Why are people called conspiracy theorists?

Rory

Senior Member.
If I think of conspiracy theorists I've met, I don't necessarily think of them as paranoid and delusional, rather ill-informed and gullible - in much the same way many of my very lovely New Age friends are. It doesn't stop them being nice and funny and good company - or, indeed, in being smart and rational in other ways.

Also, though flat earth belief requires some adherence to conspiracy theories, it seems more about a religion-fuelled denialism to me, and that's why I often term them 'Denialists' rather than 'Conspiracy Theorists'.
 

Marine0811

Active Member
I am curious to know if others are aware of the hate directed at many conspiracy theorists? I have been told to commit suicide a number of times on youtube by either debunkers or those who simply have an opposing belief. I have never told anyone to commit suicide or threatened their life for having an opposing belief. Some of the hate I have seen directed at CT is equal or more extreme than racism.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
have been told to commit suicide a number of times on youtube
Me too. It's not that uncommon an insult by childish people who think someone is stupid. It's not limited to conspiracy theorists. However some people tend to paint conspiracy theorists with a broad brush. I'm sure people get told to kill themselves for supporting the wrong sports team.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
am curious to know if others are aware of the hate directed at many conspiracy theorists?
Judging by all the school shooting comments i'm seeing on social media now, hate is just par for the course these days with anyone who disagrees with you.

edit add: of course if you accuse victims of violent crime as being crisis actors, you probably get more hate directed at you then other people.
 
Last edited:

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I am curious to know if others are aware of the hate directed at many conspiracy theorists? I have been told to commit suicide a number of times on youtube by either debunkers or those who simply have an opposing belief. I have never told anyone to commit suicide or threatened their life for having an opposing belief. Some of the hate I have seen directed at CT is equal or more extreme than racism.
Cuts both ways, I've been told to top myself by a couple of times, worse was a threat that went along the lines of my wife and daughter deserve to be raped (ok I have never been married, have no children and was single at the time but still...). All from conspiracy promotors. There are braindead cretins who like to throw the nastiness on both sides of nearly every argument these days, which is why metabunks politeness policy is such an important rule, it keeps debate civil, reasoned and cuts out the abusive crap.
 
Cuts both ways, I've been told to top myself by a couple of times, worse was a threat that went along the lines of my wife and daughter deserve to be raped (ok I have never been married, have no children and was single at the time but still...). All from conspiracy promotors. There are braindead cretins who like to throw the nastiness on both sides of nearly every argument these days, which is why metabunks politeness policy is such an important rule, it keeps debate civil, reasoned and cuts out the abusive crap.
At least dogs, and to be fair, some people, do not have a mission save the world, or other religion. That together with the belief that" the end justifies the means" can cause a few problems. The geoengineers and CTs have much in common.
 
It seems to me to be rude to call people conspiracy theorists as it clearly offends some people. I get that there are too many crazy people scaring people with weird claims but most people just want liberty and government accountability. I would of thought in America that would be respected more than it is. Why not just call it what it is? Theory of a conspiracy? Not digging out this forum. I just see it a lot all over the net. Especially in a dismissive manner.
They are called conspiracy theorists because (by definition) thats what they are. If they take offense to it, they might want to re-think what beliefs they place in priority. Just because someone doesnt subscribe to your CT doesnt mean they dont want liberty or govt accountability.
 
Even Bush's stated version of 9/11 is a theory of a conspiracy. Why isn't he called a Conspiracy Theorist? Just asking.

Politicians even planned Operation Northwoods didnt they? Even if they didnt carry it out.
A conspiracy theory is not "any time people conspire." a CT is an explanation for an event that involves hidden plots by secret conspirators--usually the govt.

So we have an event (19 men hijack planes and fly them into things). Anything that seeks to explain that via an alternate cause (especially involving a secret plot by govt) is a conspiracy theory.

"Politicians" didnt plan Northwoods. A CJCS proposed it, and the politicians rejected it. The CJCS was demoted subsequently. If Northwoods serves as a lesson, the lesson is that the USGovt rejects the idea of domestic false flags
 
Agreed.

