Copied from 'Tomtomkent' on JREF; some very good points bolded, and should be noted by our resident truthers. >> For those of you who wish to share your conspiracy theories I offer you in return the following advise as to how avoid conflict or argument because you feel your theory is not being given due respect, understanding, or scrutiny. Consider the following as the base requirements most critical thinkers will expect to see if they are to take a theory as something worth serious consideration, and not something that has been plucked from the air. 1. Not all ideas are equal. You have the right to believe what ever you want. That is the wonderful thing about the freedoms we all enjoy. That does not mean that you should expect everybody to treat your belief as a valid alternative with equal merit to the concensus. No matter how much you want your theory to be taken seriously it will be judged on the evidence. 2. Believing your theory does not make you smarter. Nor does it make others dumber. If people tell you that your theory is not supported by evidence it is not because they are sheeple, it is not because they are thinking the wrong way, it is not because they don't share your insight to how the world works and it is not because they are shills. It is because they have weighed your evidence against the null, or against more mundane theories, and have found your theory lacking. Calling people Sheeple, telling them to wake up, etc, will not convince them that you do indeed know better. It will unfortunately convince many that you are more concerned with patting your own back and trying to look special by being superior than having an adult discussion. 3. Understand the weight of accussation There is a good chance your theory is little more than accussing somebody of a crime, a serious crime. It is always worth remembering that many people will find it unsporting and unfair to level such claims with out a substantial basis. There are always those who will think it is a meaningless game to suggest somebody was Jack the Ripper, caused 9/11, sank the Titanic, or was the true force behind a mass shooting. Let's assume you are not a troll. Let's assume you actually think there has been ill doings by some conspiracy, then you will instantly earn more attention if your posts remember these claims are going to be harmful, hurtful and potentially spiteful if shown to be wrong. As a general rule, show some decorum. Choosing the smiley icon for the thread will do you no favours. Starting posts with LOL or Hahahaha or the like will actively sour your chances because it suggests you are finding some humour in a tragedy. Consider that such claims will need a stronger reasoning behind them than the assumption that the government would be hiding something, or your gut feeling that authority has it in for you. Many conspiracy theories are about an intent to, or the covering up of, or direct causing of, death. If you want to claim a bombing was not real because you suspect Group X are the kinds of people who would probably plant a bomb consider how the families of those who lost loved ones will feel if they were to read you using their loss for your rant. To their eyes you don't like the government so you are using their pain a excuse to moan about the government. You may think you are protecting people from Big Pharma by sharing your instincts about what may or may not cause cancer or autism, but unless you can substantiate your claim you are just using the suffering of others to slur somebody. That is not something those whose suffering or loss you are using will likely appreciate. 4. Understand your burden of proof The burden of proof is NEVER for others to disprove what you are saying. Any challenge you wish to issue along the lines of "prove this wrong" or "explain this" is utterly worthless. The burden is yours to prove your theory correct. To "overcome the null" . Assume that most people will think the world acts in the way they are accustomed to until you can show them otherwise. It will be believed that bombs are placed by the criminals the evidence points at untill you supply new evidence. UFOs are explained by mundane means until you produce an alien craft. HAARP works exactly the way we have evidence for, and obeys the laws of physics until you can show us otherwise. 5. The evidence you like is not always the best evidence. The biggest mistake many people make is to assume that one person who claims to have seen something, heard something, or experienced something, proves that is what happens. If a film or photo conflicts with their statement then it is cut and dried. The film is faked, the photo a fraud. It is very tempting to assume anybody who disagrees with the witness is calling them a liar or a fool. Unfortunately people can remember a moment honestly and still be wrong. Memories are not a perfect record, they change details subtly with out us noticing. They fill in blanks with things we assume, or things we learn later. An honest person can misremember, an honest person can be wrong, a dishonest person can lie. Memories are subjective. But you are not telling us their memories. You are repeating the best subjective description of their memories and then giving us YOUR understanding of those descriptions. Which are also subjective. Photos, films, documents, fingerprints, bullets, metals, materials of all kinds trump stories told by somebody, no matter how honestly given. These are more reliable not least because if they have been altered, faked, or manipulated, those manipulations leave traces. If you wish to discredit evidence you do so with evidence, not with claims. That is not to say that subjective evidence is with out worth, but it IS lower down the scale. What people saw and heard are important tools for understanding what the physical evidence says. It is also worth remembering that just saying "If there was a conspiracy they would have faked X, Y, and Z" is not the same as showing how and why X, Y, or Z were faked, nor is it reason enough to wave them away as having been faked. Unless you can show evidence the photo was a composite or the aircraft was a hologram, guess what: They weren't. 6. Know when to retract. So you make a suggestion and when somebody points out a gap, or a flaw, or outright contradicts you . Know when to retract a statement because you were wrong, know when to admit you were in error or when your idea is just that. If you have to make a special pleading, back pedal, or make a "I can't prove THAT but how about THIS" argument. If you can't support the claim evidence for other claims, or crying "conspiracy" is not a substitute. You are expecting others to consider your theory and possibly be convinced. The least you can do is extend the same curtesy and possibly be convinced yourself. You expect others to retract their own claims that can not be proven, expect the same of yourself. 7. Hold all evidence to one standard If you are willing to dismiss evidence that contradicts you for a flimsy reason, (because it comes from a government source, because there is some possibility it was a Big Pharma Fraud, because you don't fall for misinformation, etc) be willing to dismiss the evidence that happens to agree with your pet theory on that same flimsy reason. If you refuse to accept evidence against you because it fails to meet a high standard then be prepared to dismiss all evidence you agree with that ALSO fails to meet that high standard.
