• 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.

New book on conspiracy theories by David Aaronovitch

Nick: To be fair, BaC ISN'T a tedious monomaniac unless you mention the Clintons or Conspiracy Theories.

BaC: Read the book. I don't have it on me (won't until my roommate finds the books he checked out on my card and I can return them) so I can't post his evidence. And frankly, I don't care to, since I don't judge books on litmus tests.
 
BeAChooser said:
Rika, you would be one of those I'm talking about. Someone unwilling to actually discuss the facts in the Foster case but willing to just "believe" what someone like Aaronovitch claims without citing ANY evidence about the case. In other words, you don't quite fit the definition of a skeptic. And since this thread is about Aaronovitch's book, and it's on a skeptics forum, it seems to me that any post that deals with the accuracy of the contents of the book or expressed opinions of Aaronovitch on the book's theme would seem fair game. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read this thread ... much less post on it. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah.

And does he mention building 7?
Does even address the obvious fact that Jacky shot JFK at point-blank range?

If not, I'm not reading it.
 
Be A Chooser,

I have not read the edition of Aaronovitch's book that deals with Vince Foster and I don't know very much about the case, but the point of the book is not to comprehensively debunk every theory that is mentioned. The section on Kennedy is only about 30 pages whereas Vincent Bugliosi's book on the subject runs in at around 1600 pages with a CDROM of notes!

The point of the book is rather to debunk the methodology of conspiracy theorists or to show that conspiracy theorists demand far greater proof of a plausible explanation than they demand of their far more exotic explanations which they often assert without anything more to back them up than innuendo, appeals to emotion or twisted logic.

The book is essentially not written for people who are utterly convinced that, say, the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11 because they will probably never change their mind anyway but instead to readers who may have been harangued by conspiracy theorists as a guide to what standards the conspiracy theorists themselves need to satisfy before their case becomes convincing.
 
Nick Terry said:
I am disinterested because I am not American and the yapping over the Clintons bores me to tears.
Click to expand...
I'm an American (and I never really liked or voted for the Clintons) and it bores me to tears.

I'd rather read about Olof Palme (unfortunately most of the material is in Swedish) and Harold Holt conspiracy theories.
 
This topic of this thread is not the death of Vince Foster. That discussion has been moved to a pre-existing thread on the topic here. Please try to stay on topic in this thread - this goes especially, although not exclusively, for you, BeAChooser, as this isn't the first thread you've derailed in this manner.
Posted By: LashL
 
LashL said:
This topic of this thread is not the death of Vince Foster. That discussion has been moved to a pre-existing thread on the topic here. Please try to stay on topic in this thread - this goes especially, although not exclusively, for you, BeAChooser, as this isn't the first thread you've derailed in this manner.
Posted By: LashL
Click to expand...

That was a derail? You have to be kidding. Most of the posts you moved specifically dealt with the accuracy of claims made in Aaronovitch's book. The post to Rika for instance (which is the first of the posts) is my response to having read specific portions of the book and commenting on it specifically point by point. And when posters (such as Trainwreck) responded to that post, I merely responded back, again citing facts that specifically contradict what Aaronovitch's book claims. Likewise, my post to angrysoba directly discussed the contents and claims of the Aaronovitch book in the area of Brown and Whitewater. These posts were by no means a derail. And now everyone is going to believe (thanks to the posts you chose not to move) that all is wonderful with the Aaronovitch book. Well so be it. I hope at least that everyone understands what is really going on here.
 
Reading it now.

Basically sums up what I've been thinking about CTers (and those that prey upon them) for the last few years.

The Vince Foster portion takes up (maybe) 3 pages, and is a comparrison of how a few of books on the subject were written. The techniques, and what was emphasized and/or given more importance.

ETA: The books were The Secret Life of Bill Clinton by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Strange Death of Vince Foster: An Investigation by Christopher Ruddy and A Washington Tragedy: How the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm by Dan Moldea.
 
Last edited:
CptColumbo said:
The Vince Foster portion takes up (maybe) 3 pages, and is a comparrison of how a few of books on the subject were written. The techniques, and what was emphasized and/or given more importance.
Click to expand...

The Vince Foster section is a pack of incomplete facts, lies and distortions, as anyone going to the link above and reading what I noted about Aaronovitch's discussion of it will find. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
The Vince Foster section is a pack of incomplete facts, lies and distortions, as anyone going to the link above and reading what I noted about Aaronovitch's discussion of it will find. :D
Click to expand...

So, you read it? What did you think of the portion on Machiavelli?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom