Author Topic: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'  (Read 9633 times)

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 934
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2013, 09:45:30 PM »
It would probably by easier for Allancw to list the events that he believers weren't lies. ;)
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline Tedward

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2013, 07:34:13 AM »
It is interesting where history is shown to be correct or shown that the information is incorrect. Richard III got a bit of a character assassination after the Stanleys stabbed him in the back. Yet there are many clues and evidence as to the propaganda being made up. There was a good reason to slate him as well, if you were a new ruler and wanted the old swept out. So history does not seem to change without anyone noticing especially in the long run.

It would be interesting to see what "facts" are being alluded to here.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1983
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2013, 12:11:34 PM »
Have you read The Daughter of Time?  Lots of interesting stuff about the spin of history in that, not to mention a pretty clear argument that Henry VII, not Richard III, ordered the deaths of those two little boys.  I'm not an expert (my main focus of knowledge when it comes to English history is Henry VII's next couple of generations of descendants), but it makes sense to me.

The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government.  However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for.  I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all.  The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of.  It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see.  (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.)  But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed.  It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences.  And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to.  And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it.  And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline jetlagg

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2013, 01:41:09 PM »
I skimmed it. My takeaway thoughts:

Jesus. H. Christ. That was only part one?

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2013, 02:45:07 PM »
The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government.  However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for.  I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all.  The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of.  It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see.  (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.)  But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed.  It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences.  And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to.  And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it.  And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?


My grandad used to have a saying that is quite relevant to this

"Three people can only keep a secret if two of them are dead"
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1983
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2013, 03:05:25 PM »
Attributed to Ben Franklin, though, so there's your Illuminati connection.  Obviously, it's garbage!
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2013, 05:28:38 PM »
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1983
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2013, 07:39:06 PM »
Of course, part of the problem there is that one or two of the people involved were total loons.  But a bigger issue as far as I can tell is that people like to talk.  There are lots of reasons for it, but the reason I don't believe in vast, overarching conspiracies that involve thousands of people is that I've seen how hard it seems to be to keep small, quiet conspiracies that involve perhaps a dozen people.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2013, 08:09:57 PM »
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1791
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2013, 08:29:13 PM »
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.

Arkansas or Massachusetts?
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1497
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2013, 08:49:17 PM »
Heck, arguably one of the most powerful people in the world (PotUS) couldn't keep the lid on Watergate. And that little jape only involved a handful of people.
Or another PotUS in an act that literally involved two people.

Arkansas or Massachusetts?
I was talking about 'Arkansas' in this case.

Offline Tedward

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2013, 12:49:44 PM »
Have you read The Daughter of Time?  Lots of interesting stuff about the spin of history in that, not to mention a pretty clear argument that Henry VII, not Richard III, ordered the deaths of those two little boys.  I'm not an expert (my main focus of knowledge when it comes to English history is Henry VII's next couple of generations of descendants), but it makes sense to me.

The thing I always want to explain to conspiracy theorists is that I do believe in conspiracy as a tool of government.  However, I don't believe in the kind they argue for.  I don't believe in the kind of grand, overarching conspiracy that would take thousands of people to keep secret--if it's possible for it to have been kept secret at all.  The example I want to use, however, is something they've never heard of.  It's 350 years old and Scottish, you see.  (I believe several important letters in the life of Mary Stuart, including the Casket Letters and the one admitting her place in the plot to kill Elizabeth, were forged, or at least had forged additions.)  But if I am correct and that was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy among a very small number of people indeed.  It was to do one small thing which just happened to have large consequences.  And once Mary Stuart was dead or deposed, depending on your plot, it didn't even matter to those people if their conspiracy was revealed, because it had accomplished what it needed to.  And even then, people were speculating as the whole thing unfolded, so the only thing still a complete secret is who did it.  And why should we necessarily know the person's name anyway?

Not yet, it has just been added to my list...

I have read a few on the princes and Henry and Richard etc (all very amateur and as they take my interest, the Black Prince for example). Interesting story and the bit that got me here was the way they tried to ease him out in later years. Shakespeare did a number on him as well. Yet we do know that this character attack happened. The clues are all there.

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 954
Re: allancw's thread for "we've been lied to about history since ww2'
« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2013, 06:24:17 AM »
It is interesting where history is shown to be correct or shown that the information is incorrect. Richard III got a bit of a character assassination after the Stanleys stabbed him in the back. Yet there are many clues and evidence as to the propaganda being made up. There was a good reason to slate him as well, if you were a new ruler and wanted the old swept out. So history does not seem to change without anyone noticing especially in the long run...
Do you mind if I start a new conspiracy thread on the topic of King Richard III?