• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Conspiracy Files: BBC 2

So far, a couple of anomalies in the official report, and debunking of a couple of conspiracy 'facts'.

The anomalies are the time of the train taken by the bombers from Luton, which was the 7.40 which didn't actually run, and a photo of the bombers at the station which was allegedly photoshopped because a railing goes in front of someone's face. And now, the suggestion that the holes in the carriage floors appeared to be caused by something exploding beneath them.

The things explained are the fact that the bombers' papers were found intact (they are believed to have dropped them deliberately so they could be found), and the story of prominent Israelis being warned (they weren't).

ETA: I missed the explanation for the apparent wrong direction of the bomb holes, and some other items as I had to take a phone call and missed a lot of the second half, but there didn't seem to be much left unexplained. While ad hominem is not a valid argument, when the people proposing a conspiracy theory also believe the Holocaust was a hoax, or that the Ark of the Covenant is under a hill in Ireland, you tend not to give them the benefit of any doubts.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't mention that it was about 7/7. The maker of 'ripple effect' looks like a charmer, yet not like the messiah he so claims.
 
Was a pretty decent programme in my opinion. Took on the major claims and destroyed them by simply presenting the facts. Which is debunking at it's simplest. They didn't have to try to hard to discredit the conspiracy theorists themselves of course, on account of them being Holocaust deniers or paranoid schizophrenics.

They're going bananas on the David Icke forum about this at the moment. Which is amusing, although it sadly demonstrates the futility of such programmes when you are dealing with hardcore CTs.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70355&page=4
 
Man, that stuff is gold.

Most recient comment

BBC really showed their true colours. It was an attack on us all, no doubt about it. An insult on the nation's intelligence and propoganda like I've never seen. They stepped up a gear tonight.
Click to expand...

Propoganda like they have never seem. I suppose I could take this as true, if they have never seen propoganda... or don't know what it is.

The one bizzare thing in the episode, was the Cowboy Becop style tower of TV's... showing conspiracy footage...
 
contra said:
...Becop...
Click to expand...

Are you planting subliminal messages in our minds to facilitate the fascist Obama police state to subjugate us all?:eek:

I don't get how we live in a Matrix World but are ruled by reptilian overlords. Are they part of or outside the matrix?

If inside then why?
If outside then how do we know about them?

Here is a link from Ickes website. Good for a laugh.

 
Last edited:
BBC's Consipracy Files - 7/7

Sorry, as a newbie I can't post links to the BBC's Iplayer page for the documentary (viewable only in the UK), nor to the thread here referring to the CT film heavily featured in the documentary '7/7 Ripple Effect'.

I just watched the documentary, broadcast last night, and have a mixed first impression of it. Here are some of my considerations:

  1. Although overall it's a debunking documentary, it spends quite a lot of time, especially towards the beginning asking CT questions with dramatic music.
  2. It talks of 'the official account' of what happened and refers to those who are 'questioning it', in the film these being CTs, as sceptics! I found that really annoying and unhelpful.
  3. They show interviews with people accused of being a part of the 'conspiricy' saying they're innocent, as if that's a debunk.
  4. They take cameras to a big mosque in Birmingham where 7/7 Ripple Effect is being duplicated, distributed and publicly shown to Muslims.
  5. They respectfully interview and hilight the 'ex BBC' credentials of one of the CT stirers who is also a big 9/11 CTer.
  6. They 'happen to be there with their cameras' when this journalist and the Muslims have a meeting to discuss 'joining forces' and setting up a big meeting on 7/7 (actually going ahead this weekend) to 'spread the word'.
  7. They talk of an apparent 'need' for these CTs to become known so that they can be 'shown to be wrong'.

I'd be interested in what you folks think - especially any that can have access to the programme.

My gut instinct is, although they did manage to track down the man behind 7/7 Ripple Effect who was subsequently arrested, overall, more publicity, for the majority, leads to a 'I know they're generally nutters but there's probably something in it'. My fear is for many, the dramatising of the questions and their choice of wording will sow seeds o doubt that will not be satisfied by the subsequent interviews and reports contradicting them. How many more hits are likely to arise for the CT films and forums as a consequence of this documentary?