But I also think the massively over-the-top response to 9-11 (with invasions in support of general US policy but in the name of...), has contributed to the rise in conspiracy theories. People do not understand why the US is behaving in this way, and see conspiracies as the answer.
I think for many, they didnt agree with the Iraq war (for one or more of many possible reasons). But, they lost the debate on Go v No-go. For many, they see undercutting the legitimacy of the Govt, and/or calling into doubt the character of the elected leaders as a way to undo the decision made to go to war.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
A conspiracy theory is not "any time people conspire." a CT is an explanation for an event that involves hidden plots by secret conspirators--usually the govt.

So we have an event (19 men hijack planes and fly them into things). Anything that seeks to explain that via an alternate cause (especially involving a secret plot by govt) is a conspiracy theory.
Yup, there is a difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. To use your example, 19 guys conspiring to hi-jack planes and commit mass murder is conspiracy, a very real one. To claim they were stoogies from a government cabal of alien lizard illuminati who did it for reasons... is a conspiracy theory*, big big difference.

* well technically speaking its a conspiracy hypothosis, but thats splitting hairs. And calling folks conspiracy hypothosisists is a bit of a mouthful. :)
 
Last edited:

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Answer seekers !!!! Not afraid to question the official narrative..
A bit vague...I seek answers everytime I do the local papers crossword puzzle, don't mean I look for the answers that match my view as to how the grid should be filled in regardless of what the clues are saying.
 

joseppi

New Member
I find it naive to think conspiracies are unusual given that history reveals conspiracies are to be expected.

For, all warfare is waged by means of conspiracy.

So, I reason that the anti-conspiracy name calling is an merely an attempt to avoid fairminded discussion.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
I find it naive to think conspiracies are unusual given that history reveals conspiracies are to be expected.

For, all warfare is waged by means of conspiracy.

So, I reason that the anti-conspiracy name calling is an merely an attempt to avoid fairminded discussion.
In her book Real Enemies, Kathryn Olmstead defines the term this way: “A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has yet to be proven.”

Kathryn Olmstead, Real Enemies: Comspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11(New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3.

As many people have already said, something is a theory until it is proven or disproven. That is not name calling. It is pretty straight forward common sense.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
In her book Real Enemies, Kathryn Olmstead defines the term this way: “A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has yet to be proven.”
Does she define "conspiracy theorist" also?

I think there's a difference: anybody can have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place; but a "conspiracy theorist" goes there out of habit, and not necessarily with good reason.
 

joseppi

New Member
As many people have already said, something is a theory until it is proven or disproven. That is not name calling. It is pretty straight forward common sense.
I agree that conspiracy theory can be thought rational. For I am aware of the existence of conspiracies and am rational about my understanding.

But, this web site offers many irrational opinions about conspiracy theorists.

I think the main reason for the irrational opinions against conspiracy theorists is due to the lumping together of irrational theories with rational.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Does she define "conspiracy theorist" also?

I think there's a difference: anybody can have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place; but a "conspiracy theorist" goes there out of habit, and not necessarily with good reason.
I'd also make a distinction between people who disbelieve one set of explanations, and those who assert their own.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Does she define "conspiracy theorist" also?

I think there's a difference: anybody can have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place; but a "conspiracy theorist" goes there out of habit, and not necessarily with good reason.
She does and I think that she agrees with your characterization:

"Conspiracy theorists are not only rigid, but are also at times susceptible to the arguments of charlatans who sense an opportunity to profit from fear of conspiracy." Olmstead, Real Enemies, 11.

She uses Jim Garrison and the Kennedy conspiracy as an example.

That said, I like Olmstead's earlier definition of a conspiracy theory because it offers the theorist a choice to either apply sound logic or not.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think there's a difference: anybody can have a theory that a conspiracy has taken place; but a "conspiracy theorist" goes there out of habit, and not necessarily with good reason.
Would you then say someone is not a conspiracy theorist if they only believe in one or two conspiracy theories?

I'd say the term "conspiracy theorist" can apply to people who do not have a habit of seeing conspiracies everywhere.
 

Nada Truther

Active Member
But, this web site offers many irrational opinions about conspiracy theorists.

