does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ?

[Leifer]

Do some on-line users intentionally create groups of followers to boost their ego ?
Does this allow the creation of sensationalized user-content stories (or conspiracies)....in order to maintain a self-gratifying web persona ?

Not always......but to a certain degree.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130611122111.htm

"It's about curating your own image, how you are seen, and also checking on how others respond to this image," he said (Panek). "Middle-aged adults usually have already formed their social selves, and they use social media to gain approval from those who are already in their social circles."

For narcissistic college students, the social media tool of choice is the megaphone of Twitter.

"Young people may overevaluate the importance of their own opinions," Panek said. "Through Twitter, they're trying to broaden their social circles and broadcast their views about a wide range of topics and issues."
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/21517-you-re-so-vain-u-m-study-links-social-media-and-narcissism

Content from external source

I think a lot of the on-line active conspiracy believers are seeking WWW attention. They have found a common ground, and a common crowd with which to bond.......not every conspiracy believer, but a great deal of them. I have a feeling that they know there are strong arguments disputing their stance, but often ignore (or censor) contrary opinions and information, in order to keep and maintain a certain group of friends and followers.

 

[Leifer]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp
Andrew Keen....

Buzzwords from the old dot.com era--like "cool," "eyeballs," or "burn-rate"--have been replaced in Web 2.0 by language which is simultaneously more militant and absurd: Empowering citizen media, radically democratize, smash elitism, content redistribution, authentic community . . . . This sociological jargon, once the preserve of the hippie counterculture, has now become the lexicon of new media capitalism.

Content from external source

Look at nearly any conspiracy promoting site.....they seem to cater to like-minded people, and tend to delete or censor any contrary opinions. The site's creator purposefully steers the content toward their beliefs, to the pleasure of their followers.
Now, this has been a general criticism of mainstream media.....who has been accused of the same tactics.
But are some on-liners creating un-real content that "gathers a following" just to feel the ego-boost and gained kinship?
Sitting in front of a computer is a physically lonely experience, only supplanted with the perceived connection to other people, also sitting lonely in front of their computers.

 

[Leifer]

Here’s the secret of social media marketing: the persona the buyers want you to see is much more powerful than whom they really are. It’s not surprising to find a large gap between a profile based on age and buying habits and a profile based on social messaging behavior. You might not even know you were looking at the same person. Social media is popular precisely because it provides an opportunity to craft an image of ourselves as the person we wish to be. By carefully curating our profiles and choosing the right status updates, links and photos, we present a self to the world that reveals more about our ego and aspirations than our daily reality.
http://marketingland.com/leveraging-the-social-media-ego-67186

Content from external source

 

[Kerensa]

I think our generation (I'm assuming most here are closer to mine, lol) will be the last to assume that because something happens "on the internet," it is somehow magically different, more mysterious, and scarier than what has always happened in human society.

Humans always discuss the events around them; if the clock were dialed back 100 years, we'd still be sitting around a pint discussing untimely deaths, thefts, hoaxes, shady deals, and so on. We'd each have different theories, and we'd each think ours is best.

In addition, "conspiracy" is a misnomer flogged in great part by the post-Kennedy damage control artists, an attempt to cast aspersions on anyone asking real questions. It worked very, very well, and to this day if someone says anything that isn't a direct quote from Reuters, they are insta-labeled a "conspiracy theorist." But it's nothing more than the modern equivalent of farmer Jones glaring at you with a "Mind your own business, boy; you wouldn't want people getting the wrong idea."

The sad thing is that the general public now often casts aspersions on critical thinkers as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. At least when a criminal tries to deflect attention by calling people "conspiracy wackos," he has a vested interest. It's sadder when it's done unthinkingly, by onlookers, contributing to yet more unthinking in the process. In the '60s, it was cool to think; it seems to me now that it's becoming cool not to think.

Because, you know, who really wants to be called a conspiracy wacko? It's easier to turn the page. Wars will be started and ended without so much as affecting the price of our latté; what does it really matter if someone in local/national government committed some lesser crime and got away with it?

But back to the OP, definitely, both ego, and the ability to communicate, drive discussion, and always have.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

an attempt to cast aspersions on anyone asking real questions

Can you define "real questions"?

 

[Kerensa]

Can you define "real questions"?

Sure--for example, after President Kennedy was assassinated, many reporters asked, "Why did Lee Oswald kill the President?" whereas some reporters began where reporting should begin, with the question (not in so many words), "How do we know Lee Oswald killed the President?"

Not because they were being cheeky, but because the scientific process demands rigorous proofs, and assumptions are dangerous.

But I agree that "real questions" has a judgmental ring to it--I'd have better said "harder questions" or the like.

I think so much of it comes down to changes in journalism rigor and ethics, which in turn affects how the public treats a story. More and more (imo) journalists repeat verbatim some bland paragraph full of assumptions, and call it "reporting." They often don't even bother with the qualifier "alleged" any more.

I think this is a very scary change--obviously it has been going on for some time now.

But remember the days when reporters would risk their necks and reputations for hard-hitting stories that flew in the faces of generals, company presidents, and presidents? I mean mainstream reporters?

In a way, I'd like to think that social media is forcing mainstream reporters back into the fold of more serious journalism, or that it will over time. It's harder to say "the official did not attack the girl" with a straight face when 100 people local to the incident have posted footage of the attack (citing a case in Guangdong, China from several years ago).

 

[Leifer]

Sites and forums like this here.....often do question any type of media.
Speaking personally, I never believe something just because one media outlet "says it is so"........I want a few or more sources.
Sure, there are people that will stop at the blurb, "CNN says it is so"......and others will stop and say Clifford Carnicorn or Alex Jones "says it is so".
Personal investigation from many sources is the key......and to leave the option open, to publicly say, "oops, I may have been wrong".

Harry Shearer's radio broadcast "Le Show", has a weekly segment on "Apologies of the Week", and is surprising + sometimes silly because of the mistakes and misspoken quips by news voices or spokespeople.

 

[Kerensa]

Sites and forums like this here.....often do question any type of media.
Speaking personally, I never believe something just because one media outlet "says it is so"........I want a few or more sources.
Sure, there are people that will stop at the blurb, "CNN says it is so"......and others will stop and say Clifford Carnicorn or Alex Jones "says it is so".
Personal investigation from many sources is the key.

Couldn't agree more. In a way, maybe it's better that information-dispersal has become more modular. Instead of trusting a few (formerly-trustworthy) sources, we dig for ourselves, while taking into account the official sources as well. Definitely leaves us less vulnerable to misinformation, especially in this age of corporatized news.

Takes a lot of effort, though, and it's sad that those who (understandably) have no time will be relying on a dangerously-cheapened product in the meanwhile. I really hope that, somehow, mainstream journalism will be able to shake off the effects of monopoly and all the defacto censorship that implies.

Hopefully the Amy Goodmans of the world will continue to lead the way.

 

[moderateGOP]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/714fjczq.asp
Andrew Keen....

Buzzwords from the old dot.com era--like "cool," "eyeballs," or "burn-rate"--have been replaced in Web 2.0 by language which is simultaneously more militant and absurd: Empowering citizen media, radically democratize, smash elitism, content redistribution, authentic community . . . . This sociological jargon, once the preserve of the hippie counterculture, has now become the lexicon of new media capitalism.

Content from external source

Look at nearly any conspiracy promoting site.....they seem to cater to like-minded people, and tend to delete or censor any contrary opinions. The site's creator purposefully steers the content toward their beliefs, to the pleasure of their followers.
Now, this has been a general criticism of mainstream media.....who has been accused of the same tactics.
But are some on-liners creating un-real content that "gathers a following" just to feel the ego-boost and gained kinship?
Sitting in front of a computer is a physically lonely experience, only supplanted with the perceived connection to other people, also sitting lonely in front of their computers.

Just try to ask questions about their God Ron Paul on any alternative site and you'll instantly get banned! Even though their motto is the X-Files', "Question Everything," this apparently doesn't apply to their own kind. I've been banned from CT sites from asking reasonable questions about their stories. I've been banned by Mick from this site one time for asking questions about Global Warming...It's a shame when people on the internet who want to promote debate end up banning you because they don't like the questions you ask. Or you are somewhere else on the political spectrum, somewhere they just can't wrap their minds around.

CT buzzwords tend to twist and turn with the times. But always interlocking. For example, The Illuminati have largely been replaced by Jews and this generation has replaced Jews with neocons and bankers tho people think they are Jewish. See what I did there...

 

[Mick West]

I've been banned by Mick from this site one time for asking questions about Global Warming

Nobody gets banned for asking questions about global warming. People get banned for not following the posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

 

[Leifer]

I think people get banned (or a time-out) for posting opinions, with no facts or evidence.
This is what makes Metabunk successful....the examination of the facts and evidence.
When these two areas are not included.......no further discussion can be had.

