smear campaign. He belongs in the ranks of faith healers and other hucksters.

It's interesting that the alternative news and health industry have been supporting him and the CTer crowd have been swallowing his crap since he's absolutely guilty of the very stuff those guys like accuse real medicine of.
For example, Wakefield started off claiming it wasn't all vaccines that gave kids autism, just the 3-in-1 vaccine that was in use and he was campaigning for single dose vaccines.

Now a favourite source of evidence for CTers is patent records, being both publicly available but also technical and confusing.
A great example of this was during the scaremongering they were doing over the swine flu. A patent was found for a manufacturing process for flu vaccines, which can be applied to various strains and breeds of the virus, including H1N1 but dated a few years before the swine flu made the headlines. To the CTers who didn't bother to actually understand the patent this sounded like a patent for a vaccine for the exact strain of H1N1 doing the rounds, which meant the evil conspiracy had a vaccine for the virus before it came out, therefore the virus was manufactured for various evil purposes.
So from one patent the CTers where able to conclude that Big Pharma had released a fake health scare to help sell their vaccines.

Now Andrew Wakefield just so happened to have the rights to a patent as well. And it just so happened to be a patent for a single dose vaccine. Now if the CTers were being consistant they would apply the same logic that he was drumming up a false health scare about the 3-in-1 vaccine so he could sell his single dose vaccine.

But since he was a shrewd **** he pretended he was anti-establishment and since he happened to be supporting the conspiratoral viewpoints and narratives, he was able to avoid such scrutiny from the CTers.
Of course the fact that he published clearly **** science would have had no effect either way.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

It's interesting that the alternative news and health industry have been supporting him and the CTer crowd have been swallowing his crap

Really..........? Let's see shall we if your exhibition of grandiosity is based on delusions or not............From every single post that "Wakefield" was mentioned in this forum.

Your posts are in blue and the "CTer" crowd are in red.


King Mob
For example, Wakefield started off claiming it wasn't all vaccines that gave kids autism, just the 3-in-1 vaccine that was in use and he was campaigning for single dose vaccines.
Waking-Dreams
I mean, here we have Dr. Andrew Wakefield who I believe spoke this past weekend in Ireland along with Jim Corr and others, and people are going to give this man their attention when his actions and methodology surrounding the MMR hoax would surely make him a contemptible character worthy of derision.
jtsuited
Look at how 10% of children in Ireland aren't being vaccinated.....absolutely no reason other than believing the media's absolutely retarded take in relation to the matter. Direct result of one specific doctor (the now struck-off Andrew Wakefield) and a whole world of people who aren't qualified to talk on the subject, talking on the subject.
jtsuited
Just like there are doctors who will publish wacky papers on autism being caused by vaccines (Andrew Wakefield),

desertcircus
Oh dear Lord. I thought this particular brand of nonsense had been killed off by the end of Andrew Wakefield's career? It appears not.

Truthrevolution
Heres a news article which really looks into the link between vaccines and autism, i urge everyone to read it and its subsequent links.Dr Andrew Wakefield has been studying and doing lab tests on vaccines now for the last couple of years with startling results.

rarnes1
Yeah, he fixed data and misreported results. What a guy

Undergod
The main author, Wakefield, was in the pay of rival vaccine comapnies, and ten of the other authors retracted their conclusion of a link between MMR and autism in 2004.

Truthrevolution
Its no secret that Dr Wakefield has been trying to develop a safer alternative vaccine.I would be interested to know who these other companies are and what vaccines they were producing??

Mr Plough
In 2003, after 10 years work, legal aid was withdrawn from over 1,000 parents claiming damages in a suit in which Wakefield was to appear as an expert witness. In 2004 Deer wrote an exposé of Wakefield that was full of concoctions, half truths and fantasies and which claimed that the children examined by the team at the Royal Free were not ill.

Monty Burnz
Your links to court judgements that were presumably influenced by research by Wakefield that has since been totally debunked are hardly evidence of a causal link.

Mr Plough
"Wakefield's identification of gastrointestinal inflammation in autism will r...emain an important scientific contribution. The magnitude of the effort to discredit him betrays a strong fear that his suggestion of a link to vaccination may be correct. It amounts to a public pillorying that frightens others from investigating this controversial but important issue."
http://www.northeastern.edu/news/sto...1/01/deth.html

K-9
Sorry, Wakefield picked a good study to restore his reputation, seeing as he was being paid by Big Pharma.