For some people there is no convincing no matter how professional one conducts themselves, or how many credible sources they deploy. As you yourself have noted about the people of this board, they're "morons." If you look at any political board, you're going to have your partisans. So, what exactly does that entail? Well, more often than not, partisans will deny anything that is contrary to their preconceived notions of the world, their affiliated party, etc. It matters not if whatever it is has been proven. They will continue to wave their DNC or RNC or Libertarian cards. Take Libertarians and liberals howling about secret C.I.A. offshore prisons as an example. That was considered a conspiracy theory at one point. Debunkers got behind it. But low and behold, the allegations were true. The C.I.A. did indeed have offshore secret prisons that held prisoners of the War on Terrorism where torturing and interrogations were going on. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories < That site is right up JREF's ally for the humor, skepticism and denialism, among other things. For some people, there is no such thing as a conspiracy - they simply do not believe in conspiracies, period. Studies have shown that, which I am sure you're aware of. Alternatively, you've got people like David Icke and Alex Jones (or our very own katsung/Scott) who have never met a conspiracy they didn't like. But then you've got people that are statists. They worship the state. Trivial things like evidence and common sense are lost to words from a government spokesperson or authority figurehead. Take for example what was in the news yesterday - T.W.A. 800. How do you expect that will play out? Will the government actually investigate, find that indeed, it was not the fuel tank as alleged, but something else, like a missile or on-board bomb? Tell me, though, how often in American History has the U.S. government investigated itself and concluded that it did something wrong I.E. hung itself out to dry completely. There sure are a lot of people that believe it was a missile, the F.B.I. and two laboratories did confirm RDX - but in the final conclusion, it was "determined that the probable cause of this accident was an explosion of the center wing fuel tank (CWT) resulting from ignition of the flammable fuel/air mixture in the tank. The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty, but, of the sources evaluated by the investigation, the most likely was a short circuit outside of the CWT that allowed excessive voltage to enter it through electrical wiring associated with the fuel quantity indication system (FQIS)." Some people swallow that quote up. But will they now that investigators of the T.W.A. 800 crash are coming forward? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/1...ak-silence-in-new-documentary-claim-original/
Does the Starr Report count? TWA 800 episode is going to be interesting. I've never taken much notice of the conspiracy side regarding it, because simple it just didn't make sense. On board bomb, or missile, it didn't fit any conspiracy narrative, no one took responsibility, nothing much changed afterwards, except from needed overhauls in the aviation maintenance industry.. it just didn't make sense to be anything other than what the NTSB found. Not the mention, the investigation took years, they rebuilt pretty much the whole aircraft, wires and all. They found evidence of shorting in the wiring, it seems to fit in well. Furthermore, going on the conspiracy that it was some 'accident' but the military, if that was the case, and they managed to successfully cover it up despite the risk of whistle blowers/witnesses, how did they managed to get away with this one, but yet the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 made international headlines within hours/days, and all that was witnessed by was a single crew on board an advance Aegis cruiser.. The conspiracies for TWA 800 just don't make sense, they never had, but it will be interesting to see what comes up in this documentary, and the aftermath..
I think this one in particular speaks well, not just for truthers, but anyone. When I first came to PF I spent some time trying to get a member here to find me evidence that a set of photographs were "fake". Plenty of claims, still no evidence provided. While we're on a similar topic, I see a lot of rebuttals with claims, but no evidence. Now, of course, it's a long process to find/source all the information required, but at the same time is does wonders if you do, because then you have something solid to go along with. This however, can be tricky with such claims that, instead of having factual errors, and just simply 'misleading'. Misleading claims don't really have a fact based background, they're more of an interpretation, and usually they can be explained rather than rebutted.
How about: Indignation is not evidence. Tossing around ad homs and invoking the 'I'm rubber you're glue' argument will not help credibility or advance the debate.
Contrary to koko's posts, I believe this thread serves the purpose of laying down how a constructive debate should occur, how to be compelling, knowing what is appropriate, and knowing when to withdraw and admit I/you were in error. If anyone has anything else to add, amend, or emphasise, then we can discuss.
I don't think so, but perhaps. Starr was outside the government when the report was published. Do you believe in any conspiracies?