What the film seems to totally ignore are the armoury at the disposal of 'real' sceptics (as opposed to what the film calls sceptics) to question and make sense of these things - no mention of why the 'probability' figure they read out is meaningless (the odds of a terrorism exercise focusing on two of the three stations where bombs went off happening on the same day). No pointing out that those who make extraordinary claims have the onus to give reasons to take them seriously, not on the rest of us to prove them wrong etc.

In summary: interesting to know about, handy in bringing the idiot behind the CT film to light and to justice but is I think sensationalist pretending to be providing a public service.

BDd
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't see there was already a thread on this (Conspiracy Files: BBC 2 started by Undesired Walrus) which hadn't come up on my search for 7/7. Mods, would you add this thread onto that one please?

BDd
 
Last edited:
I noted in last year's WTC-7 documentary by the BBC, they bent over backwards during the first half of the show to be fair to the "Truthers" only to crush them during the second half. I haven't seen this one, but I have confidence that it was a similar case.

FD: I was a minor consultant on the WTC-7 show.
 
My post count is now high enough to post links :) so:
The referred to programme viewable by BBC Iplayer for those in the UK
Related threads:
on the "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD

Being a publicly owned service the BBC's hands are tied as they are obliged to give 'both sides' of a story regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the positions being represented. You are correct, Brainster in that the 1st half/ 2nd half was as you described for the 9/11 one that I didn't see. My problem with such programmes, especially with the 7/7 conspiracy having had very little publicity, is that it does much more harm than good. A huge number of people are not in the habit of rationally assessing what they are reading/hearing and the interviews/explanations in the second half are relatively boring and do not constitute 'proof' that the 'Truthers' are wrong. They do not becasue they can not conclusively show that anything a conspiracy theorist can come up with is impossible.

What the programme blatantly failed to do was to introduce, even in the slightest form, what is most needed, the concepts, the tools required to look at what's being said and what's there with a sceptic's eye. Occam would turn in his grave to know the extent to which this still goes on in the 21st century! They even confused matters by referring to what is most likely to have happened as being the 'official version'. The 'official version' may well represent what's most likely to have happened but many of its sources are verifiable therefore it's not the fact that it's 'official' that counts, but that it is most likely the truth! Likewise, calling those who don't believe it sceptics is ridiculous. A sceptic may well look even more sceptically at something because it's a government document but will also look at the conspiritors' stuff with equal scepticism - and - most importantly, has the tools and skills to make some sense of it all. I think this was worse than nothing in the bigger picture.

As for the CTs and the Muslims, I really wonder, how much duplication/distribution of '7/7 Ripple Effect' would have been done in the mosque, whether the viewing to regular mosque attendees would have been arranged and whether the mosque leaders and the 'Truthers' would have got together if it wasn't for the making of the programme.

To me this is a particularly worrying development when you see how many of the Muslim audience put their hands up to say they'd rather believe the CT film's version of events than the Governments'. Of course they would - especially given what the politicians have done with their expenses to undermine public trust! I have concerns (possibly unfounded) that the religious are less prone to think critically in other areas of their lives and I suspect the more fundamentalist, the less the reasoning. If there is anything in this, what might the potential consequence be in terms of radicalisation from drawing the attention of the Islamists to the 'Truthers' version of events? What's the overall effect likely to be on public safety?

In forums such as this one I think it's great to bring any doubts on 'the official version' (such as the cancelled train the bombers supposedly travelled on) to light to be assessed, but with the desparately poor grasp of the thinking tools that the public have, I think the publicity arising from this programme simply acts as an amplification of the skewed message of those pushing the conspiracies.

BDd
 
Last edited:
I thought it was a pretty good answer for people who have heard rumours but aren't hardcore conspiracy. I'm curious as to whether this will have an impact on the Birmingham mosque meeting, particularly the background of the guy who made the Ripple Effect. (My other half yelped Dune! He's used Dune! as soon as they mentioned Muad Dib.)

