Conspiracy V. Fact

I have had quite a few people in my MySpace friends list that you might call “conspiracy theorists”. For that matter, I would probably be considered a conspiracy theorist myself. There are a couple of notable differences between me and them, however.

One difference would be the sources that we choose to believe and use. For instance, many of them would choose to site any of Alex Jones’ various outlets (PrisonPlanet.com, InfoWars.com, JonesReport.com, PrisonPlanet.tv) as a reference. I, on the other hand, do not choose to use anything that Alex Jones has to say as a reference. It isn’t that I don’t believe him. It isn’t that I think that he is lying or has some ulterior motive in what he has to say. The reason that I do not site Alex Jones is that he is widely known as a conspiracy theorist. If I want people to reach the truth and to understand it, I am not going to waste my time referencing a website that is not viewed by the majority of people as a reputable news source. I am not trying to reach people who believe as I do, I am trying to convince people to believe the way that I do. I cannot accomplish that by remaining within my own circle. To do so is sort of like trying to convince a vegan why he or she should eat only vegetables.

My feeling is that most people want to know the truth about most things, especially the things in the news that affects them. However, they want to be told by people that they view as reputable. So, I research articles by sources that I know people trust (whether they are wise to or not is debatable) such as: The Washington Post, Yahoo News, CNN, Fox News, The New York Times or any other major network or newspaper. I also find it challenging to search for truth from sources that, I believe, lie about or distort the truth on a regular basis. To me, accepting what Alex Jones says at absolute Gospel is no different than watching John Stewart or Stephen Colbert and thinking that you are watching the Nightly News with Walter Cronkite. There is typically a grain of truth to what these people say, but the rest of what they “report” should be taken with a grain of salt.

Another difference between myself and other conspiracy theorists is how far I am willing to go with these theories. There are some CTs (conspiracy theorists) out there who believe that there is some sort of conspiracy involving “reptilian species” controlling human affairs. One of the people espousing these theories is John Rhodes. John Rhodes actually believes that these “reptoids” are the descendants of dinosaurs and that they live in the Earth's "underworld". Is he wrong? I don’t know. Maybe he is wrong and maybe he isn’t, but I think that there are more important issues to worry about right now. Another of these “reptilian theorists” is David Icke. David Icke actually expounds upon the reptilian theory by claiming that the world is actually being controlled by shapeshifting reptilian humanoids. He claims that many of the world’s most prominent leaders are members of this race. The British Royal Family (except for Princess Diana), the Bush Family, the Clintons and many others are included in his list. Is he right? I don’t know. I don’t know if any of this is true. What I do know is that quoting these people is not going to help me expose any truth to anyone other than people who already believe. It is more likely that I would be cast as a nut and dismissed altogether. Most normal people tend to tune out when you start talking about aliens and reptile/human hybrids. I am not, by any means, discrediting any of these theories, nor am I stating that the people who believe in them are abnormal or weird. I can't because I do not know enough about them and I do not know that they are untrue with any certainty. I do, however, know that conspiracies about the CIA, Mossad, Shin Bet, FBI and the Bush Administration are much easier to swallow than aliens and reptilians, especially when they are backed up by what the general populace believes to be legitimate sources. Some guy writing a blog with references to another blog would not be considered legitimate in my view.

That brings me to one of my favorite sites; What Really Happened. I actually read this site religiously. Michael Rivero provides me with TONS of inspiration to write the blogs that I write. However, a large portion of what he posts at the above link comes from blogs, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and a handful of others. Again, these sources cannot be considered as factual evidence. That doesn’t mean that there are no facts behind them. What it means is that these are effectively op-ed pieces and are the opinions of the author. Opinions are not facts. I think that we remember this from grade school.

The point of this posting is that, when you read something from an internet source, it is vitally important that you dig a little bit deeper than the surface. Read the article carefully and take a few notes. Research those notes for yourself and come to your own conclusions. Wikipedia is not the most reliable of sources due to its lack of a peer review process, but it does quote its sources in footnotes. Look at those sources and decide for yourself. The same can be said of the mainstream media. The MSM likes to spin things to fit whatever agenda they are promoting at the time. It doesn’t mean that they are not telling the truth. It just means that they aren’t telling the whole truth.