 

[moderateGOP]

Nobody gets banned for asking questions about global warming. People get banned for not following the posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

You clearly said you banned me because you thought I was a troll. I remember well. I don't want to hijack this thread or anything just pointing out examples as it relates to the OP.

 

[Mick West]

You clearly said you banned me because you thought I was a troll. I remember well. I don't want to hijack this thread or anything just pointing out examples as it relates to the OP.

Here's the thread in question then:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...ing-climate-engineering-weather-warfare.2034/

 

[Leifer]

I've been banned as a troll on other sites,. I did post my knowledge/opinion, and I asked for extra evidence, on their opinion.
This is a plain example of their steering a belief motive.......and trying to eliminate any other idea, than their intended belief drift.

 

[Leifer]

I don't mean to insult people because they might get an ego boost....by creating online crowd followers.
I think it happens rather unintentionally. I find myself doing this from time-to-time, so I'm giving myself a critique too.
It's rather common, in social media.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

As with any type of popular subject, people will manipulate and lie to boost their own ego's. It's not a phenomena reserved for conspiracy believers and much like other mainstream topics, people exploit it. In my opinion, I would say that many more know that they are talking nonsense but have realized that it sells, unfortunately. I wonder how much of their business model comes from the likes of John Todd and Mike Warnke?

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Sure--for example, after President Kennedy was assassinated, many reporters asked, "Why did Lee Oswald kill the President?" whereas some reporters began where reporting should begin, with the question (not in so many words), "How do we know Lee Oswald killed the President?"

Not because they were being cheeky, but because the scientific process demands rigorous proofs, and assumptions are dangerous.

But I agree that "real questions" has a judgmental ring to it--I'd have better said "harder questions" or the like.

I think so much of it comes down to changes in journalism rigor and ethics, which in turn affects how the public treats a story. More and more (imo) journalists repeat verbatim some bland paragraph full of assumptions, and call it "reporting." They often don't even bother with the qualifier "alleged" any more.

I think this is a very scary change--obviously it has been going on for some time now.

But remember the days when reporters would risk their necks and reputations for hard-hitting stories that flew in the faces of generals, company presidents, and presidents? I mean mainstream reporters?

In a way, I'd like to think that social media is forcing mainstream reporters back into the fold of more serious journalism, or that it will over time. It's harder to say "the official did not attack the girl" with a straight face when 100 people local to the incident have posted footage of the attack (citing a case in Guangdong, China from several years ago).

Point is , it's the "just asking questions" syndrome that has been instrumental in bringing derision to the term "conspiracy theorist".
When, for example, Wolfgang Halbig decided to chip into the Sandy Hook conspiracy he was "just asking questions".
Had he said "Is it true that paramedics were not allowed into the school?" That would be a real question.
He actually said "Why were paramedics not allowed into the school?" That is not a real question, it is at best an implication and at worst an accusation. It leads to the immediate suspicion that the conspiracy theorist is not searching (as he will usually say) for the truth but merely forwarding his own agenda.

 

[ColtCabana]

One thing I've seen, especially while studying the conspiracy theories regarding the Boston Marathon, is that there is a lot of "back-patting" for lack of a better term. A conspiracy theorist brings up a point or maybe a picture, and all other users "pat him on the back" and tell him how much of a find he made. So, in my opinion, he's told very early and often that what he found was "great" or "groundbreaking." This makes it tougher in the long run to convince him that his piece of evidence is bunk.

 

[Kerensa]

Point is , it's the "just asking questions" syndrome that has been instrumental in bringing derision to the term "conspiracy theorist".
When, for example, Wolfgang Halbig decided to chip into the Sandy Hook conspiracy he was "just asking questions".
Had he said "Is it true that paramedics were not allowed into the school?" That would be a real question.
He actually said "Why were paramedics not allowed into the school?" That is not a real question, it is at best an implication and at worst an accusation. It leads to the immediate suspicion that the conspiracy theorist is not searching (as he will usually say) for the truth but merely forwarding his own agenda.

But why does one "conspiracy theorist" have anything to do with another?

"Conspiracy theorist" is just a badly-defined label some apply to people who ask questions; there is no clear delineation as to what separates a "conspiracy theorist" from someone just asking questions. By modern definition, the people who brought about the House Select Committee on Assassinations would have been "conspiracy theorists," and yet their conclusions trumped the Warren Commission's in the end.

Major news media named the wrong man as the Sandy Hook killer, for God's sake. Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was).

And yes, those CSP troopers who gave sworn statements saying two children were transported to Danbury Hospital in an SUV should be asked why they made those statements, given that the official story is that all children were transported in ambulances.

People are just people--whether journalists, or non-journalists, or anyone else. Halbig has the right to ask questions, you have the right to ask questions, I have the right to ask questions. No one is a "conspiracy theorist" by birth or a "non-conspiracy theorist" by birth. People simply have different opinions on major (and minor) issues, and always will.

The truth is served by asking questions; even questions we don't agree with. The truth is not served by telling someone not to ask questions.

The nature of truth is like a diamond, and the nature of deceit is like mud; the more you chip away at an issue, the more the mud falls away and the diamond is revealed. Sorry to get all flowery, but it really is like that. If a million Halbigs ask the wrong questions, they still chip away the mud, if only because someone presents a solid counter-argument.

 

[deirdre]

"Conspiracy theorist" is just a badly-defined label some apply to people who ask questions; there is no clear delineation as to what separates a "conspiracy theorist

a theorist is someone who bases their thought patterns on theory vs. concrete evidence. hence conspiracy theorist.

 

[deirdre]

And yes, those CSP troopers who gave sworn statements saying two children were transported to Danbury Hospital in an SUV should be asked why they made that statement

prove it.

 

[deirdre]

The truth is served by asking questions; even questions we don't agree with. The truth is not served by telling someone not to ask questions.

there is nothing wrong with questions. accusations or implications without any foundation of evidence is bunk.

 

[Pete Tar]

"Conspiracy theorist" is just a badly-defined label some apply to people who ask questions; there is no clear delineation as to what separates a "conspiracy theorist" from someone just asking questions.

There are whole forums where the 'conspiracy theorist' can be seen in its natural habitat. It is a culture and surely you are aware of it.

 

[NoParty]

"Conspiracy theorist" is just a badly-defined label some apply to people who ask questions; there is no clear delineation as to what separates a "conspiracy theorist" from someone just asking questions. By modern definition, the people who brought about the House Select Committee on Assassinations would have been "conspiracy theorists," and yet their conclusions trumped the Warren Commission's in the end.

Major news media named the wrong man as the Sandy Hook killer, for God's sake. Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was).

On another thread I was arguing that I think it's entirely appropriate that Fox News lay in the bed/reputation it's made for itself, and not cry "How dare you judge us based on our behavior!"

Well, I feel the same way towards the majority of "conspiracy theorists." By acting absurd and pushing outlandish nonsense, yes, the term "conspiracy theorist" has become
linked to the behavior of the conspiracy theorists. Am I surprised that they don't like lying in the bed of manure they've made for themselves? No. But that's their fault, not mine.
Few here, myself included, would paint all CTs with the same "low or zero credibility" brush, but neither do I feel a need to avoid the term because they've made it generally unflattering.

And let's be clear, the modern strain of CTs ("Lanza didn't exist" [sound familiar?] or "Dreamy Jahar is too cute to kill anyone") make the traditional Dealey Plaza conspiracy buffs
look like freakin' Rhodes Scholars! Many of today's lazy CTs are an embarrassment to traditional CTs...the new crowd calls everything a "false flag" within 10 minutes, when no facts are known.
No one is truly being maligned for asking serious questions...and I suspect you probably don't really need me to tell you that, anymore than someone who has logged as many hours on
the Sandy Hook conspiracies as you have, needs to be reminded how very, very misleading it is to imply that anyone sincerely thought that the actual "Ryan Lanza was the killer." Just sayin'.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

"Conspiracy theorist" is just a badly-defined label some apply to people who ask questions; there is no clear delineation"

The uses of the term have been discussed elsewhere...........

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/why-are-people-called-conspiracy-theorists.2809/

The meaning, like many words/terms has changed with time.

I refer you to my previous post (#17)..............The clues as to whether one is "just asking questions" or is promoting a preconceived agenda, are in the questions. The prevelance of the latter has brought about the change in the meaning of the expression "conspiracy theorist". The meaning of any word is governed by it's usage.

I was occasionally gay until the meaning of the word changed!