I think the main reason for the irrational opinions against conspiracy theorists is due to the lumping together of irrational theories with rational.
I think the negative comments come from the fact that die hard CTers seem to grab a hold of the "theory" as truth as soon as they hear it. Then they spread it like a disease, without fact checking anything for validity. This then spreads to others who do the same, and then the job of finding the real truth is harder, as there is more un-true garbage out there. Think of how many people used "Loose Change version 1" as truth and proof. Then, when much of it was proven innaccurate, they spun out a new version, and people jumped all over that one as proof. Then much of that was proven false and it was re-spun... This time with a big famous narrator, and then used as proof.

Die-hards seem to look at debunking as blind faith in the govt. or "official story" and that those of us who do not believe are just as bad as the devoted CT people that we complain about. But, I see more conspiracy dis-believers doing the research and less die-hard CTers doing the same. They will often just post a link and say "look what I found... There it is, BAM!" then say "just asking questions"

Opposition to the current truth and asking questions is how you learn more, but you have to be willing to find out that you are wrong from time to time.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Would you then say someone is not a conspiracy theorist if they only believe in one or two conspiracy theories?
I think so - though I suppose it's all about gradations and spectrums, and how much they have invested in believing in conspiraces; what the conspiracies are; and how much their beliefs involve denialism.

Maybe it's akin to the guy who knocks a ball around in the park every now and then with his mates, and the guy who lives and breathes it and does it professionally: the first one's certainly not a soccer player in the way the second is, even though he plays a bit of footy every now and then.

At one end of the spectrum there's the person who sees a mass shooting on the news and instantly believes it's a false flag and a conspiracy. They maybe devote time to looking into it and finding what they perceive as anamolies. They're devout.

Then there are those who see something fishy about the JFK shooting but think those who question the moon landings or 9/11 are barking up a decidedly weird tree. They have thoughts along the lines of a particular conspiracy theory, but haven't bought into the notion that conspiracies are everywhere, nor given much time or thought to it, and haven't yet been required to abandon reason.

I think to truly be termed a "conspiracy theorist" one has to go beyond a few vague suspicions that people in power have conspired/are conspiring, and have moved into an area where they have something invested in their beliefs, in terms of time and mental energy, to the extent where seeing conspiracies is more important than evidence and facts.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think to truly be termed a "conspiracy theorist" one has to go beyond a few vague suspicions that people in power have conspired/are conspiring, and have moved into an area where they have something invested in their beliefs, in terms of time and mental energy, to the extent where seeing conspiracies is more important than evidence and facts.
It's easy to point at people at one extreme or another and say if they meet a definition. It's a bit harder when people are in the middle, the grey area.

Now we know that specific individual theories meet the definition of conspiracy theories. I think it's simplest to say a conspiracy theorist is someone who believes in one or more conspiracy theory. The degree to which they tend to see conspiracies everywhere will vary.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
is someone who believes in one or more conspiracy theory
but it has to be about the government right? (are there CTs that don't focus on the gov as the bad guy?)

because I believe TTAS are conspiring to deceive the public.. a lot of people think Trump (pre being part of the government) conspired with Russia to win the election.

Not that I personally take offense if [you] want to call me a conspiracy theorist. Because if my TTAS thoughts make me a conspiracy theorist, then I'm a conspiracy theorist.
 

Tedsson

Member
Could I ask what TTAS is an abbreviation for. Nothing I can find online appears to be the source of a CT.

Some CTs don’t specifically focus on the government. The anti-vaccination crowd tend to blame Big Pharma. However many of them are anti-fluoridisation advocates, in which they do blame the government for, well, something.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
but it has to be about the government right? (are there CTs that don't focus on the gov as the bad guy?)
Well the oxford english dictionary says:
Any large enough conspiracy is going to have to involve the government in some way - although maybe not ALL the government.
 

fmosm

Member
It doesn't make sense as a label anyway since a Theory is something that has been proven by experiment and mathematics; an unproven idea or concept is called a Hypothesis.
 

fmosm

Member
That's just one sense. Common usage tends far more towards a similar meaning to "hypothesis".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
View attachment 33787
I see, I still don't like the label. I guess the important part there in section 3 is the "assumed for the sake of argumentation" and "an unproved assumption" part which to be honest almost seems derogatory in some ways. It's important to define what methods people use to come to their conclusions.

I guess yes most general conspiracy theorists do just make unproven assumptions, but some conspiracy theorists are also professional scientists who follow the scientific method, who imo don't quite deserve the title "conspiracy theorist", as it's almost implying from the outset that what they're talking about is just assumed for argumentation and that the conclusions they're drawing are just unproven assumptions.

In the case of thermite cutting steel, it was hypothesized that regular thermite couldn't cut steel beams because it's just not hot enough, but other individuals used the scientific method to prove unequivocally that home made regular thermite can in fact cut steel beams using the correct apparatus. It doesn't answer any significant questions, it's still part of a conspiracy theory, but it's no longer a hypothesis, it was proven through repeated experimentation that the original hypothesis was wrong.

But I'm getting off track. Where am I going with this? I guess I think the terms "conspiracy theory" or conspiracy theorist" are just clever ways of undermining and warding legitimate efforts of providing fact and science based evidence towards proving the existence of, and convince the general public of, a legitimate conspiracy. Even in the case of real science, real scientists would still refer to section 3 in that dictionary rather than the actual scientific definition of what a real scientific theory is. Even after what was originally hypothesized was proven correct through science, people would still accept it's an unproven assumption, out of fear of ridicule or sheer denial.

It's a very clever set of terminology. I realise I'm probably way off topic by now but that's just my 2 cents.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In the case of thermite cutting steel, it was hypothesized that regular thermite couldn't cut steel beams because it's just not hot enough, but other individuals used the scientific method to prove unequivocally that home made regular thermite can in fact cut steel beams using the correct apparatus. It doesn't answer any significant questions, it's still part of a conspiracy theory, but it's no longer a hypothesis, it was proven through repeated experimentation that the original hypothesis was wrong.
I've yet to see someone cut though 2" steel with thermite, unless you count a thermitic lance. Johnathon Cole's experiments were with thermate, not "regular thermite".

But none of that is a "conspiracy theory". Hypotheses about cutting steel are testable science. The conspiracy theory here is that the WTC buildings were destroyed with explosives and incendiaries, seemingly in a non-testable manner as they left no evidence.

But I'm getting off track. Where am I going with this? I guess I think the terms "conspiracy theory" or conspiracy theorist" are just clever ways of undermining and warding legitimate efforts of providing fact and science based evidence towards proving the existence of, and convince the general public of, a legitimate conspiracy.
Really? So why do all the fictional depictions of conspiracy theorists portray them as being correct? The biggest use of the term in history is in the Film "Conspiracy Theory" - in which the theory was correct.

I devote a chapter of my book to the "conspiracy theory" conspiracy theory. Basically I use the term because it's well understood, and no matter what term people used for people who tend to see conspiracies behind everything, it's going to end up seeming derogatory to some of them. Everyone think's their theory is sensible, and dislike the association with the theories that they think are not sensible.
 

fmosm

Member
I've yet to see someone cut though 2" steel with thermite, unless you count a thermitic lance. Johnathon Cole's experiments were with thermate, not "regular thermite".

But none of that is a "conspiracy theory". Hypotheses about cutting steel are testable science. The conspiracy theory here is that the WTC buildings were destroyed with explosives and incendiaries, seemingly in a non-testable manner as they left no evidence.
Rightly corrected.

Indeed the conspiracy theory its self here is that the WTC was brought down with the help of incendiaries such as thermate. Initially it was claimed that this couldn't happen, as seen in Jonathan Cole's video the poorly tested demonstration by National Geographic, yet Jonathan Cole proved through his own testing that this is in fact possible with regular thermate (not thermite, nor super thermate, sorry for the confusion there).

But did he get recognition and bring validity to the demolition idea outside of the "conspiracy theory community" or the A&EF911T group? Or does it still get shut down? If people have direct evidence of thermate (such as Steven Jones claims he has) and thermate's risidual constituants are found in the WTC dust, then surely that takes the subject a little bit beyond just being a conspiracy theory.

I find that derogatory because it undermines the hard work of genuine scientists who put their necks and jobs on the line to prove something which very well often gets shoved into crack pot territory. They take a huge risk in involving them selves in these subjects, sometimes to the extent of even losing their jobs over controversy. I'm not personally offended by it, but the label is definitely thrown around far too often.

See below:

Really? So why do all the fictional depictions of conspiracy theorists portray them as being correct? The biggest use of the term in history is in the Film "Conspiracy Theory" - in which the theory was correct.

I devote a chapter of my book to the "conspiracy theory" conspiracy theory. Basically I use the term because it's well understood, and no matter what term people used for people who tend to see conspiracies behind everything, it's going to end up seeming derogatory to some of them. Everyone think's their theory is sensible, and dislike the association with the theories that they think are not sensible.
In particular I was talking more about people such as news casters who use the term very openly, things like "but it's just a conspiracy theory" or "do you call your self a conspiracy theorist?" That directly impacts an individual and places a label on the person regardless of whatever evidence and its validity they are trying to present.

In the example of Jonathan Cole, under the discussion of controlled demolition a news reporter might ask him "do you call your self a conspiracy theorist?" to which he might say "no, I'm a professional engineer", after which presenting his irrefutable evidence they might say "but that's just a conspiracy theory." It's a setup and a trap.

Many times people have been invited on the news and framed in such a way that it not only discredits their claims in the eyes of the viewer but also discredits them as a person or a professional too, and that helps shut people up.

I'm not saying that these labels can't be used in a positive way, for sure they can, but I think more times than not that's not the case. Even when official government documents are released admitting to the actual act of absolute conspiracy, they're still called conspiracy theories by many people. Even that clearly difined line is not always recognised and accepted.

You have your own reasons for liking these labels, and as I say I'm sure they can be used in very positive ways, but from my own experiences I think it just scares people away and makes it more difficult to build supporters for something that might be absolutely genuine and bring real criminals to justice. That's not to point fingers mind, just to get beyond the cloud and directly to the truth.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Indeed the conspiracy theory its self here is that the WTC was brought down with the help of incendiaries such as thermate. Initially it was claimed that this couldn't happen, as seen in Jonathan Cole's video the poorly tested demonstration by National Geographic, yet Jonathan Cole proved through his own testing that this is in fact possible with regular thermate (not thermite, nor super thermate, sorry for the confusion there).
No he didn't, unless you define "with the help of" to mean something rather all-encompassing. But this is getting off topic.
You have your own reasons for liking these labels
I like the term "conspiracy theorist" because it is well understood, and it's better than many alternative, and because any new term would also gather the same associations. Let me quote from my (not yet published) book, from the end of Chapter 1:

 

fmosm

Member
Nice extract! It definitely puts into contrast how people used to be labelled and what that means to people today. I agree it definately gives the label "conspiracy theorist" a much better tone, as to be called "paranoid" for being genuinely paranoid is bad enough let alone having someone else label you paranoid for completely different reasons, especially now what we know about mental health and issues like paranoid schizophrenia. We're almost lucky that that shift happened, because it gives CTs more strength and validity in that their position can't be labelled as and hidden behind the premise of a mental health problem.

But it does also highlight how "rebranding" an idea doesn't necessarily change the fact of being labelled, merely transforming it from one label into another. Whe're getting into an era now however where it's almost impossible to say anything that's non PC. Being British my self I had no idea that Scope was called the Spastic's Society, especially considering the term "spacker" was so prevalent on the school yard and is almost now void from our vocabulary. "Retard" is probably the American equivelant.

That's very interesting I never saw it like that before!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
But it does also highlight how "rebranding" an idea doesn't necessarily change the fact of being labelled, merely transforming it from one label into another
another example which has come up several times on Metabunk, and may be somewhere in the back of this thread, is "Truthers".
I, and many others, refer to 9/11 conspiracy believers as Truthers, because that is a name they gave themselves (and it's easier to type than Conspiracy Theorists). But several members here have complained that Truther is derogatory. and Truther is a pretty 'positive' sounding word.
 

fmosm

Member
another example which has come up several times on Metabunk, and may be somewhere in the back of this thread, is "Truthers".
I, and many others, refer to 9/11 conspiracy believers as Truthers, because that is a name they gave themselves (and it's easier to type than Conspiracy Theorists). But several members here have complained that Truther is derogatory. and Truther is a pretty 'positive' sounding word.
That's interesting considering what we just discussed earlier, in that the end goal in anything research based is to reach the truth. It does sound positive. Perhaps there's an element of guilt there then, that people who find the label "Truther" derogatory aren't necessarily there to find the truth but merely find truth in their preconceived idea. The less truth they find and the more conflicting evidence they're met with that disproves their idea, the more they're forced to give up their idea, and some people just don't want to give up. Sometimes the truth hurts. That is indeed very strange.
 

Kenneth Schauer

New Member
I call them conspiracy hypothesists as theories have empirical data and peer reviews to back them up where as a hypothesis is just a thought/idea someone came up with and has nothing to back it up. Theory is the most misused word in the English language. As for it being offensive to them does not concern me. I am not interested in feelings, just facts. By giving into others emotions all you are doing is buying into PC/SJW culture that has no merit.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I call them conspiracy hypothesists as theories have empirical data and peer reviews to back them up where as a hypothesis is just a thought/idea someone came up with and has nothing to back it up. Theory is the most misused word in the English language. As for it being offensive to them does not concern me. I am not interested in feelings, just facts. By giving into others emotions all you are doing is buying into PC/SJW culture that has no merit.
"Merit" isn't a criteria here, it's about what form of communication works best in helping people out of the rabbit hole of conspiracy thought. You might not be interested in feelings, but are you interested in communication?

"Theory" also means "hypothesis" in the common tongue, and has done so for hundreds of years. "Conspiracy theory" is a well understood term, but "conspiracy hypothesis" is not. So why would you use the latter?
 

Steven Ian

Closed Account
Thanks for the reply. Sincerely.

A lot of them could of well been conspiracies and even if one was thats one too many.

Even Bush's stated version of 9/11 is a theory of a conspiracy. Why isn't he called a Conspiracy Theorist?
But there are plenty people that believe in Conspiracy theories that have professional profiles acknowledged:

I can give you hundreds of examples.

But lets begin with 2 or 3 for now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Baker

He writes books about conspiracy theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Baker


And he believes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Baker

Why does the supposed Government shill site Wikipedia award Russell with a professional profile, calling him an investigative journalist, and not write him off as a conspiracy theorist?


And what about this one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka

Now let us take a look at some of his Poems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiri_Baraka#September_11_attacks

Now why have government shill sites not dismissed this man as a conspiracy theorist in order to discredit him? Government shill sites call this Poetry?
Should his Bio not at least read American conspiracy theorist, writer of controversial poetry, drama, fiction, essays and music criticism?

And what about people that deny the genocide of jews during the holocaust in WW2? Do we usually call them conspiracy theorists? No, those are usually holocaust deniers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_App

Now nowhere can i see him called a conspiracy theorist.
Infact, a German-American professor of medieval English literature is about as professional a title as you can award someone. Yet he believes in the Holohoax.


What about Dylan Avery? Maker of Loose change the video that went viral attempting to call 9/11 an inside job?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Avery

Filmmaker? Why not conspiracy theorist?


I will give you David Icke however.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke


Even Jesse Ventura has a proud opening to his profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Ventura

I am sure the article mentions his conspiracy theories later in the article, but certainly his professional attributes are not hidden and definitely no attempt to hide them or discredit him beneath umbrella terms
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Marin B What is this shower curtain-shaped cloud called? [Cirrus Fibratus] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 3
Jay Reynolds Debunked: Obama Called Putin a Jackass Quotes Debunked 1
Critical Thinker New tool called rbutr, to indicate a web page has been rebutted Practical Debunking 6
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 0
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 8
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 119
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
endoplasmic_reticulum Debunked: iPhone in 350-year-old painting [Letter, Tim Cook was Joking, Obviously] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
MikeG Body Armor Order Indicates Major Military Deployments Conspiracy Theories 1
Whitebeard Manchester Terror Drill and bad reporting. General Discussion 1
Mick West Explained: Head Of The Army Admits to "Little Green Men" [Covert Russian Agents] Conspiracy Theories 7
Mick West Vice: 'It Was Like a Cult': Leaving the World of Online Conspiracy Theories Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Mackdog Justice Scalia death: No autopsy as evidence of conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top