K-9
I'd say he'd qualify as a disinfo agent at this stage.

uprising2
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
http://www.generationrescue.org/wake...tatement2.html

K-9
Why do you believe Wakefield is being discredited?

King Mob
Wakefield is currently on several charges.

King Mob
Andrew Wakefield published a paper where he linked autism to the MMR vaccine. This paper became the basis for the supposed link between autism and thimerosal.
However bull**** was called on the paper almost immediately, and eventually it came out that at the time Wakefield was in the employ of a lawyer preparing a suit against the makers of MMR.
He is now facing a lot of charges:

MoominPapa
The original study by Andrew Wakefield which claimed the link was show to have no basis and led to him and his colleagues being charged with serious professional misconduct.

---

So 5 "Cter crowd" posts from 3 "Cter Crowd" posters since 2008!. Does that qualify a crowd to EU? 3's a crowd huh? :pac:

In fact you've brought up Dr Wakefield more than anyone else in the history of the forum. Is it easier to "debunk" yourself?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really..........? Let's see shall we if your exhibition of grandiosity is based on delusions or not............From every single post that "Wakefield" was mentioned in this forum.


So 5 "Cter crowd" posts from 3 "Cter Crowd" posters since 2008!. Does that qualify a crowd to EU? 3's a crowd huh? :pac:

In fact you've brought up Dr Wakefield more than anyone else in the history of the forum. Is it easier to "debunk" yourself?

I fail to see the point you're making or how it counters mine.

The CTer I refer to includes the wider community out there on the internet.
Of the few conspiracy theorist posters from here you've quoted you've quoted ones that support Andrew Wakefield.

So what does it matter how many times one side actually mentioned his name? How does this counter my point?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I fail to see the point you're making or how it counters mine.

Well your whole point was based on how pathetic "CTers" are and how wonderful you and your scientific buddies are . You might as well put your cards on the table, you don't even try anymore to hide it.

CTer crowd have been swallowing his crap

Who swallows crap (metaphorically)? Gullible Idiots. Therefore you are saying "CTers" are idiots.

Who didn't "swallow his crap"? Those who are superior. You imply that you didn't. Therefore you are superior (to "CTers").

those guys

Which guys? The idiots?

Now a favourite source of evidence for CTers is patent records

:pac:
Yeah these fictional "CTers" just can't get enough of onlinepatents.com, :rolleyes:. Where did you get that from? Another 3 people posted a patent in the history of this forum was it?

being both publicly available but also technical and confusing.

Ah now it makes sense. You were setting up the implication that this mystical group of "Cters" are lazy and dishonest. Got it.

A great example of this was during the scaremongering they were doing over the swine flu.

"They"... who?... 3 people again!............... Darn these "CTers" and their scaremongering.:mad:

Just checked and found the thread

>>> http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=61202406

A grand total of 1 "CTers" posted in it. :pac: Didn't you say it was a "great" example

And I'm getting bored but the rest of your post is antagonistic, patronising shyte. It's no wonder so many people get banned from dealing with you.

King Mob wrote: »

The CTer I refer to includes the wider community out there on the internet.

But not here? Except of course the "3's a crowd" crowd.

How are you so familiar with what the rest of the world is thinking and for example that these "CTers" "favourite source" is the "patent". ? Bizarre stuff

King Mob wrote: »

Of the few conspiracy theorist posters from here you've quoted you've quoted ones that support Andrew Wakefield.

Yeah I know, that was the point. The "few" were the only 3. It's interesting that you tar all"the wider community out there on the internet." with the same brush on the basis of 5 comments from 3 different people because that is exactly what that snake Shermer does. with his "Some people who who think there was a second JFK shooter also deny the holocaust. Therefore the 2nd shooter theorists are anti-semites" nonsense.

King Mob wrote: »

So what does it matter how many times one side actually mentioned his name? How does this counter my point?

What sides are you talking about? This is supposed to be a discussion not a battle.

Of course it the frequency matters if you are presenting something as the norm. I've shown he has been mentioned by 3 "Cters" in 3 years. That is not the norm. Your generalisation is without any substance.

Unfortunately your rant doesn't hold much water BB.
You know as well as I do there's many conspiracy theorists here who both believe that Andrew Wakefield's conclusion is valid even if they don't mention his name.