 

[moderateGOP]

On another thread I was arguing that I think it's entirely appropriate that Fox News lay in the bed/reputation it's made for itself, and not cry "How dare you judge us based on our behavior!"

Well, I feel the same way towards the majority of "conspiracy theorists." By acting absurd and pushing outlandish nonsense, yes, the term "conspiracy theorist" has become
linked to the behavior of the conspiracy theorists. Am I surprised that they don't like lying in the bed of manure they've made for themselves? No. But that's their fault, not mine.
Few here, myself included, would paint all CTs with the same "low or zero credibility" brush, but neither do I feel a need to avoid the term because they've made it generally unflattering.

And let's be clear, the modern strain of CTs ("Lanza didn't exist" [sound familiar?] or "Dreamy Jahar is too cute to kill anyone") make the traditional Dealey Plaza conspiracy buffs
look like freakin' Rhodes Scholars! Many of today's lazy CTs are an embarrassment to traditional CTs...the new crowd calls everything a "false flag" within 10 minutes, when no facts are known.
No one is truly being maligned for asking serious questions...and I suspect you probably don't really need me to tell you that, anymore than someone who has logged as many hours on
the Sandy Hook conspiracies as you have, needs to be reminded how very, very misleading it is to imply that anyone sincerely thought that the actual"Ryan Lanza was the killer." Just sayin'.

Fox News' social media is downright laughable so I agree with you partially here. I mean they have banned comments on their websites for god sakes (probably due to attacks from Left wingers and CTs alike.) Most of the major networks allow you to "tweet them" and some even have the tweets scrolling across the news ticker during certain programs. Fox News' people don't even know what twitter is.

Though I remember watching Obama's Reddit (the site is becoming a CT love fest) Q&A and he never answered CT questions because he obviously had a team filtering them, if it was even him answering the questions...Obama was the first President to get elected President using social media and he is very good at it. Sarah Palin was pretty good at it too, but I think that has fluttered out. I don't see many palin-bots these days...So I think the CTs have every right to use social media but they often go to far and get out of hand way too easily because they do behave like children more than any other group on the internet combined. EX: CT's take over NYPD Twitter Account

As per this thread I can argue that Fox News are the only ones trying to contain the conversation by doing the above. I think the comments sections on the internet are a horrible place to swim through. I mean just look at any article having to do with the election and you'll see Ron Paul 4 President!!! If you judged the election based on comment threads (and alternative media) on the internet then, you would believe that Ron Paul was winning, both sides are the same, and a new American revolution is coming!!! Many CT's actually do this by avoiding MSM altogether and only reading the comments sections. This is another form of the back patting someone else mentioned.

Fox News Disabled Comments section
Popular Science disables comments section

If anybody knows more sites that have done this please let me know.

 

[moderateGOP]

Major news media named the wrong man as the Sandy Hook killer, for God's sake. Yes, Halbig should ask whether paras were allowed into the school, and yes, media should have not jumped to the conclusion that Ryan Lanza was the killer (even though cops told them he was).

The CT's should have waited. They instantly jumped on the story that Ryan Lanza was the wrong suspect and that led to them thinking that the media just pointed to Adam Lanza because they were told to or it was a fall back position. Then that led to stories about Adam Lanza not existing at all and trained CIA operatives murdering innocent US children.

It's part of the reason why every story about "what happened to flight MH370" is a conspiracy theory right now.

 

[NoParty]

I was occasionally gay until the meaning of the word changed!

Or until you updated your glasses prescription?

 

[moderateGOP]

Or until you updated your glasses prescription?

I was occasionally gay until the meaning of the word changed!

Everyone is gay in the Lord of the Rings books

 

[Kerensa]

...how very, very misleading it is to imply that anyone sincerely thought that the actual "Ryan Lanza was the killer." Just sayin'.

Not sure what you mean here. He was announced as the killer in the national media, complete with arrest photos. I'm sure his friends didn't believe he'd done it, but the bulk of the nation (including myself) had no way of knowing police had named the wrong guy. Both police and media were reporting at that time that additional killers potentially remained on the loose, so yes, many people thought Ryan Lanza was part of the crime. "The shooter has been identified as Ryan Lanza," plus a photo of Ryan in handcuffs, has the strange effect of leading people to sincerely think Ryan Lanza killed children. The flood of hate he received was also fairly sincere. It must be factored in that Ryan was living in Hoboken NJ, where his father was reported to have been discovered dead that morning, and Ryan's girlfriend and friend reported missing.

Incidentally, I am not researching the Sandy Hook conspiracy. I am researching the Sandy Hook crime. People tend to mystify Sandy Hook and other major news stories, but it's just a crime like any other (however more horrific), and the same rules of inquiry apply as to any other. Most--we could probably say all--major crimes are complex, and the responses to them are complex. To really understand both requires, more often than not, years of effort. Case in point, Columbine: families worked tirelessly for years to make 30,000 pages of documentation from that crime public, witness names and all, to serve the national interest. Without question, lives were saved at Sandy Hook due to lessons learned from Columbine, and in no small part due to the efforts of Columbine families. Likewise, a thorough and evolving understanding of Sandy Hook and its response will undoubtedly save lives in future.

I think "CT" as a label is uninformative (as are most labels). It doesn't begin to describe a set population with genuinely shared characteristics. A "conspiracy" or at least criminal conspiracy simply means more than one person talked about committing a crime. So what you're saying is that the world population can be divided into people who think only one person at a time commits crimes vs. those who think people conspire to commit crimes, and that somehow this division indicates a significant difference in mental makeup between the two types of observers. That makes little sense, in that history shows crimes can be committed both by lone actors, and by groups of actors and abettors; it depends on the crime. I believe statistics favor the latter, which is why police tend, as they did in the Sandy Hook response, to presume multiple actors until proven otherwise. In other words, police presume the possibility of a conspiracy as an investigational starting point. So it shouldn't be scandalous that other people, too, wonder whether a crime was planned/committed by more than one person.

Also, we must keep in mind that the conspiracy in question may not be the initial conspiracy, but any any conspiracy to commit crime (e.g. withhold evidence) when responding to the crime.

It would probably be a bit more accurate to use CT for "coverup theorist," as I think that describes the bulk of suspicions more accurately in these cases. Just my two bits.

 

[NoParty]

Not sure what you mean here. He was announced as the killer in the national media, complete with arrest photos. I'm sure his friends didn't believe he'd done it, but the bulk of the nation (including myself) had no way of knowing police had named the wrong guy. Both police and media were reporting at that time that additional killers potentially remained on the loose, so yes, many people thought Ryan Lanza was part of the crime. "The shooter has been identified as Ryan Lanza," plus a photo of Ryan in handcuffs, has the strange effect of leading people to sincerely think Ryan Lanza killed children. The flood of hate he received was also fairly sincere. It must be factored in that Ryan was living in Hoboken NJ, where his father was reported to have been discovered dead that morning, and Ryan's girlfriend and friend reported missing.

Incidentally, I am not researching the Sandy Hook conspiracy. I am researching the Sandy Hook crime. People tend to mystify Sandy Hook and other major news stories, but it's just a crime like any other (however more horrific), and the same rules of inquiry apply as to any other. Most--we could probably say all--major crimes are complex, and the responses to them are complex. To really understand both requires, more often than not, years of effort. Case in point, Columbine: families worked tirelessly for years to make 30,000 pages of documentation from that crime public, witness names and all, to serve the national interest. Without question, lives were saved at Sandy Hook due to lessons learned from Columbine, and in no small part due to the efforts of Columbine families. Likewise, a thorough and evolving understanding of Sandy Hook and its response will undoubtedly save lives in future.

I think "CT" as a label is uninformative (as are most labels). It doesn't begin to describe a set population with genuinely shared characteristics. A "conspiracy" or at least criminal conspiracy simply means more than one person talked about committing a crime. So what you're saying is that the world population can be divided into people who think only one person at a time commits crimes vs. those who think people conspire to commit crimes, and that somehow this division indicates a significant difference in mental makeup between the two types of observers. That makes little sense, in that history shows crimes can be committed both by lone actors, and by groups of actors and abettors; it depends on the crime. I believe statistics favor the latter, which is why police tend, as they did in the Sandy Hook response, to presume multiple actors until proven otherwise. In other words, police presume the possibility of a conspiracy as an investigational starting point. So it shouldn't be scandalous that other people, too, wonder whether a crime was planned/committed by more than one person.

Also, we must keep in mind that the conspiracy in question may not be the initial conspiracy, but any any conspiracy to commit crime (e.g. withhold evidence) when responding to the crime.

It would probably be a bit more accurate to use CT for "coverup theorist," as I think that describes the bulk of suspicions more accurately in these cases. Just my two bits.

See, I'm confident that you know how misleading this is...that being disingenuous is not an accident. Everybody knows that the first name the public heard (which, of course, meant nothing to them)
was "Ryan Lanza" but even in the tiny window of time before it became obvious that it was just a brief confusion over names, it was never actually law enforcement's
or the public's belief that the person thought to be the shooter was Ryan Lanza. I'm not sure why you would continue to perpetuate a narrative that you appear to know was never true.
You no longer believe that there was literally no such person as Adam Lanza, correct?

 

[Hama Neggs]

Sure--for example, after President Kennedy was assassinated, many reporters asked, "Why did Lee Oswald kill the President?" whereas some reporters began where reporting should begin, with the question (not in so many words), "How do we know Lee Oswald killed the President?"

But wait... Why not: "How do we know JFK was really the President?" Or: How do we know JFK is really dead"? Or: "How do we know Oswald wasn't a hologram?" Your example is only an 'after-the-fact' analysis of events and application of accepted conspiracy notion. You haven't really distilled out anything special. It can be taken WAY beyond your example. Why wouldn't the questions I suggested be even MORE "real" or "hard", based on your notion?

 

[Kerensa]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly thought Ryan Lanza was the killer or one of the killers until the media announced the mistake. Suspects were reported fleeing the scene, and the police certainly felt the brother may have been involved, so it's only natural that at least some members of the public thought the same. It's not a narrative that I'm aware of, just how the day developed, at least with media in Boston, where I was at the time of the shooting. I can't imagine I and the group of people I was with were markedly different from anyone else in the nation that day, just catching snatches of information as they were being broadcast. Ryan's arrest was not only a question of whether he actively shot anyone at Sandy Hook School, but whether he was involved in any way, and whether he had killed his father, girlfriend, etc. At least that's how it was reported in the newscasts I personally saw and heard. Again, I can't speak for what you may have heard in your neck of the woods.

It is not true that I believe there was no such person as Adam Lanza. I remain curious about Jamie Lanza, who was also identified as a brother in a single photo; I've never heard the name from any other source, but it could be a simple case of Ryan using his middle name for some reason, earlier in life.

Regarding social media and ego, I observed a lot of ego-less information transmittal during those days--people offering well-wishes and prayers, information updates, and so on. Certainly, I relied on social media for breaking information, especially from people at or nearer the scene than I. In my opinion social media wasn't any more negligent than traditional media that day, and both engaged in good reporting as well as bad. [Edit: Perhaps "hasty" would be more accurate than "bad."]

 

[Kerensa]

But wait... Why not: "How do we know JFK was really the President?" Or: How do we know JFK is really dead"? Or: "How do we know Oswald wasn't a hologram?" Your example is only an 'after-the-fact' analysis of events and application of accepted conspiracy notion. You haven't really distilled out anything special. It can be taken WAY beyond your example. Why wouldn't the questions I suggested be even MORE "real" or "hard", based on your notion?

I agree - it's rather like launching a physics experiment - does one need to personally re-prove the existence of gravity first, or is it acceptable to stipulate that gravity exists in the way we all generally agree it does? The need for proof is a continuum, certainly. It always strikes me as a bit overdone when in a court trial the chief suspect must begin by raising his/her hand, stating his/her name, and swearing they are who they say they are (and who everyone obviously knows they are, lol). But thoroughness is good, and as with many things in life, one can apply "within reason" as a condition.

 

[NoParty]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly thought Ryan Lanza was the killer or one of the killers until the media announced the mistake. Suspects were reported fleeing the scene, and the police certainly felt the brother may have been involved, so it's only natural that the public thought the same. It's not a narrative that I'm aware of, just how the day developed, at least with media in Boston, where I was at the time of the shooting. I can't imagine I and the group of people I was with were markedly different from anyone else in the nation that day, just catching snatches of information as they were being broadcast. Ryan's arrest was not only a question of whether he actively shot anyone at Sandy Hook School, but whether he was involved in any way, and whether he had killed his father, girlfriend, etc. At least that's how it was reported in the newscasts I personally saw and heard. Again, I can't speak for what you may have heard in your neck of the woods.

It is not true that I believe there was no such person as Adam Lanza. I remain curious about Jamie Lanza, who was also identified as a brother in a single photo; I've never heard the name from any other source, but it could be a simple case of Ryan using his middle name for some reason, earlier in life.

