Research can only prove that something exists


Active Member
This strikes me as the case for a lot of conspiracy theorists. That it is not possible to research something and find it doesn't exist.

Take chemtrails. If you don't believe they exist then you haven't researched them enough.

I think you'll find the same logic used again and again. Just today I have read the following about Area 51 with someone claiming that it has nothing to do with aliens and someone's response to that being...
If you had researched this as much as we have you wouldn't be saying this :)

It's just not possible (to them) that you have read the same stuff and come to a different conclusion. The only explanation is that you haven't researched enough.

Thinking about most conspiracy theories, they are all about something existing (something pretty intangible too, funnily enough). It struck me that the moon landings don't quite fit into that (i.e. they didn't happen) but then most of the evidence used for the conspiracy is about something existing (a letter on a rock, the breeze on the flag).

It's almost as though the research gets to a certain point and then stops (when you have reached the conclusion you want to). Never mind researching it more. You've researched it enough. Anyone who doesn't agree cannot have researched it as much as you.

It's really rather annoying.

Is there a conspiracy theory that doesn't fit this mould? I'm not sure there is?