I am looking at returning to university to complete my studies in Forensic Psychology. I had a meeting with my supervisor and we ended up chatting about what I have been doing with my time and conspiracy theories came up. This is a new area for her and we had quite a good chat around the whole Sandy Hook/Boston/Woolwich events and the use of crisis actors and fabrication of wounds etc. More so the fact that people have to pick over some very disturbing images in order to manufacture their narrative. During the conversation a few things struck me. The whole process is voyeuristic in a perverse way and we have no idea of the intentions of a "truther". Is this a case of someone genuinely looking for answers or a case of someone trolling for their own gratification? Certainly people seem to gain pleasure from trolling on memorial pages so is a similar thing happening here? Given that someone has spent a great deal of time going through the mountain of imagery are you ever going to change their view of the narrative? There does seem to be a great deal of jargon used yet very little knowledge shown. Plenty of "that should not be happening" or "he would be dead" or "why is he smiling" with no appreciation for the complexities of the situation never mind physiology or human behaviour. But my main thought was if by debunking the whole thing am I facilitating it. It was mentioned in a previous thread and by entering in debate are we not giving validity to the claims? I feel a real moral outrage at the claims, especially over the feelings of families involved, yet there is an irony that by analysing the image myself to debunk I am paying little thought to their emotions by continuing the debate. So my main point is should we attempt to debunk such claims or just detach ourselves? Given that there is very little chance of changing the mind of a truther and these conspiracies seem to be on the fringe, what is the gain? Without the attention will they die off?