I used to believe the moon landing hoax conspiracy, for a few years when I was a young teen. I debunked myself on that topic after googleing some of the claims. A very bitter experience, both angry and disappointed with myself that I fell for such rubbish without even taking the time to research the claims they were making, or look at both sides of the story. So, understandably, when I first heard about 9/11 conspiracies in 2005, I was skeptical from the start, and sure enough, the claims turned out to be baloney. I also once considered the JFK conspiracy to be possible, being that to carry out and cover up such an event wouldn't require the same complexity/fantasy as the 9/11 conspiracy, especially back in the 1960's before the age of the Internet or modern day mass media, but after looking a bit into that, I cannot see any reason why LHO couldn't have been the lone shooter. I am very skeptical about man made global warming, and still remain yet to be 100% convinced it's as bad as what people would say it is, if you call that a 'conspiracy', although I personally wouldn't consider it to be one. Bare in mind however, although I remain yet to be convinced, I see a lot of the goals to combat 'global warming' go a lot go cleaning up the environment/pollution in general, which I feel strongly about, and therefore I don't really see much in the way of negative repercussions if the global warming theory was indeed a hoax. But no, in direct reply to your question, there is no conspiracy at this stage which I would believe in. I refuse to believe things on blind faith, I refuse follow something because "the government says so". I follow things based on evidence, and so far, I have not come across a conspiracy theory where the evidence survives scrutiny. On the other hand, if I had evidence, which contradicted the mainstream account of an event, and I was convinced of the validity of that evidence, I wouldn't be sitting here defending the main stream story. I mean, why would I? What would be in it for me? Nothing. It just so happens, that there is no evidence which I could consider to be valid, that would convince me otherwise.
I believe that people work in conjunction to achieve common goals. We call it a conspiracy any time we feel that collaboration is devious or subversive. If there were no such thing, there wouldn't be a word for it. Of course there are people who conspire to do devious or subversive things. The point of this thread (at least as I see it) is to establish a method to persuade others that a theory is not just a suspicion of a conspiracy, but something that is actually taking place. The typical downfall of a theorist is that they have zero experience in investigation, and they typically start from a conclusion. They rely heavily on suspicion, innuendo, fallacious conclusions, and misinterpreted evidence to support that conclusion. Others who haven't reached that conclusion yet can easily see the attempts to cram random bits of evidence together to lead to the conclusion, and they also have the perspective to see the logical hoops that theorists jump through in order to discard the evidence that doesn't fit the preconceived crime. Take the accusations that Noam Chomsky got "gotten to" by the government to keep quiet as an example. Noam Chomsky doesn't think there was a conspiracy. Somehow that constitutes a threat to the theorist's theory, so they simply imagine some thick necked / deep pocketed government types forced Noam Chomsky to lie. It's a conclusion that's founded in fantasy. It's a conclusion that's supported in false logic. Someone doesn't agree so they must be 1. Dumb 2. Lying. Noam isn't dumb, so he must be lying. That's a false dichotomy. Noam is intelligent. Noam disagrees with you. If that is all the evidence we have you can't form a conclusion from it.
Additional addendum from TTK: 8. Understand speculation. Speculation is fine, so long as you understand that it is not a presentation of an actual theory. If you've got a theory, it needs actual evidence, otherwise it is pure speculation.
The topic of the thread "How to convince people conspiracy is real". Please discuss it, not each other. Thank you Shangrila Site Moderator
I'll push back against this. Up until a few days ago, it had not been pubically revealed yet that the F.B.I. had drones. However, a person, under the guise of informed speculation, before that date, could have reasonable concluded that indeed the F.B.I. did have drones more or less so because the A.T.F., D.E.A., D.H.S., C.I.A., and a few scattered police departments across the U.S. possessed the technology. Simply because the words, "Yes, we have drones," or documentation from the F.B.I. to that effect weren't available for public consumption does not equate out to unreasonable speculation, or furthermore, a conspiracy, though some undoubtedly would perceive it as such. As I have said many times, not everything under the sun has a paired NYTimes articles, a peer-reviewed journal, a study, or a government acknowledgment backing it. Nevertheless, one can safely assume the existence of something based off the existence of other's programs, for instance. Or, in a broader context, the application of common sense is all that needs to be applied.
A fair point Jango, and yes, one can safely assume something, but even if there are high chances that assumption may very well be correct, it still suffers from lack of evidence, and therefore is subject to the same level of skepticism as any general speculation.
Anyone involved in a conspiracy would certainly hide or get rid of the evidence, especially if the stakes are high.
Thing is, most SHEEPLE think "weighing the evidence" is something that has already been done for them by FOX and CNN, and that's exactly where their investigation stops. They then proceed to act like the SHEEP they are, and dogpile insults on the presenter because they are nothing more than STUPID SHEEPLE who are more concerned with fitting in socially than knowing truth. It's always the same crap. And since they're emotionally handicapped in this way, despite having the normal intellectual capacity to NOT act this way, then they are indeed less intelligent than people who know the truth. Sorry dude, but in this day and age, for someone to believe that most conspiracy theories are false instead of true takes a special kind of idiot. These people cannot be taken seriously. And BTW, the Earth is a Flat Plane. Science has long confirmed this to be true. Not your beloved Govt funded science, REAL Science.
