“No real flags, just false ones” Heh.

This is blowing my mind. Alex Jones is trying to debunk a hoax? Maybe the debunking is a false flag! Infinite regress!

Yep, it’s turtles all the way down…

Conspiracy theorists clash over London attack – Salon.com.

This morning, [Alex] Jones’ top lieutenant, Paul Watson, posted a video thoroughly debunking Internet rumors that the brutal killing of a British solider Wednesday outside London was a government hoax.
Online conspiracy theorists claimed there was no blood on the alleged killers’ hands, but as Watson points out, the widely shared video questioning the “official narrative” appears to have been doctored. In the original clip, the alleged terrorists hands are clearly covered in blood, while the conspiracy clips shows them bloodless with an orange-tint. Watson proves the conspiracy clip has been edited by showing how the color of road markers in the background is off.

Watson even goes on to chide people who are “obsessing” about the hoax theory, saying they’re missing the real scandal, which is that it’s the British government’s policies that caused the terror attack.

A comparison of the unaltered picture (left) and the altered version (right)

A comparison of the unaltered picture (left) and the altered version (right)

I think I’ve said this before, but I wonder how conspiracy theorists can leave the house every morning. They are not the ultimate “skeptics”, they subscribe to a fantasy worldview where nothing is real. Picking and choosing absurd beliefs is simply not an efficient way to get through life.

  7 comments for ““No real flags, just false ones” Heh.

  1. May 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM

    Quite. I think one of the reasons I find conspiracy theories ultimately so egregious is that they’re a parody or a corruption of a properly skeptical view of the world.

  2. Chris Howard
    May 24, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    It’s actually that exact problem within the conspiracy theory community that caused me to leave the fold, and ultimately decide that skepticism, and critical thinking are the only solution.

    I reckoned that all of the theories, many of which contradict each other, couldn’t be true. But how could one know which ones were true, and which were false?

    It was a slow process, and it required a lot of recanting, and eating of humble pie, but I believe it has made me a better person.

    I’m much more open minded, and at times I’m even downright humble.

  3. spookyparadigm
    May 24, 2013 at 6:17 PM

    Because Sharon, you’re looking at it from the “how do they discern reality” perspective. From the skeptical and materialist perspective.

    If you look at conspiracy theorists politically, however, they usually make more sense. A major component of Jones’ audience are paleocon populists who oppose foreign military actions (this is a major reason why Jones and Ron Paul became mildly popular with the fringes of the American leftish anti-war movement in the 2000s). So even though the murderer in the picture is a Briton of Nigerian descent, because he name-checked Iraq and Afghanistan, his stated motivations are useful.

  4. May 25, 2013 at 1:55 AM

    People claim something a conspiracy online within seconds of it happening. Before they have any details whatsoever. In Boston all they know was a bomb went off and it was immediately a “false flag”. They make me sick.

  5. May 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM

    Occam’s Razor, while not totally foolproof, is a good principle to apply when you have limited evidence. But a much better principle is that if there isn’t much evidence, is simply to admit that “we don’t know, and we should not speculate until there is more evidence”. Of course, admitting ones ignorance is not something that most people come to naturally, simply because ignorance is far too often punished in our society, starting as a child. You have to know, you have to have an opinion, you have to believe in something. Under no circumstance can you admit that you don’t have a clue.

    The problem is that once you DO have a conclusion, not based on evidence, it’s even more problematic to admit that you were wrong, especially to one’s self. When belief meets contradictory evidence, you have what is known as cognitive dissonance. And it’s not a pleasant thing to have to consciously deal with. It doesn’t really matter what the nature of that belief was — a conspiracy theory or belief in a non-conspiracy, contradictory evidence can cause stress.

    Avoid the stress. Admit you know nothing from the start, and look for or wait for more evidence. That’s a much better, more stress-free way to go through life. Everyone really MIGHT be out to get us, the government MIGHT be involved in a vast conspiracy. But probably not. So until there’s actual evidence, it’s better to simply act on what you really DO know, and leave the speculation to the crazies and the 24-hour news people. After all, they could do with a whole lot less encouragement on that front.

  6. May 27, 2013 at 10:29 AM

    As a skeptic, I despise those who go out of their way to twist things to suit an agenda.
    However I’m not entirely convinced that someone has not simply screwed up the white-balance or gamma settings on one or more parts of the recording/reproduction process. That could explain the weird orange colour. It may even be the most parsimonious ( or at least generous) explanation…

  7. May 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM


    “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

    Occam & Hanlon, Purveyors of Fine Razors.

Comments are closed.