Hello yay!! <3

CarrieSci

New Member
Being an "activist" I'm surrounded by extreme conspiracy theories all the time :/ My fb newsfeed half reads like Alex Jones barfed all over it. I'm all about critical thinking and questioning authority, but mindlessly regurgitating infowars stuff because it disagrees with mainstream media isn't exactly being a free-thinker. It's quite annoying, because I get lumped in with them as one who does politically dissent. As a scientist, I try and educate them the best I can. Hard when their best retort is "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" or whatever XD. I'm mostly into debunking chemtrail and fluoride myths (though I do believe we ingest too much and don't need fluoridation anymore, but try to convince people that it's actually not actually put there by immortal lizard-people Illuminati to placate us "like the Nazi's did to the Jews"..o_o )...and the Sandy Hook thing, that irks me as well. Anywho, I was debunkin' some chemtrail stuff and came across this message board in my research (and posted a video narrated by whom I think is this Mick fellow), thanks! Sure I'll get some good info here. :D
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Being an "activist" I'm surrounded by extreme conspiracy theories all the time :/ My fb newsfeed half reads like Alex Jones barfed all over it. I'm all about critical thinking and questioning authority, but mindlessly regurgitating infowars stuff because it disagrees with mainstream media isn't exactly being a free-thinker. It's quite annoying, because I get lumped in with them as one who does politically dissent. As a scientist, I try and educate them the best I can. Hard when their best retort is "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" or whatever XD. I'm mostly into debunking chemtrail and fluoride myths (though I do believe we ingest too much and don't need fluoridation anymore, but try to convince people that it's actually not actually put there by immortal lizard-people Illuminati to placate us "like the Nazi's did to the Jews"..o_o )...and the Sandy Hook thing, that irks me as well. Anywho, I was debunkin' some chemtrail stuff and came across this message board in my research (and posted a video narrated by whom I think is this Mick fellow), thanks! Sure I'll get some good info here. :D

I know a few people who follow and repeat Alex Jones religiously. Even after i point out how many of his "facts" are fiction, they continue to quote him and defend him. After his embarrassing performance with Piers Morgan, they wouldn't even admit Jones made a fool of himself, instead they defended him. I can only imagine if one of their government/corporate boogie men had behaved like that on national TV. They would regurgitate the video for the next ten years as evidence of something nefarious happening within the matrix

For these people, what Jones does and says is immaterial. It doesn't matter. They don't hold Jones to the same standard of scrutiny as they hold everybody and everything else because he says what they want to believe. These are the same people who will scrutinize a 6 second piece of video for months on end, debating whether the parent of a deceased child showed the "correct" amount of grief and, if not, that is proof of something conspiratorial. Alex Jones gets caught in a bald face lie or endorsing contradictory positions and that's not a problem.

Many conspiracists think backwards. Instead of weighing the evidence THEN drawing a conclusion, they start with the conclusion THEN backwards engineer their evidence to fit their foregone conclusion.

Alex Jones says what they already want to believe.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
Hullo there CarrieSci.

As for Alex Jones... you know, I just cannot quite fathom exactly why people follow him at all. It must take a certain mentality to do so, because whenever I watch one of his videos, it just baffles me just how out of the world this guy really is. It's as though people worship him simply because he disagrees with authority. I mean, it's not like most of what he says even makes sense.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I don't follow Alex Jones. Took a google-search just now to find out who he was. People like him and this David Icke character irritate the hell out of me, as they put ridiculous spins on entirely legitimate issues, and are loud enough to convince people that everyone addressing that legitimate issue is equally ridiculous. I think if anyone's a 'shill' for the 'powers that be', it's not guys like Mick but guys like Icke and Jones. People like that guarantee that a majority of the attention these serious issues get revolves around the silly, nonsensical, or downright crazy arguments these people make, shunting into the shadows the real and serious matters.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Hullo there CarrieSci.

As for Alex Jones... you know, I just cannot quite fathom exactly why people follow him at all. It must take a certain mentality to do so, because whenever I watch one of his videos, it just baffles me just how out of the world this guy really is. It's as though people worship him simply because he disagrees with authority. I mean, it's not like most of what he says even makes sense.


I think there's a variety of reasons, but anecdotally I know some long distance truck drivers, and they listen to Alex Jones, and before that Art Bell, on the radio. Truckers listen to a lot of talk radio, and a lot of talk radio is stuff like this - right wing leaning, libertarian leaning, conspiracy leaning. So they listen to that kind of thing for hours at a time, for years. It kind of seeps in. Even though they seem like fairly intelligent folk, if you are just exposed to something year after year without rebuttal, then it starts to make sense.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't follow Alex Jones. Took a google-search just now to find out who he was. People like him and this David Icke character irritate the hell out of me, as they put ridiculous spins on entirely legitimate issues, and are loud enough to convince people that everyone addressing that legitimate issue is equally ridiculous. I think if anyone's a 'shill' for the 'powers that be', it's not guys like Mick but guys like Icke and Jones. People like that guarantee that a majority of the attention these serious issues get revolves around the silly, nonsensical, or downright crazy arguments these people make, shunting into the shadows the real and serious matters.

That's distraction from the real issues is a big part of why I feel that debunking is a valuable pursuit. There's a lot of very real issues out there that deserve the time and energy that is being wasted on the bunk issues. People ignore the real conspiracies because they pale into trivial nothingness besides the uber-conspiracies that Jones promotes (and profits from)
 

CarrieSci

New Member
I'm in a limbo with my friends where I'm too radical to be mainstream but too logical to be fringe >.<
The thing is I totally agree with them on so many issues then they completely lose me. "Corporations have too much influence in government!" Yeah! "Irresponsible greedy banks are screwing us!" Yeah! "The NDAA is bullshit!" Yeah! "Don't go outside, those clouds are trying to kill you!" Ahhh crap.
Someone sent me "irrefutable evidence". Included the uncited phrase "Investigators found aluminum, barium, vaccines, tranquilizers....and two cancers in the chemtrails". Really? How the hell do you just add a dash of cancer to something?? >.<
*Le sigh*
I believe the psychology of these folks is just one of such fear they need to think that there is someone behind the scenes making everything happen. I think the intrinsic entropy or randomness of life freaks them the heck out...so whenever there's a shooting, it can't possibly be a random case of someone losing their sh!#--obviously must be a government/illuminati ploy to take our guns. Nothing ever REALLY happens on its own apparently.
 

CarrieSci

New Member
@SR1419 Yep, that's how I found this place :)
@Pete Tar B.S. in Environmental Science/Geology, and now I'm finishing grad school this spring for biology --- aquatic ecotoxicology specifically. Freshwater ecology. Look at pollutants and invasive species, zebra mussels quagga mussels etc.
But I like all the science!
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
naturalnews is another site with a LOT of nonsense.

Last summer we had a major West Nile outbreak locally. They had to resort to aerial spraying to try to slow it some. Of course there were those that were upset by that. Someone posted a link to an article in naturalnews and other folks repeated it. A couple of 'gems' from it

"The West Nile virus has never been isolated. “Isolated” means discovered."

"There are listings for at least eight refineries in the Dallas area. There are also reports of increased air pollution coming from natural gas production in the Barnett Shale. The 2012 summer has been hot. As of of the year 2000, Texas refineries were producing 75% of all the MTBE in the United States."

The genome for it has been published, so it has been discovered. There are NO refineries in Dallas. When I pointed that out to one of the writers, he responded that I was wrong and provided his proof---a link to an online Yellow Pages, that showed the location of a company that Owned 8 refineries. None are anywhere close to Dallas. I live there. I pointed out that there is no gas production in Dallas county. I also pointed out that MTBE is no longer used in gasoline--I got told that the local 'refineries' were producing it for export to China. I also pointed out that the summer of 2011 had been MUCH hotter than last summer.

He ignored all the facts. It seems that he had based his information on a poorly done study that over 10 years old. It was done when West Nile first showed up.

Since then I have found that naturalnews is a very poor source of factual information
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
Hullo there CarrieSci.

As for Alex Jones... you know, I just cannot quite fathom exactly why people follow him at all. It must take a certain mentality to do so, because whenever I watch one of his videos, it just baffles me just how out of the world this guy really is. It's as though people worship him simply because he disagrees with authority. I mean, it's not like most of what he says even makes sense.

Conspiracy sellers like Jones offer a service to these people, and when he gives them what they want, they keep wanting it, like a drug. The effects wear off and they need some more, so they come back. They build up a tolerance for some of it, so they desire a stronger version, they go deeper in. Eventually, they are hooked.

hooked up.jpg

What sort of things are valuable enough that folks will willingly do this?

Absolution- They seek a rationale for their problems or the problems of others, so Jones offers them a version of reality in which problems are brought about by unseen unaccountable forces out of their control. A Scapegoat is what he gives them.
Witch Doctors" function the same way in primitive societies.

Confirmation- They want to be somebody special, to increase their self-esteem, so Jones offers them "inside information" that others simply don't know.
Jones gives them confirmation that they are special.
Remember the difference between a Strawman with no brain and a person with a degree in the Wizard of Oz?

Association- They seek to be part of a group, to receive support that their consumption of the above items isn't a sign that they are too far out of the ordinary, so Jones tells them they are Patriots, that others are Sheople.
Jones gives them somewhere to belong.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member.
@SR1419 Yep, that's how I found this place :)
@Pete Tar B.S. in Environmental Science/Geology, and now I'm finishing grad school this spring for biology --- aquatic ecotoxicology specifically. Freshwater ecology. Look at pollutants and invasive species, zebra mussels quagga mussels etc.
But I like all the science!
You should look out for Scombrid here. He works very close to your field.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
My best friend is an excellent herbalist, and I feel that one of the reasons she is so good is that she doesn't ignore modern medicine either.

Some years ago, my hubby's pressure was Very high, running at times well into the stroke range 200/110 that type of numbers. Money was tight and he was very depressed as well, so he refused to go to the doctor. Sue worked on a couple of herbal teas for him to take. They got his pressure down 20-30 points. When he finally went to the doctor, it took a while and at least 3 different medications to drop it into a safe range. What was interesting, was that Sue's teas worked in 2 different ways.

Sue's degree is in chemistry, and she does her research. Herbs are drugs also, and some folks refuse to accept that. Some are good, but some are dangerous.

We were at a camping event once and someone forgot their inhaler and they were having a mild asthma attack. They refused to go in the ER and it wasn't life threatening. Sue also has asthma and I remember her getting her to eat chocolate and I believe strong coffee. It got her through attack that night, and Sue insisted that the lady go into town and get a new inhaler.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I'm in a limbo with my friends where I'm too radical to be mainstream but too logical to be fringe >.<
The thing is I totally agree with them on so many issues then they completely lose me. "Corporations have too much influence in government!" Yeah! "Irresponsible greedy banks are screwing us!" Yeah! "The NDAA is bullshit!" Yeah! "Don't go outside, those clouds are trying to kill you!" Ahhh crap.
Someone sent me "irrefutable evidence". Included the uncited phrase "Investigators found aluminum, barium, vaccines, tranquilizers....and two cancers in the chemtrails". Really? How the hell do you just add a dash of cancer to something?? >.<
*Le sigh*
I believe the psychology of these folks is just one of such fear they need to think that there is someone behind the scenes making everything happen. I think the intrinsic entropy or randomness of life freaks them the heck out...so whenever there's a shooting, it can't possibly be a random case of someone losing their sh!#--obviously must be a government/illuminati ploy to take our guns. Nothing ever REALLY happens on its own apparently.

I was introduced to the conspiracy world about 2 years ago, i'm fascinated by how they think and process information. What you describe - elements of truth mixed with elements of "WTF" - seems to be the modus operandi of conspiracy pushers. They mix just enough truth to make the WTF seem plausible to some.

I always go back to Alex Jones because he uses this tactic all the time. He may be ranting on and on about the government covering up 9/11, but when challenged on his theory, he falls back into another rant and asks, "But what about the Tuskegee syphilis experiment or Operation Northwoods?" - he backpedals into past examples where the government did partake in questionable activities and, unless you catch the slip-n-slide of his method, you just might fall for it and equate the past with the present (unproven) theory. I know a lot of people who not only fall for this tactic, but they learn to employ it. They think it's a legitimate form of argument.

As for the psychology of conspiracists, i tend to like Michael Shermer's theory of how evolution is at least partly responsible for our natural instinct to see boogie men in the unknown:

Essentially, those who survived did so by learning to assume the worst case scenario - every rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator - and reacting accordingly. And this seems to be the pattern with many conspiracists.:confused:
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Essentially, those who survived did so by learning to assume the worst case scenario - every rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator - and reacting accordingly. And this seems to be the pattern with many conspiracists.:confused:

I've often wondered when conspiracy theory thinking became a cultural phenomenon... I can't imagine it was before the printing press.
What sort of conspiracy theories did people entertain themselves with hundreds of years ago? I bet they all revolved around the church, the pope, satan and the anti-christ.
Ideas of mind-control rays would be replaced by the influence of demons; severe weather events by pacts with the devil, or acts of an angry god at some erroneous behaviour.

I guess historically an accusation of witchcraft is the equivalent of a lot of modern-day CT, like belief in magical technologies that don't actually exist but are being used to persecute or kill people or control the weather.
 

RolandD

Active Member
I've often wondered when conspiracy theory thinking became a cultural phenomenon... I can't imagine it was before the printing press.
What sort of conspiracy theories did people entertain themselves with hundreds of years ago? I bet they all revolved around the church, the pope, satan and the anti-christ.
Ideas of mind-control rays would be replaced by the influence of demons; severe weather events by pacts with the devil, or acts of an angry god at some erroneous behaviour.

I guess historically an accusation of witchcraft is the equivalent of a lot of modern-day CT, like belief in magical technologies that don't actually exist but are being used to persecute or kill people or control the weather.

Seems to me, that blaming things on gods, be they good or evil, is much the same as blaming things on the government or powerful cabals.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems to me, that blaming things on gods, be they good or evil, is much the same as blaming things on the government or powerful cabals.

Indeed, there's a theory that attributing things to a powerful outside force is just a part of human nature. People just want to know why things are happening - and God (or failing that, a conspiracy) seems like a much simple and more satisfactory explanation than science
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
I posted this on a different thread but it seems appropriate here too:

Here is an interesting NYTimes article on the rejection of climate science- The title of the research paper referred to is quite telling:

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science



http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...dset/?src=recg

Here is the actual research paper:

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.a...Conspiracy.pdf
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Indeed, there's a theory that attributing things to a powerful outside force is just a part of human nature. People just want to know why things are happening - and God (or failing that, a conspiracy) seems like a much simple and more satisfactory explanation than science

IMO it also allows people to pass the buck for responsibility and assuage their conscience.

If global warming is due to too much fossil fuel use then we are all contributing to it and should be doing something about it. But if it is a hoax perpetrated by "the powers that be" and the New World Order (etc., etc.) then it's not my fault at all and I don't actually have to worry about doing anything about it at all - I'm not doing anything wrong.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I do not agree with a lot of his other thoughts, but he was dead on on this

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
You might read about the history of Anti-masonry, the first "third party" in the US,early 1800's.



I wonder whether it was something the man in the street would entertain, or whether it was exclusively the province of intellectuals and occultists and those who studied esoteric knowledge.
I guess there's always been a popular mass idea of a Semitic conspiracy, which has served as the base to branch off into many flavours.

Conspiracy theory today is a FORM of intellectualism PERHAPS, but it seems to have spread to the masses and those less trained in intellectual disciplines - reading comprehension, critical thinking, ability to evaluate data, etc. It's more of a pop-culture movement, and I would say there has been an attendant degradation in credulity and quality.
Communication technology and more free time would be factors. (the amount of time we spend idly entertaining ourselves now versus days spent just getting in water and food and firewood.) And the rise of class-consciousness.

Was it ever thus, a philosophy for the lower-class masses, or only something for intellectual 'radicals' and political dissidents?
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I've often wondered when conspiracy theory thinking became a cultural phenomenon... I can't imagine it was before the printing press.
What sort of conspiracy theories did people entertain themselves with hundreds of years ago? I bet they all revolved around the church, the pope, satan and the anti-christ.
Ideas of mind-control rays would be replaced by the influence of demons; severe weather events by pacts with the devil, or acts of an angry god at some erroneous behaviour.

I guess historically an accusation of witchcraft is the equivalent of a lot of modern-day CT, like belief in magical technologies that don't actually exist but are being used to persecute or kill people or control the weather.

I would agree 100%. I think every dark force ever imagined by man - every rustle in the grass - was/is a reflection of the knowledge base of that particular person during a particluar period in history.

Thousands of years ago it was angry gods, demons and spirits. Today, gods are replaced by aliens and humans with access to technology. In the future it will be something not well understood by the people of that future period.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I posted this on a different thread but it seems appropriate here too:

Here is an interesting NYTimes article on the rejection of climate science- The title of the research paper referred to is quite telling:

NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax:
An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science



http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/...dset/?src=recg

Here is the actual research paper:

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.a...Conspiracy.pdf

I would disagree with the theorem of this paper simply because i am one of those who doesn't buy into the whole manmade global warming theory, yet i don't buy into other conspiracies. I haven't read the paper cited here, but i'm guessing it's an effort to label manmade global warming doubters as fringe loons. I think it's a false equivalency.
 

CarrieSci

New Member
I just had to block the first person on my facebook. I've been posting some science about fluoride and chemtrails and he had been getting irritated. Then yesterday I had posted that I had met some "Holocaust deniers--what an extreme conspiracy since my family came from Germany--must all be in on it". He replied with accusing me of being a negative bitch, and unevolved for making fun of conspiracy theorists, and implied that I must be getting paid to discredit them or else I wouldn't post such nonsense trying to confuse my "followers", and it's "unbecoming for a leftist to be so hate-filled". :/ Good grief.

On another note, someone mentioned the "Central Intelligence Agency killed Martin Luther King Jr" thing, which is interesting - I just found out that in 1999 a civil trial found in favor of that? Dunno how I didn't hear about that when it happened. Well, the court found that some guy and "various government agencies conspired to assassinate him". Like, an actual trial, I read the long-ass transcripts. What do ya think about that?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I would disagree with the theorem of this paper simply because i am one of those who doesn't buy into the whole manmade global warming theory, yet i don't buy into other conspiracies. I haven't read the paper cited here, but i'm guessing it's an effort to label manmade global warming doubters as fringe loons. I think it's a false equivalency.

Having looked at the paper (the link above is incomplete - see here instead), it does not appear to say that all global warming "skeptics" are conspiracists, but rather that those who believe in conspiracy theories tend also to disbelieve the conclusions of most climate researchers regarding AGW. Actually, they find that AGW skepticism is more strongly predicted by free market ideology than by conspiratorial thinking (in contrast with some other science topics, such as HIV/AIDS or smoking/cancer denialism).
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Yep natural news is crap too. Sad, because I'm really into organic gardening and a few natural medicines.
P.S. Tee hee. http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2141512/pg1

Oh God. The Natural News. Unfortunately I have a friend that religiously accepts anything "published" on there. I get quite irate when he puts links up. My all time favourite so far must be that onions attract the influenza virus. It is a shame as every now again you will find a useful fact based article, or at least they start fact based e.g. Mint. Its really tasty and can help an unsettled stomach but did you know evil Big Pharma are keeping it secret that it can cure cancer, cure leprosy, regenerate limbs and resurrect the dead.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
I just had to block the first person on my facebook. I've been posting some science about fluoride and chemtrails and he had been getting irritated. Then yesterday I had posted that I had met some "Holocaust deniers--what an extreme conspiracy since my family came from Germany--must all be in on it". He replied with accusing me of being a negative bitch, and unevolved for making fun of conspiracy theorists, and implied that I must be getting paid to discredit them or else I wouldn't post such nonsense trying to confuse my "followers", and it's "unbecoming for a leftist to be so hate-filled". :/ Good grief.

On another note, someone mentioned the "Central Intelligence Agency killed Martin Luther King Jr" thing, which is interesting - I just found out that in 1999 a civil trial found in favor of that? Dunno how I didn't hear about that when it happened. Well, the court found that some guy and "various government agencies conspired to assassinate him". Like, an actual trial, I read the long-ass transcripts. What do ya think about that?

I'd like to see more information on the CIA/MLK issue. Never heard of it. Sometimes people will file a civil suit against a person or entity (Let's say you sue the country of Japan) that doesn't show up in court to defend the charge. You win by default. I've seen this before. It's a pretty neat trick.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
I just had to block the first person on my facebook. I've been posting some science about fluoride and chemtrails and he had been getting irritated. Then yesterday I had posted that I had met some "Holocaust deniers--what an extreme conspiracy since my family came from Germany--must all be in on it". He replied with accusing me of being a negative bitch, and unevolved for making fun of conspiracy theorists, and implied that I must be getting paid to discredit them or else I wouldn't post such nonsense trying to confuse my "followers", and it's "unbecoming for a leftist to be so hate-filled". :/ Good grief.

When I first took to Twitter to challenge chemtrail believers, to lay the basis for a rap debunking of the subject, it took three days for me to be labelled a 'paid disinformation agent' by the hardcore cabal of users who dominate the #chemtrails tag.

There are sites which specialise in 'outing' debunkers and debunking sites as such, without actually providing any evidence for their claims, and which are then referenced by the believers. Self reinforcing.

I've also been accused of helping to murder children, and a variety of other things. There's unhinged lunacy spouted into that hashtag every day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Eric A. Eisenbise

New Member
I just stumbled across Metabunk surfing the net today. I run a Fb group called Ancient Cosmonauts so as you can see by the title of this group that I deal with hardcore conspiracy theorist all the time. All though I do think that there is validity to some conspiracy's I feel most don't use critical thought or factual evidence when diving into this subject. That's why I'm here so I can have a healthy debate on the subject. I'm not familiar with chemtrails, but I will look into it.
 

cloudspotter

Senior Member.
I just stumbled across Metabunk surfing the net today. I run a Fb group called Ancient Cosmonauts so as you can see by the title of this group that I deal with hardcore conspiracy theorist all the time. All though I do think that there is validity to some conspiracy's I feel most don't use critical thought or factual evidence when diving into this subject. That's why I'm here so I can have a healthy debate on the subject. I'm not familiar with chemtrails, but I will look into it.

If you're using factual evidence and applying critical thinking then the chemtrails theory begins and ends with 'Why do you think the white lines in the sky are anything other than contrails?'
 

CarrieSci

New Member
@PCWILLIAMS Here's a copy of the transcripts of the jury trial, the verdict at the end I'll quote here:

"THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070116222014/http://www.thekingcenter.org/tkc/trial/trial.html

It's interesting. I'm glad I'm not the only one who hadn't heard of that.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Since damages are mentioned, I need to point out the difference in the 'burden of proof' between a criminal and a civil case.

"In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. Both are lower burdens of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes the truth of a disputed fact by a high probability"

"In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/burden+of+proof

I find that a lot of folks do not understand that difference, I am not sure I did, until a judge pointed it out, when I was called for jury duty.

There is a MUCH lower level of evidence needed to charge someone, just that there is evidence of a crime and the possibility to determine guilt. The later is why some 'he said, she said' crimes never get charged, if there is not additional evidence for one party, like prior physical abuse, then it can be impossible to know
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
@PCWILLIAMS Here's a copy of the transcripts of the jury trial, the verdict at the end I'll quote here:

"THE COURT: In answer to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your answer is yes. Do you also find that others, including governmental agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant? Your answer to that one is also yes. And the total amount of damages you find for the plaintiffs entitled to is one hundred dollars. Is that your verdict?"

http://web.archive.org/web/20070116222014/http://www.thekingcenter.org/tkc/trial/trial.html

It's interesting. I'm glad I'm not the only one who hadn't heard of that.

I saved it as a PDF and will try to read it soon. I've been really busy lately. :)
 

Related Articles

Top