Should we debunk "hoax" tragedies with "crisis actors"?

David Fraser

Senior Member.
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?
 

Gavriel

Member
I think you should always try. Most "truthers", as far as I can tell, are actually looking for the truth... they just aren't very good at recognizing it.
 

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
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?


It is very difficult to change someone's mind or thought process in regards to bunk of all kinds. Whether it's religious bunk, psuedo science, psuedo journalism, etc. People are married to their beliefs and I think that even the most polite, articulate, and persuasive person could base their argument on mountains of evidence, but would only convince a tiny minority. I think the belief in any of these sorts of things are personal conclusions that people need to reach themselves.

This doesn't mean that we should give up debunking. There are still people who are dabbling into this sort of stuff but are on the fence, and I think this is where the we come in. IMO the debunker's voice on the internet is very small relative to the believers out there. If someone completely ignorant to the events of Sandy Hook, or the Boston Bombing were to search the internet, they would overwhelmingly get results that relate to the conspiracy and not results that give the facts. The more people who believe something, the more likely it is true in the minds of alot of people. We should do our best to present a case to counter the conspiracy arguments and hope we can prevent more people from buying into this stuff.

You know a good friend of mine (who is extremely cynical BTW) asked me this question. "Why is there less racism in the south (referring to the U.S.) today than there was 50 years ago?" I don't recall what I responded with, but his answer was "Because the racists themselves are dead".
 

Noblelox

Member
Edited to address this section

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?

I understand the outrage to these conspiracies and the moral delema with countering them. Obviously if the relatives of the dead see the websites, blogs and youtube videos it's obviously going to cause hurt, anger, frustration etc. That's a problem I had considered over the Woolwich murder. I absolved myself by imagining the police lieason officer telling Lee Rigby's family to stay away from Youtube. To me that seems a practical thing the police would do but on my behalf it's pure speculation. I simply do not know that the police would advise that. I also couldn't imagine a family member torturing themselves by reading the comments. Some of which are vile and way beyond morbid.

I do feel guilty for my actions.

My first thought was to say to you "No! leave em alone". Here's why. Like many others I thought I'm not going to let these conspiracists get away with this. It's a no brainer, up front, in ya face, Islamist motivated murder. Firstly, I started out with rage and name calling. Then I got into pointing out their psychological fail (I'll get to that later) which was just another form of insult. Then I took em on with the visual evidence. Many claimed there wasn't enough blood. No blood here there and every gory where. Looking at the images on Youtube it was obvious the lack of visual blood was caused by the light source (sun) bleaching it out. Like a flash photo taken too close. I compiled various video's that demonstrated this by one of the killers blocking the sun which in turn revield visable proof of the blood trail on the pavement (sidewalk). This had several different effects on the CT guys.

A) They believed I had proved the blood was there but hadn't disproved the government hoax false flag plot.
B) Total outright denial to the visual evidence. Therefore no change.
C) Accepted the visual evidence but came up with a different reason for it being there i.e still planted.

Out of the many hundreds of CT'ers I had commented to only 3 "fence sitters" changed their mind and agreed, via reply comment, it was a real murder. Other silent readers may have changed their mind but obviously that can't be verified.

I had been onto the Woolwich incident from the get go. That's a little over 3 months now. Unfortunatly I've had to post lots of links to prove the blood issue and many CT'ers didn't have qualms about posting links to actual beheadings (Lee Ribgy was not beheaded). I had a sense of a goul fest from some CT'ers. My Youtube comments weigh on my conscience with regards to friends and family of Lee Rigby should they see any of them. It is only this last week to 10 days that the comments on the Woolwich conspiracy videos have dried up. News does eventually become old news. Tomorrows chip papper. I feel my rage and discust has gotten me exactly nowhere. If anything I've only prolonged the comment section. This is why I would advise not getting into debates / battles with these bottom end CT'ers. They will go away....eventually.