And we also know that the swine flu patent thing has come up more than once.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61187599&postcount=94
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61680904&postcount=102
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63174783&postcount=43

And patents come up a lot (often unread and misinterpreted) on threads about HAARP and free energy devices.

But lets take a well known conspiracy theorist who often writes on health matters.
So here's Mike Adams of Natural News writing a glowing piece about Wakefield:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html

And here's an article on his site reproducing the same claim about the patent for the swine flu vaccine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026735_health_vaccination_CODEX.html

David Icke noted on his website article "Flu Is Not the Biggest Danger, It`s the Vaccine", that Baxter Vaccine Patent Application US 2009/0060950 A1, a vaccine for the new swine flu, was filed in August of 2008 and published in March of 2009, before the new swine flu outbreak in Mexico. The patent lists the different flu strains and toxic adjuvants, which leave oils (squalene) as an option. Again, this patent was filed several months before the actual outbreak. Prescient planning by Baxter, or perhaps part of a bigger plan known by a few?

Now BB do you think that Andrew Wakefield is trustworthy?
Can you point to a single instance to a conspiracy theorist here dismissing his claims based on the same logic they use to dismiss the claims of Big Pharma?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Unfortunately your rant doesn't hold much water BB.
You know as well as I do there's many conspiracy theorists here who both believe that Andrew Wakefield's conclusion is valid even if they don't mention his name.

Yeah they have so much respect for him it is blasphemous to mention his name. It's W_kefield or a stoning from these lads.



Serioulsy King Mob listen to yourself. I've shown you that he was mentioned by "CTers" A TOTAL OF 5 times. The forum is 6 years old. That's less than once a year FFS.

And what of it........?

You can't just blanket prejoratively label everyone who disagrees with you. It's ignorant. You'd call me a "CTer" for thinking the US will invade Pakistan, I'd refute that. Now I don't trust Wakefield, three others do apparently (THREE OTHERS WHO I HAVE NEVER MET IN MY LIFE; DON*T KNOW THEIR REAL NAMES OR ANYTHING ABOUT THEM i.e. THEY HAVE ZERO CONNECTION TO ME) yet according to you for example someone who thinks the US will invade Pakistan is in exactly the same (CTer) bracket as someone who thinks that vaccines can cause autism in children (and thinks that the queen is a lizard, and the holocaust never happened and so on).

That is ****ing ridiculous to be frank, and completely dishonest.

King Mob wrote: »

But lets take a well known conspiracy theorist who often writes on health matters.
So here's Mike Adams of Natural News writing a glowing piece about Wakefield:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html

And here's an article on his site reproducing the same claim about the patent for the swine flu vaccine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/026735_health_vaccination_CODEX.html

Never heard of Mike Adams. He's not even on Wiki so he can't be that famous-

King Mob wrote: »

Now BB do you think that Andrew Wakefield is trustworthy?

Nope.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you point to a single instance to a conspiracy theorist here dismissing his claims based on the same logic they use to dismiss the claims of Big Pharma?

Of course I can't. Not to your satisfaction at least. Think about it, by your logic a conspiracy theorist is no longer a conspiracy theorist if they think like you in your ivory tower so it's an impossible request.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah they have so much respect for him it is blasphemous to mention his name. It's W_kefield or a stoning from these lads.

Hilariously factious.
I love how you're bitching to me about my "dishonesty" and are now playing dumb.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Serioulsy King Mob listen to yourself. I've shown you that he was mentioned by "CTers" A TOTAL OF 5 times. The forum is 6 years old. That's less than once a year FFS.

And what of it........?

Now aside form the fact that he's the source of the vaccine-autism link which plenty of CTers here clearly believe, his work as well as sites that actively support him are frequently posted.

Now honest question, if there was a poll here of the people who believe in conspiracies theories about whether Andrew Wakefield was right or not, which way do you think the poll would go?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You can't just blanket prejoratively label everyone who disagrees with you. It's ignorant. You'd call me a "CTer" for thinking the US will invade Pakistan, I'd refute that. Now I don't trust Wakefield, three others do apparently (THREE OTHERS WHO I HAVE NEVER MET IN MY LIFE; DON*T KNOW THEIR REAL NAMES OR ANYTHING ABOUT THEM i.e. THEY HAVE ZERO CONNECTION TO ME) yet according to you for example someone who thinks the US will invade Pakistan is in exactly the same (CTer) bracket as someone who thinks that vaccines can cause autism in children (and thinks that the queen is a lizard, and the holocaust never happened and so on).

That is ****ing ridiculous to be frank, and completely dishonest.

But I didn't blanket all people who hold different opinions to me.
I understand that conspiracy theorists believe different often conflicting things to each other.
However we both understand that you and others can be grouped together into certain groups, as you evidenced by identifying conspiracy theorists in your first post.

Now when I referred to what the CTer crowd say I was clearly referring to a common opinion held and put forward by members of that same identifiable group. Anyone who is not looking for something to bitch at me for can see that this doesn't every single last person in the group.

Now I've shown plenty examples of CTers holding the exact opinions I was referring to.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Never heard of Mike Adams. He's not even on Wiki so he can't be that famous-

He writes the vast majority of the articles on Natural News and is often reposted here.
But since he doesn't count apparently, lets take David Icke.
We can see that in the previous link that the patent story comes from Icke and a quick search give plenty of articles supporting Wakefield.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope.

And why is that?
Do you think it's consistent to trust him over Big Pharma?
Why do you think people do think he's trustworthy?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Of course I can't. Not to your satisfaction at least. Think about it, by your logic a conspiracy theorist is no longer a conspiracy theorist if they think like you in your ivory tower so it's an impossible request.

And while bitching about my generalisations and assumptions you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
Even in your strawman the reason breaks down as I'm looking for a conspiracy theorist who uses the same logic he does to dismiss Big Pharma to dismiss Wakefield. So I am specifically not looking for someone who thinks like me in my ivory tower.
Depending how you answer the previous question I ask, you could possibly be the exact example you're looking for.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Hilariously factious.
I love how you're bitching to me about my "dishonesty" and are now playing dumb. .

It is dishonest.

Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy
Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes a claim of P's status. B also makes a claim of P's status. Therefore, P is guilty by association. Example: Alice believes in a theory. Bob and Carol believe in the same theory. Therefore, Alice is just like Bob and Carol.

King Mob wrote: »

Now aside form the fact that he's the source of the vaccine-autism link which plenty of CTers here clearly believe, his work as well as sites that actively support him are frequently posted..

Sort it out Mob.

Plenty = 3 posters?
Frequently posted = 5 posts?

King Mob wrote: »

Now honest question, if there was a poll here of the people who believe in conspiracies theories about whether Andrew Wakefield was right or not, which way do you think the poll would go? .

Based on the evidence i.e. posts for and against Wakefield's autism link it'd be a clear vote against Wakefield.

King Mob wrote: »

But I didn't blanket all people who hold different opinions to me. .

Yes you did as you often do. I don't think you do it on purpose. I don't think you are a prick just unintentionally judgemental.

King Mob wrote: »

I understand that conspiracy theorists believe different often conflicting things to each other. .

No. PEOPLE "believe different often conflicting things to each other". That's what you are dealing with here.

King Mob wrote: »

However we both understand that you and others can be grouped together into certain groups, as you evidenced by identifying conspiracy theorists in your first post. .

King Mob wrote: »

Now when I referred to what the CTer crowd say I was clearly referring to a common opinion held and put forward by members of that same identifiable group. Anyone who is not looking for something to bitch at me for can see that this doesn't every single last person in the group. .

No, all that is evidence of is that I was addressing it from your perspective and the people who you would label a CTer as I was dealing with your statement.

An identifiable group? Identifiable by you you mean. tut tut tut. Can everyone play that game? Can I label everyone who disagrees with me as cynical pricks?

King Mob wrote: »

Now I've shown plenty examples of CTers holding the exact opinions I was referring to..

No. 3!

robroy1234

These are the only true conspiracies:

1. The Gardai, roadworkers, lorry drivers and slow drivers are all conspiring against me when on the way to either picking up my wife from the airport, or I have an important engagement to go to.

2. That pothole was purposely placed there by the local council in cahoots with the local garages.

3. Jedward and Daniel O'Donnell.

Penn

Lads, calm it down please. This thread will be locked if we feel it's getting out of hand.

Waking-Dreams

FYI Brown Bomber, the populace of the boards.ie CT forum is hardly going to be an accurate representative example (I can think of 5 people I know who live and breath CT’s but don’t post on boards.ie, at least to my knowledge anyway).

I mean, there was absolutely no posts here of the aforementioned event in which Wakefield, Corr et al. spoke at last weekend. Can we therefore assume that from the lack of posts here in the CT forum there must have been no interest in the event and subsequently nobody turned up? I think you’d agree that would be a ludicrous assessment, but that’s exactly what you’ve tried to imply here regarding the visible lack of support for Wakefield from the CT community.

It sounds like your frustration lies in being tarnished with a brush that gets applied to other CTers whom you do not identify with when they are subject to the derision and laughter of others. This is understandable but unfortunately it’s a game of evasion that can go on forever. When someone makes a generalisation about conspiracy theorists and what many of them share in common (a tendency towards pattern-seeking, cognitive biases, etc.) a lot of individuals will take offense and retort, “but that’s not me!”

However, this is a bit like asking people to rate their own driving ability. We all think we are above average drivers yet this is mathematically impossible. Obviously, there has to people who fall below average but will they tell us so? I doubt it. In general, people tend to think highly of themselves.

I get that CTers will take extreme personal offense at being labelled as swallowers of crap but clearly, what with the mountain of pseudoscience stories, movements and public speaking events, SOMEBODY is paying a helluva lot of attention to it all. While many CTers will hold contrasting views and disagree with one another, the point still stands that just about all of them do share lots of the same beliefs (though not necessarily personal qualities) and more importantly, flawed ways of interpretting data.

But the problem in trying to point this out is that any CTer can always state, “that’s not my kind of Conspiracy Theory” in the same way that when you point out some of the contemptible edicts of the Catholic Church and the actions of some of its followers, many believers will say, “that’s not me or my kind of Catholicism”.

The sceptic can’t really win here when the goalposts are always on the move and the CTer refuses to be pinned down.

Toodles.

Penn

In fairness Waking-Dreams, your comparison to the Church is unfair. With the Church, you are supposed to be following one idea, the same book, the same morals, essentially 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. Yes, there are those who pick and choose certain aspects, or take a different meaning to suit themselves and what they believe.

With Conspiracy Theories, there is no one set idea. No one book that everyone has to follow. When I have to infract or ban someone for insulting CTers in general, I always try to say that we have numerous posters with varying levels of belief in a wide range of subjects.

ed2hands

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

FYI Brown Bomber, the populace of the boards.ie CT forum is hardly going to be an accurate representative example (I can think of 5 people I know who live and breath CT’s but don’t post on boards.ie, at least to my knowledge anyway).

I mean, there was absolutely no posts here of the aforementioned event in which Wakefield, Corr et al. spoke at last weekend. Can we therefore assume that from the lack of posts here in the CT forum there must have been no interest in the event and subsequently nobody turned up? I think you’d agree that would be a ludicrous assessment, but that’s exactly what you’ve tried to imply here regarding the visible lack of support for Wakefield from the CT community.

It sounds like your frustration lies in being tarnished with a brush that gets applied to other people. This is understandable but unfortunately it’s a game of evasion that can go on forever. When someone makes a generalisation about Conspiracy Theorists and what many of them share in common (a tendency towards pattern-seeking, cognitive biases, etc.) a lot of individuals will take offense and retort, “but that’s not me!”

However, this is a bit like asking people to rate their own driving ability. We all think we are above average drivers yet this is mathematically impossible. Obviously, there has to people who fall below average but will they tell us so? I doubt it. In general, people tend to think highly of themselves.

I appreciate that CTers will take extreme personal offense at being labelled as swallowers of crap but clearly, what with the mountain of pseudoscience stories, movements and public speaking events, SOMEBODY is paying a helluva lot of attention to it all. While many CTers will hold contrasting views and disagree with one another, the point still stands that many of them do share lots of the same beliefs (though not necessarily personal qualities).

But the problem in trying to point this out is that any CTer can always state, “that’s not my kind of Conspiracy Theory” in the same way that when you point out some of the contemptible edicts of the Catholic Church and the actions of some of its followers, many believers will say, “that’s not me or my kind of Catholicism”.

The sceptic can’t really win here when the goalposts are always on the move and the CTer refuses to be pinned down.

Toodles.

(Another reference to Wakefield:))

Not sure what you're really trying to impart in this post, and i wont be getting involved in this, but it seems like you are also attempting to corral some people who post here into one enclosure, then to observe their "cognitive bias" as you put it and comment on their "tendency towards pattern-seeking". Doesn't sit well with them i'd say, to be psuedo-psycoanalysed in this condescending manner.