Here's a link for those who can watch the iplayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lkp01/The_Conspiracy_Files_Series_2_30_06_2009/
 
Matilda said:
I'm curious as to whether this will have an impact on the Birmingham mosque meeting...
Click to expand...

My view is closer to concern than curiosity (as I have detailed above) but I hadn't thought of the potential impact on the Muslims of the Ripple Effect film maker claiming to be the Messiah! I would like the film crew to have gone back to the mosque leader who had been duplicating and distributing it to see his face when told about the fellow behind it:D

Having said that, if there's one thing we can depend on with conspiracy theorists, it's that they have an amazing ability to brush any inconvenient facts under the carpet - so I wouldn't put too much hope in that!

BDd
 
Last edited:
BartiDdu said:
My post count is now high enough to post links :) so:
The referred to programme viewable by BBC Iplayer for those in the UK
Related threads:
on the "7/7 Ripple Effect" DVD
A thread on the same topic I'm hoping will be joined to this one

Being a publicly owned service the BBC's hands are tied as they are obliged to give 'both sides' of a story regardless of the validity or lack thereof of the positions being represented. You are correct, Brainster in that the 1st half/ 2nd half was as you described for the 9/11 one that I didn't see. My problem with such programmes, especially with the 7/7 conspiracy having had very little publicity, is that it does much more harm than good. A huge number of people are not in the habit of rationally assessing what they are reading/hearing and the interviews/explanations in the second half are relatively boring and do not constitute 'proof' that the 'Truthers' are wrong. They do not becasue they can not conclusively show that anything a conspiracy theorist can come up with is impossible.

What the programme blatantly failed to do was to introduce, even in the slightest form, what is most needed, the concepts, the tools required to look at what's being said and what's there with a sceptic's eye. Occam would turn in his grave to know the extent to which this still goes on in the 21st century! They even confused matters by referring to what is most likely to have happened as being the 'official version'. The 'official version' may well represent what's most likely to have happened but many of its sources are verifiable therefore it's not the fact that it's 'official' that counts, but that it is most likely the truth! Likewise, calling those who don't believe it sceptics is ridiculous. A sceptic may well look even more sceptically at something because it's a government document but will also look at the conspiritors' stuff with equal scepticism - and - most importantly, has the tools and skills to make some sense of it all. I think this was worse than nothing in the bigger picture.

As for the CTs and the Muslims, I really wonder, how much duplication/distribution of '7/7 Ripple Effect' would have been done in the mosque, whether the viewing to regular mosque attendees would have been arranged and whether the mosque leaders and the 'Truthers' would have got together if it wasn't for the making of the programme.

To me this is a particularly worrying development when you see how many of the Muslim audience put their hands up to say they'd rather believe the CT film's version of events than the Governments'. Of course they would - especially given what the politicians have done with their expenses to undermine public trust! I have concerns (possibly unfounded) that the religious are less prone to think critically in other areas of their lives and I suspect the more fundamentalist, the less the reasoning. If there is anything in this, what might the potential consequence be in terms of radicalisation from drawing the attention of the Islamists to the 'Truthers' version of events? What's the overall effect likely to be on public safety?

In forums such as this one I think it's great to bring any doubts on 'the official version' (such as the cancelled train the bombers supposedly travelled on) to light to be assessed, but with the desparately poor grasp of the thinking tools that the public have, I think the publicity arising from this programme simply acts as an amplification of the skewed message of those pushing the conspiracies.

BDd
Click to expand...

I believe that giving correct information to people is good and I believe that allowing incorrect information to stand is bad.
 
BartiDdu said:
3. They show interviews with people accused of being a part of the 'conspiricy' saying they're innocent, as if that's a debunk.
Click to expand...

Given that this is a documentary about the conspiracy theory in general, rather than a specific debunking of them, I think this is a valid area to cover. Conspiracy theorists are, in general, throwing around wild accusations of horrible crimes more or less at random, and it's worth pointing out that these accusations can impact on real people with real feelings.

Dave
 
Brainster said:
I believe that giving correct information to people is good and I believe that allowing incorrect information to stand is bad.
Click to expand...