Psychology
Some time ago and recently I've read, watched and listened to some psychology regarding "Conspiracy Bias." Apparently it's a fairly unexplored BIAS which is slowly being investigated. From what I have gleamed one size does not fit all. Forgive me if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs....as it were. In a very abbreviated and a layman way of explaining things, they (conspiracists) suffer from to much scepticism and paranoia. We all have these attributes as it's part of our survival instinct. However, these people have it in varying degrees to the point of some of them being clinically ill. (I've actually had oneguy trying to convince me of legalees being part of black magic) These imbalances affects the sufferers reasoning, intuition and logic. Critical thinking isn't a possibility as the foundation of their thinking is ...biased. Typically they will believe in many types of conspiracy which, when boiled down, revolves around being controlled or death. By "types" think government controlled plans, illuminati, big pharma, oil, Haarp, chem trails, NWO, reptilians etc and so on.
In conspiracy bias there is also a lot of confirmation bias. The theorist will only look for evidence to support their claim but never look for anything that may disprove it. The problem here is, that like an STD, conspiracists swap incorrect information between themselves. What's more they prefer to believe that information over that of officials or experts. A lot of conspiracists believe expert opinion isn't trust worthy as they are part of the "plot" (I've had 3 CT'ers tell me they haven't had a TV for years and only use / watch the internet. You could imagine the scope of their search parameters. Others have sighted other CT'ers work as proof)
Some of them think they are providing a service to man kind. That in some way they are special for having discovered these things. In reality they are placating their ego and lack of self-esteem. ( I haven't read this but I believe this in turn perpetuates the fear anxiety in some of them and others, while the whole cycle repeats from one event to another)
Conspiracists also fixate on meaningless anomalies which put into perspective have no bearing. ( It should have done this. Why didn't that happen type. But what about the woman on the left type of thing) They will also, without proof, see hidden connection and use false logic to somehow prove their point. (did you see him laughing) When challenged they will also shift the burden of proof. Their accusation then becomes a point foryou to disprove. (I throw it straight back at em) When proof is irrefutable the theorists will merely change the premise. (Over the last 3 months of Woolwich I have experienced CT'ers consistantly changing the premise of their accusation as I've proved them wrong. It's like giving them ammunition to work with)

As I said one size does don't fit all. You will observe people of low intelligence, generalized disbelief of official story, loathing of authority, CT'ers being less trustful of people and facts, disordered thinking, less likely to engage with society, individual theories less important to CT'ers than generalized rejection of official explanations (hence change of premise), basing belief in disbelief, confuse unexplained with unexplainable, errant date use / belief, depression and allienation of meaning and purpose, use of a theory to enhance own prejudice or sense of insecurity.

The list goes on but there's to much to tar one particular CT'er with all of it. Confirmation bias is a major culprit that and change of premis.



CT'ers only pull apart the official story. It's basically anomally hunting. They rarely if at all put forward their own theory. (They might say the blood is fake or it's a hoax etc but they will NOT explain HOW the fake blood got there or HOW the hoax was set up).
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I've been banging on that drum for a while. CT's poke holes in the official theory, but there is never a cogent theory that better explains the events than the "official" story. I also take CT's to task for what I call asymmetrical evidence. Evidence gathered by forensics experts and other people of that stripe is always thrown aside in favor of armchair CSIs' opinion on a matter based on a bad photograph.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
It's hard to ignore this vile incarnation of the conspiracy theorist when they post things like this:

SandyH.jpg
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Outside of Metabunk I do not engage in these conspiracies and when I do on here I find it frustrating. I am no authority in forensics and the only way I can qualify my opinion is through my experience and training. While I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion I feel any interpretation has to be qualified. However the only replies one receives are "It should not be doing that" "People don't behave like that" "Well he should not be treating her when x is lying on the ground". I was quite annoyed to be informed that evacuation was not a priority of triage after a bomb blast.

Anyway I digress. At the end of the day any opinion we ourselves make in photographs and even video can only be assumptions without taking in the whole forensic record ( post mortems, medical records, witness statements etc), and to be frank I am not willing to delve that deep.