Regarding social media and ego, I observed a lot of ego-less information transmittal during those days--people offering well-wishes and prayers, information updates, and so on. Certainly, I relied on social media for breaking information, especially from people at or nearer the scene than I. In my opinion social media wasn't any more negligent than traditional media that day, and both engaged in good reporting as well as bad.

My question was "You no longer believe that there was literally no such person as Adam Lanza, correct?" because I'm still unclear as to exactly what points you are trying to make.

So, the name "Ryan Lanza" did mean something to you that horrible day? You thought, perhaps "Oh no, I can't believe Ryan would do that?!?"

Or were you like the other hundreds of millions of Americans who had no idea who "Ryan Lanza" was, or that he was absolutely nowhere near the crime scene,
and that precisely zero law enforcement agents ever thought that Ryan, known to be at his place of work as an accountant in Times Square, NEW YORK,
at the time was the shooter in Connecticut the same morning...? Really? C'mon. We may not share conspiracy perspectives, but I've read enough of your posts
to know you aren't dumb.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I agree - it's rather like launching a physics experiment - does one need to personally re-prove the existence of gravity first, or is it acceptable to stipulate that gravity exists in the way we all generally agree it does? The need for proof is a continuum, certainly. It always strikes me as a bit overdone when in a court trial the chief suspect must begin by raising his/her hand, stating his/her name, and swearing they are who they say they are (and who everyone obviously knows they are, lol). But thoroughness is good, and as with many things in life, one can apply "within reason" as a condition.

Yes, but the general CT meme insists that pretty much everything we think we "know" is suspect. It's all part of the "wake up" idea. There is no end to requests to prove that anything CTers can imagine is NOT correct. It never ends, with the "prove I'm not right" demands which request the proving of a negative.

 

[Kerensa]

My question was "You no longer believe that there was literally no such person as Adam Lanza, correct?" because I'm still unclear as to exactly what points you are trying to make.

So, the name "Ryan Lanza" did mean something to you that horrible day? You thought, perhaps "Oh no, I can't believe Ryan would do that?!?"

Or were you like the other hundreds of millions of Americans who had no idea who "Ryan Lanza" was, or that he was absolutely nowhere near the crime scene,
and that precisely zero law enforcement agents ever thought that Ryan, known to be at his place of work as an accountant in Times Square, NEW YORK,
at the time was the shooter in Connecticut the same morning...? Really? C'mon. We may not share conspiracy perspectives, but I've read enough of your posts
to know you aren't dumb.

I'm missing your question, whatever it is. I had no idea who Ryan Lanza was, and when they said he was the killer, I guess I didn't presume they were wrong, necessarily, but I wasn't 100% shocked when the name changed. It did stand out as an "oh s***" moment for the press, though, in my memory. But before they changed the name, there was quite a lot of discussion about the father being deceased in Hoboken, Ryan being from Hoboken, etc., so yes, for some time, I thought Ryan was the killer or at least some kind of killer.

I'm nearly positive, fwiw, that at least one of the main networks actually uttered something like, "It's not understood whether Ryan then drove from the school to his office...." I distinctly remember at least one news man (it was a man, that much I remember) sort of musing on-air as to how Ryan would get from the school to NY in such a short period of time.

Edit: I think it was NBC, but will have to ck--they must be archived.

 

[Hama Neggs]

I'm missing your question, whatever it is. I had no idea who Ryan Lanza was, and when they said he was the killer, I guess I didn't presume they were wrong, necessarily, but I wasn't 100% shocked when the name changed. It did stand out as an "oh s***" moment for the press, though, in my memory. But before they changed the name, there was quite a lot of discussion about the father being deceased in Hoboken, Ryan being from Hoboken, etc., so yes, for some time, I thought Ryan was the killer or at least some kind of killer.

Early, breaking news stories sometimes get stuff wrong. Where's the mystery?

 

[Kerensa]

Early, breaking news stories sometimes get stuff wrong. Where's the mystery?

I don't think there's any mystery. I had been asked why I first thought Ryan was the shooter, or something to that effect, and I'm sure it's for the same reason many others in the nation thought the same. I feel like I should ask what the mystery is, lol.

 

[Kerensa]

And in fairness to the newspeople, they seem to have gotten the information from off-record discussions with law enforcement, so it's not entirely the media's fault. As usual, they want to break it as quickly as possible. A well-placed lawsuit might be in order, though (people have sued for less, rightly or wrongly). Helps people keep their priorities straight.