The pedophile ring that offed Jill Dando included close friends of Margaret Thatcher and other senior politicians, some of those senior politicians are still around and pro-EU. It's only logical that those who've resorted to such means in the past would continue to do this if it suited their interests. The fact a Swedish politician was killed in the week leading up to there Euro referendum only adds weight to the possibility.
So, you are a) assuming the existence of a paedophile ring, and b) assuming you know who was in it, and c) assuming you know enough about their current politics to decide that they're pro-EU, and d) assuming that these people were responsible for killing Jill Dando, and e) assuming that these people would therefore be willing to kill someone else for an entirely different reason, and f) assuming that they still have the power to carry it out, and g) assuming that's a more likely explanation than a random attack.
You present no evidence for this whatsoever, yet talk like it's somehow proven fact.
Maybe these things are why you might get labelled as a "conspiracy theorist"? Just a thought...
The pedophile ring that offed Jill Dando included close friends of Margaret Thatcher and other senior politicians, some of those senior politicians are still around and pro-EU. It's only logical that those who've resorted to such means in the past would continue to do this if it suited their interests. The fact a Swedish politician was killed in the week leading up to there Euro referendum only adds weight to the possibility.
The pedophile ring that offed Jill Dando included close friends of Margaret Thatcher and other senior politicians, some of those senior politicians are still around and pro-EU. It's only logical that those who've resorted to such means in the past would continue to do this if it suited their interests. The fact a Swedish politician was killed in the week leading up to there Euro referendum only adds weight to the possibility.
The fact that a Swedish politician was murdered by a lone-wolf with mental health issues 'adds weight' to the notion that Jo Cox wasn't murdered by a lone-wolf with mental health issues?
See, right here is where the whole "expanding on your argument" thing would come in real handy.
In answer to the question you pose in your thread title, "perhaps it's because they never show their working". Which obviously means we should just call 'em "conspiracy hypothesists", because half of these ain't even theories, but seriously, life's too short.
The pedophile ring that offed Jill Dando included close friends of Margaret Thatcher and other senior politicians, some of those senior politicians are still around and pro-EU. It's only logical that those who've resorted to such means in the past would continue to do this if it suited their interests. The fact a Swedish politician was killed in the week leading up to there Euro referendum only adds weight to the possibility.
But the possibility her murder was orchestrated by the same political network that has done similar things in the past, is hardly a far-fetched theory.
People label conspiracy theorists nutters because they come out with statements such as I have highlighted above without going through the correct deducive processes which lead a collction of evidence to become asserted as a fact/s. For something reasonably to be called a "fact" it ideally should be provable but, if not, AT THE VERY LEAST must be a reasonable conclusion which has been arrived at by a fair, logical, and rational weighing of the (substantiated, or very high-quality) evidence. They (the CT brigade) thus come out with "facts" that are very far from being facts. They then use these "facts" to lead them to other "facts".
If you express doubts as probabilities (which they are), then basing a conclusion on a previous conclusion, you'll remember from school that the probabilities (doubts) are multiplicative - i.e. they increase very fast. So a few CT assumptions later, leads to the arrived-at conclusion (being presented by the CT'er as a "fact") having a very low probability of actually being correct as you are multiplying up significant doubts at each stage of your "fact" chain.
I know you, OP, cannot understand why your approach is faulty - that's because you are caught in your own paradigm. You're like a person who has been blind all their life trying to understand what "yellow" is. You have a wrong way of thinking, so have mad people - hence the use of the term "nutter".
You are marginalised because people who think like this *must* be marginalised. The world would not move forward if significant numbers of people who think like you were involved in science.
It seems if you suggest an even slightly abnormal view on these forums, you are automatically declared a loon. It makes it hard to have a constructive discussion with any poster at all
Narrow minded people can be a lot more sarcastic, patronizing and rude when they're sat behind their computer screens.
Surely theories are just theories. Why would people dismiss a theory without thinking about it?
Conspiracies exist. They sometimes actually happen and are uncovered.
So if theories exist about potential conspiracies why would people just dismiss them as nonsense?
Aren't we regularly told that a plot has been uncovered by the authorities and the perpetrators have been brought to justice?
Are the police force the biggest conspiracy theory nuts around?
How is anyone ever brought to justice if theories of conspiracies are just ignored because they must be bullshit by virtue of being a conspiracy theory? How would business malpractices or organised corruption in bodies such as FIFA ever be dealt with if everybody just mocks a theory about a conspiracy as the ravings of a loony?
A theory is just a theory. It either holds true or it doesn't. Conspiracies are often uncovered.
not sure they do.... but conspiracy theories often arise in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong - the moon landings for eg (which for some reason only focus on the first landing and ignore all the others) . so i think they have got themselves a bad name as any idiot could create one based on inaccurate information.
you can also see this misplaced belief in religion.
but some things dont add up, take the jill dando case.... there is something fishy going on there and she could well have been silenced to ensure she didnt blow a massively destructive case regarding paedophiles in high places. but what i dont get is - how come only she knew and didnt say anything to anyone?
not sure they do.... but conspiracy theories often arise in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong - the moon landings for eg (which for some reason only focus on the first landing and ignore all the others) . so i think they have got themselves a bad name as any idiot could create one based on inaccurate information.
you can also see this misplaced belief in religion.
but some things dont add up, take the jill dando case.... there is something fishy going on there and she could well have been silenced to ensure she didnt blow a massively destructive case regarding paedophiles in high places. but what i dont get is - how come only she knew and didnt say anything to anyone?
Religion isn't a conspiracy theory and isn't based on suspicion and paranoia.
Yeah, DS isn't a very good place to have serious discussions sometimes.
Often the first couple of pages are loaded with idiotic comments trying to get at the OP, then the thread settles down with more sensible contributions forthcoming.
Quite. And it's 90% based on historical fact, well, mainstream religions are:D The leap of faith at the end is the only area open to dispute.
the point being that conspiracy theorists often believe their ideas even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. religion might not be a conspiracy theory, but its followers have the same conviction that they are right despite overwhelming evidence that they arent.
90% historical fact?... theres not even 1% historical fact the jesus existed... 0% hard evidence.
but this isnt about religion, go bicker that nonsense elsewhere.
the point being that conspiracy theorists often believe their ideas even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. religion might not be a conspiracy theory, but its followers have the same conviction that they are right despite overwhelming evidence that they arent.
90% historical fact?... theres not even 1% historical fact the jesus existed... 0% hard evidence.
but this isnt about religion, go bicker that nonsense elsewhere.
Oh no not another Jesus didn't exist conspiracy theory.
See, right here is where the whole "expanding on your argument" thing would come in real handy.
In answer to the question you pose in your thread title, "perhaps it's because they never show their working". Which obviously means we should just call 'em "conspiracy hypothesists", because half of these ain't even theories, but seriously, life's too short.
To be fair I've often wondered, given the fact so many child sex offenders seem to get lenient sentences, and the rumours about peadophile networks operating within all the big institutions like politics and law, how far such influence might extend and to what extent. I've never heard of a connection between that and the murder of Jill Dando though.
It seems if you suggest an even slightly abnormal view on these forums, you are automatically declared a loon. It makes it hard to have a constructive discussion with any poster at all
No it isn't, no you're not, and no it doesn't - unless someone posts a wacky conspiracy theory unsupported by solid evidence. Is this thread just another one of them?
the point being that conspiracy theorists often believe their ideas even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. religion might not be a conspiracy theory, but its followers have the same conviction that they are right despite overwhelming evidence that they arent.
90% historical fact?... theres not even 1% historical fact the jesus existed... 0% hard evidence.
but this isnt about religion, go bicker that nonsense elsewhere.
Yes please! my heart sinks when certain posters come in to hijack threads.
It's bad enough if it's CT nutjobs without religious ones too
See, right here is where the whole "expanding on your argument" thing would come in real handy.
In answer to the question you pose in your thread title, "perhaps it's because they never show their working". Which obviously means we should just call 'em "conspiracy hypothesists", because half of these ain't even theories, but seriously, life's too short.
To be fair I've often wondered, given the fact so many child sex offenders seem to get lenient sentences, and the rumours about peadophile networks operating within all the big institutions like politics and law, how far such influence might extend and to what extent. I've never heard of a connection between that and the murder of Jill Dando though.
Shortly before her death Jill Dando was working on a [ersonal investigation to out the BBC pedophile ring - she'd raised the issue with the BBC and was close to outing the entre corrupt lot of nonces.
Shortly before her death Jill Dando was working on a [ersonal investigation to out the BBC pedophile ring - she'd raised the issue with the BBC and was close to outing the entre corrupt lot of nonces.
It doesn't say it was an "investigation", only that she compiled a list of complaints.
“She compiled a file of complaints but she was not really an investigative journalist, just a presenter.
“She passed the information to someone else and they gave it back. No one wanted to know.
“I do remember that she gave a file to senior management. I don’t think she heard any more.
There's nothing that says she was "close to outing" anything. In fact, the source thought Dando handed the dossier over a few years before she was killed.
Undeterred, Jill is said to have then raised the claims with senior management in the mid-1990s but no investigation took place.
The TV host was shot dead a few years later on the doorstep of her London home.
Shortly before her death Jill Dando was working on a [ersonal investigation to out the BBC pedophile ring - she'd raised the issue with the BBC and was close to outing the entre corrupt lot of nonces.
Shortly before her death Jill Dando was working on a [ersonal investigation to out the BBC pedophile ring - she'd raised the issue with the BBC and was close to outing the entre corrupt lot of nonces.
The OP posted in that thread saying there might be a 'similar conspiracy' to the one with Jill Dando. Then created this thread when people weren't amused.
The OP posted in that thread saying there might be a 'similar conspiracy' to the one with Jill Dando. Then created this thread when people weren't amused.
That was the impression I got from previous posts, but what's Jill Dando's murder got to do with Jo Cox?
So far, the only 'connection' the OP has come up with is to claim 'it's logical' to link the two murders!
That's it?
Where's the 'logic'?
The dictionary definition of 'logic' is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".
Zero evidence of reasoning or validity so far ... just the age-old tactic of taking a recent event, claiming it must be linked to some past conspiracy theory (with no explanation as to why) and ... surprise, surprise, we've got ourselves another conspiracy theory!
That was the impression I got from previous posts, but what's Jill Dando's murder got to do with Jo Cox?
So far, the only 'connection' the OP has come up with is to claim 'it's logical' to link the two murders!
That's it?
Where's the 'logic'?
The dictionary definition of 'logic' is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".
Zero evidence of reasoning or validity so far ... just the age-old tactic of taking a recent event, claiming it must be linked to some past conspiracy theory (with no explanation as to why) and ... surprise, surprise, we've got ourselves another conspiracy theory!
Comments
You present no evidence for this whatsoever, yet talk like it's somehow proven fact.
Maybe these things are why you might get labelled as a "conspiracy theorist"? Just a thought...
Have you informed the police about this?
The fact that a Swedish politician was murdered by a lone-wolf with mental health issues 'adds weight' to the notion that Jo Cox wasn't murdered by a lone-wolf with mental health issues?
See, right here is where the whole "expanding on your argument" thing would come in real handy.
In answer to the question you pose in your thread title, "perhaps it's because they never show their working". Which obviously means we should just call 'em "conspiracy hypothesists", because half of these ain't even theories, but seriously, life's too short.
People label conspiracy theorists nutters because they come out with statements such as I have highlighted above without going through the correct deducive processes which lead a collction of evidence to become asserted as a fact/s. For something reasonably to be called a "fact" it ideally should be provable but, if not, AT THE VERY LEAST must be a reasonable conclusion which has been arrived at by a fair, logical, and rational weighing of the (substantiated, or very high-quality) evidence. They (the CT brigade) thus come out with "facts" that are very far from being facts. They then use these "facts" to lead them to other "facts".
If you express doubts as probabilities (which they are), then basing a conclusion on a previous conclusion, you'll remember from school that the probabilities (doubts) are multiplicative - i.e. they increase very fast. So a few CT assumptions later, leads to the arrived-at conclusion (being presented by the CT'er as a "fact") having a very low probability of actually being correct as you are multiplying up significant doubts at each stage of your "fact" chain.
I know you, OP, cannot understand why your approach is faulty - that's because you are caught in your own paradigm. You're like a person who has been blind all their life trying to understand what "yellow" is. You have a wrong way of thinking, so have mad people - hence the use of the term "nutter".
You are marginalised because people who think like this *must* be marginalised. The world would not move forward if significant numbers of people who think like you were involved in science.
Narrow minded people can be a lot more sarcastic, patronizing and rude when they're sat behind their computer screens.
not sure they do.... but conspiracy theories often arise in spite of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong - the moon landings for eg (which for some reason only focus on the first landing and ignore all the others) . so i think they have got themselves a bad name as any idiot could create one based on inaccurate information.
you can also see this misplaced belief in religion.
but some things dont add up, take the jill dando case.... there is something fishy going on there and she could well have been silenced to ensure she didnt blow a massively destructive case regarding paedophiles in high places. but what i dont get is - how come only she knew and didnt say anything to anyone?
Religion isn't a conspiracy theory and isn't based on suspicion and paranoia.
Quite. And it's 90% based on historical fact, well, mainstream religions are:D The leap of faith at the end is the only area open to dispute.
Often the first couple of pages are loaded with idiotic comments trying to get at the OP, then the thread settles down with more sensible contributions forthcoming.
Like anything else, then.
the point being that conspiracy theorists often believe their ideas even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. religion might not be a conspiracy theory, but its followers have the same conviction that they are right despite overwhelming evidence that they arent.
90% historical fact?... theres not even 1% historical fact the jesus existed... 0% hard evidence.
but this isnt about religion, go bicker that nonsense elsewhere.
Oh no not another Jesus didn't exist conspiracy theory.
That's the mother of all CTs.
To be fair I've often wondered, given the fact so many child sex offenders seem to get lenient sentences, and the rumours about peadophile networks operating within all the big institutions like politics and law, how far such influence might extend and to what extent. I've never heard of a connection between that and the murder of Jill Dando though.
No it isn't, no you're not, and no it doesn't - unless someone posts a wacky conspiracy theory unsupported by solid evidence. Is this thread just another one of them?
Yes please! my heart sinks when certain posters come in to hijack threads.
It's bad enough if it's CT nutjobs without religious ones too
Shortly before her death Jill Dando was working on a [ersonal investigation to out the BBC pedophile ring - she'd raised the issue with the BBC and was close to outing the entre corrupt lot of nonces.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=129693
http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/01/the-mysterious-death-of-mike-smith-2576850.html
https://www.sott.net/article/282846-Murdered-presenter-tried-to-expose-pedophile-culture-within-BBC-but-No-one-wanted-to-know
It doesn't say it was an "investigation", only that she compiled a list of complaints.
There's nothing that says she was "close to outing" anything. In fact, the source thought Dando handed the dossier over a few years before she was killed.
Linking to Conspiracy Theory sites hardly helps your credibility here.
The stumbling block for me is surely others were privvy to some of this information so why not take it forward.
easy way to disprove that theory...... hard contemporary evidence.
oh wait, there isnt any.
The OP posted in that thread saying there might be a 'similar conspiracy' to the one with Jill Dando. Then created this thread when people weren't amused.
That was the impression I got from previous posts, but what's Jill Dando's murder got to do with Jo Cox?
So far, the only 'connection' the OP has come up with is to claim 'it's logical' to link the two murders!
That's it?
Where's the 'logic'?
The dictionary definition of 'logic' is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".
Zero evidence of reasoning or validity so far ... just the age-old tactic of taking a recent event, claiming it must be linked to some past conspiracy theory (with no explanation as to why) and ... surprise, surprise, we've got ourselves another conspiracy theory!
A conspiracy of a conspiracy of a ...