Just on a personal note I was always taught in training to expect the unexpected. One thing I have learned is that in stressful situations people behave in the most unexpected ways and situations happen in most unexpected ways as well. You will never be able to account for everything.
 

Noblelox

Member
Outside of Metabunk I do not engage in these conspiracies and when I do on here I find it frustrating. I am no authority in forensics and the only way I can qualify my opinion is through my experience and training. While I accept that everyone is entitled to an opinion I feel any interpretation has to be qualified. However the only replies one receives are "It should not be doing that" "People don't behave like that" "Well he should not be treating her when x is lying on the ground". I was quite annoyed to be informed that evacuation was not a priority of triage after a bomb blast.

Anyway I digress. At the end of the day any opinion we ourselves make in photographs and even video can only be assumptions without taking in the whole forensic record ( post mortems, medical records, witness statements etc), and to be frank I am not willing to delve that deep.

Just on a personal note I was always taught in training to expect the unexpected. One thing I have learned is that in stressful situations people behave in the most unexpected ways and situations happen in most unexpected ways as well. You will never be able to account for everything.

I thought you meant on the world wide. Things like 7/7, Madrid, Sandy Hook, Boston, Woolwich etc are all self explanatory. There's no a lot that needs explaining here but I suppose if some CT has raised a point like building 7 then sure. What I was refering to with my Woolwich evidence was showing the actual blood trail. The one shown in the news aerial shot but from ground video. The one that the CT's stated was planted there afterwards. It did cause the debate in the comment section of youtube vids to linger. With the benefit of hindsight I don't think I'll do that again. Once these people have got "inside job" planted in their heads....that's pretty much that.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
I understand the outrage to these conspiracies and the moral delema with countering them. Obviously if the relatives of the dead see the websites, blogs and youtube videos it's obviously going to cause hurt, anger, frustration etc. That's a problem I had considered over the Woolwich murder. I absolved myself by imagining the police lieason officer telling Lee Rigby's family to stay away from Youtube. To me that seems a practical thing the police would do but on my behalf it's pure speculation. I simply do not know that the police would advise that. I also couldn't imagine a family member torturing themselves by reading the comments. Some of which are vile and way beyond morbid.

I do feel guilty for my actions.

My first thought was to say to you "No! leave em alone". Here's why. Like many others I thought I'm not going to let these conspiracists get away with this. It's a no brainer, up front, in ya face, Islamist motivated murder. Firstly, I started out with rage and name calling. Then I got into pointing out their psychological fail (I'll get to that later) which was just another form of insult. Then I took em on with the visual evidence. Many claimed there wasn't enough blood. No blood here there and every gory where. Looking at the images on Youtube it was obvious the lack of visual blood was caused by the light source (sun) bleaching it out. Like a flash photo taken too close. I compiled various video's that demonstrated this by one of the killers blocking the sun which in turn revield visable proof of the blood trail on the pavement (sidewalk). This had several different effects on the CT guys.

A) They believed I had proved the blood was there but hadn't disproved the government hoax false flag plot.
B) Total outright denial to the visual evidence. Therefore no change.
C) Accepted the visual evidence but came up with a different reason for it being there i.e still planted.

Out of the many hundreds of CT'ers I had commented to only 3 "fence sitters" changed their mind and agreed, via reply comment, it was a real murder. Other silent readers may have changed their mind but obviously that can't be verified.

I had been onto the Woolwich incident from the get go. That's a little over 3 months now. Unfortunatly I've had to post lots of links to prove the blood issue and many CT'ers didn't have qualms about posting links to actual beheadings (Lee Ribgy was not beheaded). I had a sense of a goul fest from some CT'ers. My Youtube comments weigh on my conscience with regards to friends and family of Lee Rigby should they see any of them. It is only this last week to 10 days that the comments on the Woolwich conspiracy videos have dried up. News does eventually become old news. Tomorrows chip papper. I feel my rage and discust has gotten me exactly nowhere. If anything I've only prolonged the comment section. This is why I would advise not getting into debates / battles with these bottom end CT'ers. They will go away....eventually.


Psychology
Some time ago and recently I've read, watched and listened to some psychology regarding "Conspiracy Bias." Apparently it's a fairly unexplored BIAS which is slowly being investigated. From what I have gleamed one size does not fit all. Forgive me if I'm trying to teach you to suck eggs....as it were. In a very abbreviated and a layman way of explaining things, they (conspiracists) suffer from to much scepticism and paranoia. We all have these attributes as it's part of our survival instinct. However, these people have it in varying degrees to the point of some of them being clinically ill. (I've actually had oneguy trying to convince me of legalees being part of black magic) These imbalances affects the sufferers reasoning, intuition and logic. Critical thinking isn't a possibility as the foundation of their thinking is ...biased. Typically they will believe in many types of conspiracy which, when boiled down, revolves around being controlled or death. By "types" think government controlled plans, illuminati, big pharma, oil, Haarp, chem trails, NWO, reptilians etc and so on.
In conspiracy bias there is also a lot of confirmation bias. The theorist will only look for evidence to support their claim but never look for anything that may disprove it. The problem here is, that like an STD, conspiracists swap incorrect information between themselves. What's more they prefer to believe that information over that of officials or experts. A lot of conspiracists believe expert opinion isn't trust worthy as they are part of the "plot" (I've had 3 CT'ers tell me they haven't had a TV for years and only use / watch the internet. You could imagine the scope of their search parameters. Others have sighted other CT'ers work as proof)
Some of them think they are providing a service to man kind. That in some way they are special for having discovered these things. In reality they are placating their ego and lack of self-esteem. ( I haven't read this but I believe this in turn perpetuates the fear anxiety in some of them and others, while the whole cycle repeats from one event to another)
Conspiracists also fixate on meaningless anomalies which put into perspective have no bearing. ( It should have done this. Why didn't that happen type. But what about the woman on the left type of thing) They will also, without proof, see hidden connection and use false logic to somehow prove their point. (did you see him laughing) When challenged they will also shift the burden of proof. Their accusation then becomes a point foryou to disprove. (I throw it straight back at em) When proof is irrefutable the theorists will merely change the premise. (Over the last 3 months of Woolwich I have experienced CT'ers consistantly changing the premise of their accusation as I've proved them wrong. It's like giving them ammunition to work with)

As I said one size does don't fit all. You will observe people of low intelligence, generalized disbelief of official story, loathing of authority, CT'ers being less trustful of people and facts, disordered thinking, less likely to engage with society, individual theories less important to CT'ers than generalized rejection of official explanations (hence change of premise), basing belief in disbelief, confuse unexplained with unexplainable, errant date use / belief, depression and allienation of meaning and purpose, use of a theory to enhance own prejudice or sense of insecurity.

The list goes on but there's to much to tar one particular CT'er with all of it. Confirmation bias is a major culprit that and change of premis.



CT'ers only pull apart the official story. It's basically anomally hunting. They rarely if at all put forward their own theory. (They might say the blood is fake or it's a hoax etc but they will NOT explain HOW the fake blood got there or HOW the hoax was set up).

This explanation is spot on. When I originally dug into the folks behind the Woolwich videos it appears it was done by the Islamic Society. A college group in London which sympathizes with Extremist Muslim views and of course, terrorists. With little research I found that they were involved with most of the YouTube postings. Only rehashed and put together on different days.

What do you think is the reason this happens? For instance, the Wesley Clark Video was first recorded in 2007. Went viral on YT in 2011, and again now. I think it's the notion to "discover the truth" even when the truth isn't there. They are however, pretty good at beating a dead horse, and they NEVER let you have the last word! They always come back for more bashing!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Noblelox

Member
I've been banging on that drum for a while. CT's poke holes in the official theory, but there is never a cogent theory that better explains the events than the "official" story. I also take CT's to task for what I call asymmetrical evidence. Evidence gathered by forensics experts and other people of that stripe is always thrown aside in favor of armchair CSIs' opinion on a matter based on a bad photograph.
On the point of pseudo type science, forensics which the CT's readily accept. I'm flabbagasted they don't challenge the authenticity of the provider. Example; I had one chap giving me holocaust denial based on the fact two jewish kids had uploaded an Auschwitz video and said the gas chambers were real showers or some such rubbish. I didn't even occur to the CT that, for all he knew, it could have been uploaded by a neo nazi. It's full comfirmation bias.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I thought you meant on the world wide. Things like 7/7, Madrid, Sandy Hook, Boston, Woolwich etc are all self explanatory. There's no a lot that needs explaining here but I suppose if some CT has raised a point like building 7 then sure. What I was refering to with my Woolwich evidence was showing the actual blood trail. The one shown in the news aerial shot but from ground video. The one that the CT's stated was planted there afterwards. It did cause the debate in the comment section of youtube vids to linger. With the benefit of hindsight I don't think I'll do that again. Once these people have got "inside job" planted in their heads....that's pretty much that.

I had a go at the Woolwich blood trail myself.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/lo...s-debunked-by-infowars.1639/page-4#post-52352
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moderateGOP

Active Member
It's worth noting that CTers like to twist timelines and use vague generalities as proof! For instance a YT video or CT Talking head could claim something really specific, like "The World Will End On Dec 21 2012!!!!" Then, when that doesn't happen they will say, well evidence points to worldwide collapse happening soon. Which goes full circle into their doomsday beliefs. Which I believe is some of the main causes of their delusions. Everything can be traced back to doomsday.
 

Noblelox

Member
This explanation is spot on. When I originally dug into the folks behind the Woolwich videos it appears it was done by the Islamic Society. A college group in London which sympathizes with Extremist Muslim views and of course, terrorists. With little research I found that they were involved with most of the YouTube postings. Only rehashed and put together on different days.

What do you think is the reason this happens? For instance, the Wesley Clark Video was first recorded in 2007. Went viral on YT in 2011, and again now. I think it's the notion to "discover the truth" even when the truth isn't there. They are however, pretty good at beating a dead horse, and they NEVER let you have the last word! They always come back for more bashing!!!

Firstly, thank you for the confirmation of my explanation. It's appreciated. Secondly, I've not been around conspiracy for about 5 years. I'm not familier with Wesley Clark. I'll have to look it up.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'd like to point something out. To coin a well trodden phrase...in the search for truth. It wasn't the Islamic Society that made the video. There was a copy posted on their facebook page but the video they used was made by an English guy. He made it within 24hrs of the murder and a student posted it on the Islamist Society facebook page. As you know it was removed and a public retraction made after the story hit the press.

The maker of the video is the worst type of conspiracist. Personally I think he's clinical but I'm no expert. He's been mentioned here in the Chem section. He has made a threat to me but I consider him to be keyboard coward. None the less I have his personal details.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

moderateGOP

Active Member
Firstly, thank you for the confirmation of my explanation. It's appreciated. Secondly, I've not been around conspiracy for about 5 years. I'm not familier with Wesley Clark. I'll have to look it up.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'd like to point something out. To coin a well trodden phrase...in the search for truth. It wasn't the Islamic Society that made the video. There was a copy posted on their facebook page but the video they used was made by an English guy. He made it within 24hrs of the murder and a student posted it on the Islamist Society facebook page. As you know it was removed and a public retraction made after the story hit the press.

The maker of the video is the worst type of conspiracist. Personally I think he's clinical but I'm no expert. He's been mentioned here in the Chem section. He has made a threat to me but I consider him to be keyboard coward. None the less I have his personal details.

ah so you even dug farther than I did. Did not know about that guy, honestly it usually boils down to one or two individuals who start "spreading the truth"
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
This all confirms what finally dawned on me a few months ago- that what all these CTers believe in is simply that- conspiracy. When you try to address the details of any story they are on about, it doesn't really reach them because it doesn't address their basic belief in general conspiracy. That's why they so often respond to debunking of specific items with: "You believe everything the government says!?". It sounds like a non-sequitur, but to them it's right smack on the central premise they were concerned about. They really don't care about any of the details because, to them, there is an entire landscape whereby they are surrounded with a vast conspiracy which controls and attacks them. It doesn't matter whether you debunk any number of specific details. They will still perceive any number of other data points by which they can "prove" to themselves that conspiracy is all too real.
 

Noblelox

Member
ah so you even dug farther than I did. Did not know about that guy, honestly it usually boils down to one or two individuals who start "spreading the truth"
It definatly doesn't help with people like Alex "I'll scare you to death" Jones but a surprise was Infowars put out a debunk video. They actually said Woolwich was real but went on about some middle east invasion conspiracy. Needless to say a lot of conspiracist didn't believe their prince of doom lol....on the Woolwich matter
 
Last edited:

"They"

New Member
It's worth noting that CTers like to twist timelines and use vague generalities as proof! For instance a YT video or CT Talking head could claim something really specific, like "The World Will End On Dec 21 2012!!!!" Then, when that doesn't happen they will say, well evidence points to worldwide collapse happening soon. Which goes full circle into their doomsday beliefs. Which I believe is some of the main causes of their delusions. Everything can be traced back to doomsday.

I like the "vague generalities as proof" concept they use. The other day I saw some show on Discovery or History channel saying "Some scientists believe that Fort Knox doesn't hold gold and it holds alien technology".
It made me laugh while watching it because I counted 3 different times within the 10 minutes I was watching that they used the "Some scientists believe" statement. They didn't lie of course since there probably is a scientist somewhere on the planet that believes it is true.
:D
Oh and since I didn't watch the entire episode I wasn't able to check if they did any pointing towards doomsday during the show. ;)
 

Noblelox

Member
This all confirms what finally dawned on me a few months ago- that what all these CTers believe in is simply that- conspiracy. When you try to address the details of any story they are on about, it doesn't really reach them because it doesn't address their basic belief in general conspiracy. That's why they so often respond to debunking of specific items with: "You believe everything the government says!?". It sounds like a non-sequitur, but to them it's right smack on the central premise they were concerned about. They really don't care about any of the details because, to them, there is an entire landscape whereby they are surrounded with a vast conspiracy which controls and attacks them. It doesn't matter whether you debunk any number of specific details. They will still perceive any number of other data points by which they can "prove" to themselves that conspiracy is all too real.

Some time ago I was getting frustrated with the Chem trailers. Fed up with countering each point with each individual I resorted for going straight for the throat with one question. Where's the infastructure...you know...the mines, the logistics, the plants / refinaries, HR and the money etc? It's enough to send em in a tizzy or shill calling lol....but it never stopped em. That's when I thought "there's something wrong with these people." Now! I'm no expert and I'm sure a psychologist could take me to task over some of the stuff I've posted on Woolwich youtube comments but in essents you are about right. I've taken on board what I've read. I know it's a not a one size fits all explanation and there's different types of CT'ers but when it comes to people that believe many conspiracies it's pretty useless arguing the toss. The novice or middle ground guys you stand some chance with. People that give it the illuminati, NWO gov plot melarkey are those that are sticking their head in the sand because the real world is to difficult for em. Anything that forces them to take on board the reality of it all is fiercely resisted. Some research suggests these people need to externalise blame to excuse their unsuccessful lives. They live in a council flat (trailer park) because... They're divorced because... Their multi million pound business went into administration because...

I'm not saying pack up lets go home it's useless but it sure helps to know what you're dealing with.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
It's worth noting that CTers like to twist timelines and use vague generalities as proof! For instance a YT video or CT Talking head could claim something really specific, like "The World Will End On Dec 21 2012!!!!" Then, when that doesn't happen they will say, well evidence points to worldwide collapse happening soon. Which goes full circle into their doomsday beliefs. Which I believe is some of the main causes of their delusions. Everything can be traced back to doomsday.

WHich also explains the large numbers of "Christians" involved in CTs. I put it in quotes because most Christians don't think Jesus will be coming back through Project Blue Beam, or the world will end when Niburu crashes into it.
 

Noblelox

Member
WHich also explains the large numbers of "Christians" involved in CTs. I put it in quotes because most Christians don't think Jesus will be coming back through Project Blue Beam, or the world will end when Niburu crashes into it.
Yeah! What's with that? It's like a schizophrenic BIAS. One minute externalizing blame on shaddowie forces. Next minute they're externalising hope with the resurrection.
 

moderateGOP

Active Member
Yeah! What's with that? It's like a schizophrenic BIAS. One minute externalizing blame on shaddowie forces. Next minute they're externalising hope with the resurrection.

A lot of them have seemed to replace the Bible with the Constitution. So I think it's a lot of the old Bible Thumpers that used to be online in the 90s believing other nonsense. It's simple evolution, or regression...
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
A lot of them have seemed to replace the Bible with the Constitution. So I think it's a lot of the old Bible Thumpers that used to be online in the 90s believing other nonsense. It's simple evolution, or regression...

If it's Bible thumpers it can't be evolution!
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
deirdre Climate Scientist says "Scientists should consider stretching the truth": Stephen Schneider Quotes Debunked 2
R How much blood should there be here? Boston Marathon Bombings 7
H2meloen Clouds formed when they should not? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
Mick West Attached images should now appear in quotes. Site Feedback & News 4
Mick West What should we rename "Fortean phenomena"? Site Feedback & News 35
Mick West hotmail and live.com emails should work now Site Feedback & News 0
George B Should there be a Conspiracy Forum Rating System. General Discussion 35
FuzzyUK Probiotic foods - should you be consuming them? Health and Quackery 14
MikeC This 777 should be identifiable for a year or 2..... Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Clock "They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Quotes Debunked 96
Oxymoron Poll: Should the U.S Attack Syria? General Discussion 51
Marcus Mudd A Debunking site should open the possibility of debunking the paradigm Site Feedback & News 28
Mick West Links to old posts should be fixed Site Feedback & News 6
Clock Poll: Do you think that threads should be closed after being debunked? Site Feedback & News 6
Mick West I don't think you should tell people they are ignorant. Practical Debunking 15
Mick West Debunked: "we should have stopped the nuclear program of Israel" ... JFK Quotes Debunked 24
Mick West Debunking Sites you Should Check First Practical Debunking 3
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
derwoodii My eyes deceived me so I had to debunk myself Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
N How can I debunk the orbs in this photo? UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 22
HoaxEye How to calculate the visible fraction of the Earth [e.g. 1972 Blue Marble, Apollo 17] Flat Earth 29
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Mick West Burying the Debunk: How Fake News about "Pyramids" in Antarctica Creates False Balance UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
Mick West An Easy Experiment to Debunk the Flat Earth by Observing the Size of the Sun Flat Earth 55
passionfly1 Lets finally debunk Nico and Marco Kaschuba (video hoaxers) People Debunked 0
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Mick West What to do about the Flat Earthers? Debunk, or ignore? Flat Earth 238
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
C MH370: Help me debunk this General Discussion 21
TemplarJLS Can someone debunk this George Washington quote? Quotes Debunked 6
TemplarJLS Some depopulation quotes to debunk? Quotes Debunked 16
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mike Fl Can someone debunk this? Sandy Hook Shooting 100% Fraud Proof in 2 mins. - Photo Time Analysis Sandy Hook 21
Stevan Gvozdenovic Let's debunk my (very simple) perpetuum mobile Science and Pseudoscience 57
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
WeedWhacker Let's imagine the actual area of the sky, above.... Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Dan Wilson PopSci article claiming to debunk ten GMO myths Health and Quackery 10
Vindog Debunk this [Planes at different altitude and different contrails over France] Contrails and Chemtrails 43
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
W Debunk NASA is proposing spraying stratospheric aerosols. Contrails and Chemtrails 9
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Jeffrey Orling Is there anything about 9/11 left to debunk 9/11 46
C Help debunk please!? [Contrail Grids, Weather Modification, Fuel Dumping] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top