In principle I can't disagree with that statement. Despite peoples' possible inabilities to come to a valid conclusion, it's not anyone's place to deprive people of the information that could assist them coming to that conclusion.

But let's take this to the extreme: Pre-internet, if this one fellow, or a small group had persuaded themselves that the Secret Service or Isarael was behind 7/7, would a big public tv programme on it have done any good at all?

Admittedly that's not the case here. The 'internet does it's thang' and we've got this journalist being a mini-Alex Jones on local radio in Bristol so you may well be right that a programme of this nature needed to be made and broadcast. However, the way in which this one was made, particularly the loss of an opportunity to at least help some on the road to scepticism, rather than 'helping' people come to the 'correct' conclusion with their programme-making skills is not good in my view whilst at the same time muddying the waters as to what scepticism is and of its value.

And with regards the internet, I think in the end it will turn out to be the tool in the destruction of myths. In the meantime, this programme will have brought a load more people who failed/refused to see the 'debunking' bits to the on-line debates - and if they weren't convinced by the programme, they're unlikely to be convinced by the voices of reason in those forums, who are likely to be drowned out by the sheer volume of self-reinforcing BS by the others.

Overall, I think it was a step backwards - but I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one.

BDd
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Given that this is a documentary about the conspiracy theory in general, rather than a specific debunking of them, I think this is a valid area to cover. Conspiracy theorists are, in general, throwing around wild accusations of horrible crimes more or less at random, and it's worth pointing out that these accusations can impact on real people with real feelings.

Dave
Click to expand...

I am largely in agreement with you there Dave, and it's something I failed to notice with my attention being drawn to what I see as flaws in the way it was made and in the value or disvalue in it having been broadcast.
 
BartiDdu said:
In principle I can't disagree with that statement. Despite peoples' possible inabilities to come to a valid conclusion, it's not anyone's place to deprive people of the information that could assist them coming to that conclusion.
Click to expand...

I think if the BBC came out swinging with a "Ha ha these guys are crazy!" direct approach on this, it would have backfired. Much better to let them come out with their theories, and then explain whats wrong with them.


But let's take this to the extreme: Pre-internet, if this one fellow, or a small group had persuaded themselves that the Secret Service or Isarael was behind 7/7, would a big public tv programme on it have done any good at all?
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, as early as the mid 60s ABC did a debunking show on the myriad of JFK conspiracy theories. Before the internet there was ways for this stuff to spread, fanzines, underground magazines, talk radio, chain letters etc....



In the meantime, this programme will have brought a load more people who failed/refused to see the 'debunking' bits to the on-line debates - and if they weren't convinced by the programme, they're unlikely to be convinced by the voices of reason in those forums, who are likely to be drowned out by the sheer volume of self-reinforcing BS by the others.

Overall, I think it was a step backwards - but I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one.

BDd
Click to expand...

No I think it actively think it took the matter and treated it with the seriousness it deserved. The upcoming meeting where these idiots are presenting their theories to a Birmingham is a troubling and worrying step forward for this nonsense.
 
It was an interesting film, and certainly fairly well done. The only concerns I would have would be the ad hominem attacks on Maud Dib toward the end of the show, but I suppose as we've had the last 50 minutes or so showing his actual claims to be rubbish, it's tolerable, if not preferable.

I take solace from the fact that as I understood it, the Muslims who raised their hand to show their disbelief of the official story did so having just finished watching the film. To someone who has never done any research into the subject, Ripple Effect could be very convincing. It would be interesting if the BBC had shown them an unfinished version of the show right after Ripple Effect, and seen if that changed their opinion any.
 
Aidoneus said:
It was an interesting film, and certainly fairly well done. The only concerns I would have would be the ad hominem attacks on Maud Dib toward the end of the show, but I suppose as we've had the last 50 minutes or so showing his actual claims to be rubbish, it's tolerable, if not preferable.
Click to expand...

The man believes he's the rightful king of the UK and Israeli, and wants to dig up an important archaeology site in Ireland to find the Ark of Covent, I don't see how these are ad hominems. If anything they demonstrate the man's delusions. Furthermore the git is happy to accuse others of mass murder while hiding behind his pseudonym.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom