1. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member

    Hama Neggs, she's in Glastonbury.....I could tell you all about that lol!

    This morning, I was walking to the train station for my meetings in London and in front of one house, there was a woman standing outside with a man and they were talking. As I got closer, I heard her complaining about her health - headaches, aches and pain etc etc. But then she was also advertising witchcraft spells that can resolve all your problems - these were in front of her house and she proudly wore a T-shirt that advertised her spells. As soon as the irony dawned on me I just got this giggle which as hard as I tried I couldn't suppress, so I had to hurry away so I could laugh out loud!

    What a scam!
     
  2. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    I believe a large amount of it is simply because they find it entertaining to get a rise out of other people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    it's a start - perhaps you can use articles on topics of interest that are on BIN to start him thinking about their validity?
     
  4. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    I too have come to that conclusion. While they rail against this nebulous group as being "evil", the belief that the world is not random and it can and is being controlled is what lets them sleep at night. It also provides a virtuous purpose in fighting this evil with like-minded people. It is a very seductive way of thinking.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Belfrey

    Belfrey Senior Member

    I have once, when I convinced one of them that persistent trails (including the sinister "x" pattern) had been documented since well before the 1990s. But it wasn't at all satisfying, because he followed with, "My God... they've been chemtrailing for much longer than I realized!"
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  6. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Sometimes Mick, no amount of logic or focussed discussion can help. Here is a missive I received this morning from that bastion of intelligent debate, the Youtube comments section:

     
  7. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member


    Oh my goodness! Such poor choice of words, does she think attaching an insult to every sentence adds credibility to her rant? I think the choice of words says it all. I have never had a Conspiracy Theorist or their believers admit that they were wrong and clearly some people are beyond reasoning with. When it gets to the point of this level of abuse, you just have to walk away and let it go. The upside is she's not your family or someone you have to live with daily! Try clicking on the hyperlink on her name and see where her focus is...big boobs and the likes...I wouldn't take someone like this very seriously to be honest. Goodness me, I love Metabunk....such politeness here....:)

    Interestingly, I find a strong parallel between this sort of one-track-mind behaviour amongst many in the justice system - once they take a position on a case prior to the filing of evidence, they stick with that obviously wrong position, no matter how absurd the evidence later proves their positions to be and some go as far as perverting the course of justice to either twist the evidence to fit their position or they just manufacture fictitious 'evidence' to the same effect - makes my job a lot more challenging and interesting.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Brainiachick

    Brainiachick Active Member

    I have to admit this made me laugh so hard! Well, it shows how far down the rabbit hole some really are. What do you do with something like that other than to provide them with independently verifiable evidence and just leave it with them. It may not change their thinking, but it could plant a seed of truth in them which may grow in time if the situation is yet redeemable (which may not be).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. E**

    E** Member

    Ha well I didn't mean ex conspiracy theorists, but that will do as it gives me hope. As far as I can tell they just dismiss it or fold it into their conspiracy theories.

    I've found the "former believers" forum to be helpful.

    Also Facebook memes are pretty resourceful but it's hard as a debunker not to want to link to the most cheeky and snarky ones.
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You are kind of applying the "No True Scotsman" fallacy there. At some point an ex-conspiracy theorist was a conspiracy theorist in transition - someone who admitted they were wrong about something, then started questioning other things, and then found more things they were wrong, and eventually the weight of evidence shifted (to varying degrees) in their mind against the conspiracy theory of history.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  11. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    People who have a propensity to believe in conspiracies are IMO usually those who have been on the edges of mainstream society. They tend to come from economic disadvantaged, religious or social isolation. They are often self taught, many lack formal instruction/education in the areas the conspiracy is most explained by.

    People want explanations for the unexplainable; therefore, they latch on to the most emotionally satisfying explanation when most vulnerable. When this connection is made it often connects the dots to other fringe conspiracy beliefs forming a synergy. This synergy validates the conspiracy beliefs in a circular fashion, thus debunking one conspiracy rarely provides lasting and/or significant success. One can crack the foundations but it takes infinite patience to collapse the house of cards of a hardcore conspiracy buff.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  12. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    As one can see from this unscientific poll from GLP, conspiracy beliefs are found in clusters. If you believe in a few, one usually believes in many others.

    Note: The thirty conspiracies used in the poll are from this source . . . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pic...-greatest-conspiracy-theories-in-history.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    People who get into chemtrails are generally already conspiracy theorists. I think of chemtrail debunking as a kind of "top down" approach. By showing people that their belief in chemtrails in unfounded, by getting them to think about the quality of the evidence, it might make them question some of their assumptions about their more foundational beliefs.

    It varies a lot by individual, but I think that if someone goes through multiple realizations that something was wrong, it builds up a weight that eventually makes it easier for them to think more honestly about other things.

    Of course there's also initial push-back. And some people see (at least initially) any attempt at debunking as some kind of evil psyop.

    But if you can get some common ground on something like "Chemtrails can persist", then that at least is a start.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  14. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I think the foundation of the Chemtrail Conspiracy is a solid belief in TPTB, shadow government, etc. Without this perquisite, few variations of the conspiracy can stand the test of even the lowest level of deductive reasoning, intuition, or speculation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, but you are not going to be able to do anything about that foundation unless you tackle something at the top.

    I know of several former conspiracy theorists who stopped being conspiracy theorists via a process that began with realizing that chemtrails were not real. But not the other way around. It takes a while to clear things away before the foundation can be addressed.


     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I think some people can be brought to question Chemtrails based on a reasonable examination of the available evidence. Unfortunately or fortunately for a few, the evidence for and against Chemtrails is basically the same evidence. Any reversal of position is based on convincing the individual they are misidentifiying evidence and/or applying faulty analysis to the evidence. This is the key.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. Astro

    Astro Active Member

    Indeed. If I may relate my anecdote, I was a conspiracy theorist myself when I was a teenager. My focus was almost entirely on Roswell, though I also bought into the JFK theories as well. I've always been fascinated by space (grew up by the launch pads here in Florida, back when you could go visit the old air force pads on the weekends for free), so the thought that space aliens crashed on earth back in the 40's was a natural fit to my interests. My mother and grandmother witnessed a UFO in the late 50's/early 60's time frame, so I was also raised hearing tales of UFO sightings and alien abductions.

    It's an interesting and unusual juxtaposition because on the one hand I was raised on the rock hard science of spaceflight and astronomy and on the other I was raised with fantastic tales of alien visitation and hollowed out cows. My mother worked for NASA for a time, so even though she believes the government is hiding the truth about extraterrestrials, she doesn't believe that every other shuttle mission was visited by them. On the contrary, I'd go so far as to say she takes offense at silly "lights in the sky/lights in the camera" style claims (I saw a disc she'd say, not just some lights in the sky).

    When I was in high school my family moved out to Colorado for a year and then moved back to Florida when we couldn't take the cold and missed the beach. On the road trip back my mom and I insisted we stop by Roswell, NM and make the pilgrimage to the UFO museum there. I soaked it all in, bought a copy of the "MJ12 documents" signed by Stanton T Friedman, etc. My dad was always the voice of reason, he would simply say "whatever the truth is, it's already known, you just can't keep a secret that big among that many people." I would tell him the truth IS known, it's the conspiracy!

    We got back to Florida and I kept researching more into space-related conspiracy theories. Now I had my own computer and internet access, and that's when I reached a turning point; either I was going to fall down the hole into lala land and start buying into all kinds of old theories (9/11 wouldn't happen for several more years) or I was going to find out I was being deceived by those claiming to present the truth. Fortunately I was raised on the space coast and had a good grounding in the basics of astronomy and spaceflight. I was already starting my journey as an amateur astronomer and was keenly interested in getting into astrophotography. I hit a decision point one night when I came across the moon landing hoax theory.

    I had been told that there were people who didn't believe it happened, but to me it always seemed utterly ridiculous; my parents were there! They saw the launches with their own eyes, some in my family even worked on the moon lander, so to me the theory always seemed like some far off ridiculous nutjob belief that no "serious" conspiracy theorist would ever buy into (there I was with my own no true Scotsman and didn't realize it at the time). I mistakenly assumed that Apollo hoaxers thought the whole thing was a lie, even and especially the Saturn V rocket launches. After all, that was perhaps the key development that allowed us to go to the moon. We demonstrably had functioning spacecraft well before Apollo, but we needed the world's most powerful rocket to send them to the moon. Well this night online I stumbled across an apollo hoax website, I don't recall which one or how I go there, but there I was. And I saw things like claims about the photos being fake because there were no stars, and so forth. For a short while it shook my whole world view. I had been raised to believe the government was hiding aliens, but this? I was also raised around the great monuments to our spaceflight accomplishments, including a Saturn V rocket, a command module that had been around the moon, and the world's only un-flown lunar lander built for flight (left over H-class intended for Apollo 15). How could all of that have been faked? Yet here I was staring at "the evidence." The claim wasn't that the launches didn't happen, it was that they didn't contain people and they didn't really go to the moon.

    Around the same time I started getting into astrophotography. I started off assuming that it would be easy to photograph stars. Just stick a camera up to the eyepiece and away you go. Nope. That didn't work. Let's try a digital camera, I hear those are more sensitive; stuck that up to the eyepiece and what's this? Colorful dots everywhere! But wait, those don't look like the stars I see in the eyepiece, the pattern's all wrong. They were hot pixels, though I didn't know what they were called at the time I knew they weren't stars. Went back to film, tried eyepiece projection. That should keep the camera stable, now I can expose the film a bit longer with the telescope's clock drive running, I should be getting beautiful photos in no time! Nope, even holding the shutter open for a full second (seemed good enough to me lol) shows me little to nothing of the stars I see in the eyepiece.

    Huh, I thought, those guys who acted like they knew so much about photography and Apollo told me the astronauts should have had stars in their pictures. After all, I had seen stars in videos of shuttle missions, at least while the orbiter was on the earth's night side and especially in those silly videos of ice particles and debris they said were UFOs. So why not Apollo? After all, the LM cast a shadow, shouldn't that be good enough? Nope. And I was finding this out on my own, by trying to take good pictures of the stars with my own film camera and telescope. Even with the telescope the best I could do were short exposure shots of planets... and the moon. And the moon didn't have any stars around it in those pictures. Sure, I'm under the atmosphere, but the atmosphere is mostly transparent in visible light. That's when I realized I had been lied to, not by NASA, but by Kaysing et al. It was the camel's nose under the tent. I started questioning all of my previously held conspiracy beliefs, and one by one they fell apart. By the time 9/11 happened I knew better than to take the word of those who claimed that the towers were brought down by demolition charges. I was no engineer myself, but I knew I could turn to saner voices to find the real answers.

    So, at least in my anecdotal case, the thing that brought me out of the conspiracy world was finding one little thread hanging down in area that played to my analytical strengths, something I could test for myself. The nature of conspiracy belief is self-protecting; family members like my Dad could never talk me out of it, he's with "them" even if he doesn't consciously realize it. Even though I respected him, there was no way he could talk me down from my position. But once I found something awry coming from those I trusted, the house of cards collapsed on itself. The key was that I stuck on one point, I wasn't hopping from point to point as each was countered. If a point was countered in a debate I could dismiss it as "I might not personally know the answer to why this counter-point is wrong, but I bet one of those 'conspiracy experts' like Friedman does" and rapidly move on to the next point. It was when I found something I knew was wrong from my own personal experience and investigation that I started to realize the "conspiracy experts" were not trustworthy.

    Education, in my experience, can vaccinate a person against future conspiracy belief. I think the parenting I received as a child was vital to escaping what would have become a deep rabbit hole of conspiracy belief, especially after 9/11. I could be wrong, but in my experience it seemed like as a teen the conspiracies were mostly about things that happened before I was even born. JFK and Apollo were the two largest in my experience, Roswell too though that was more of a late comer to the scene as I now understand it (though it hit its stride right when I was starting to get into conspiracies in the mid-90s with the Larry King special and such). After 9/11 we've had all kinds of conspiracies about everything it seems, every single bad event which happens in the world is either fake or put on by TPTB. I assume some of this is because of how the internet and social media have given a worldwide platform to those who want to be the loudest. Fortunately I found my way out before everything became a conspiracy (or at least before every minor conspiracy was easily found and repeated online), but I still think there is great value in reaching people when they're young and educating them with a general critical thinking tool set. I think Sagan's "baloney detection kit" idea was right on the money and perhaps without even fully realizing what they were doing my parents gave me the basics of that toolset with all those weekends spent visiting rockets as a kid. It caused me to pause and critically evaluate what I might have otherwise accepted at face value.

    Sorry for the long post, but I hope it's somehow useful.
     
    • Like Like x 8
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Absolutely key.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Astro, very interesting! Do you hold any conspiracy theory as a reasonable possibility?

    I enjoy analyzing conspiracies and peoples' reaction to them; seems eventually there will be one that will be proven to have some substance.
     
  20. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    And "contrails don't persist" STILL seems to be the lynch-pin of it all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  21. Astro

    Astro Active Member

    To this day I don't discount the possibility of alien visitation of earth, I guess I could best be described as agnostic on the matter with a maternal side of the family that had a personal "miraculous experience" in the form of a silent silver disc with windows buzz their car. They grew up on the airport (my grandfather was a pilot, he would literally roll his plane from his house across the street and onto the taxiway) and so they had extensive experience watching planes, though this sighting did not occur near the airport. I do not discount the possibility that they saw something "extraordinary" though I also do not discount the possibility of mistaken identification or other mundane explanation. I wasn't there, there was no physical evidence left behind, the incident is physically unverifiable by its very nature.

    All I know with certainty is that my mother and grandmother are honest people and to this day my mother honestly believes she witnessed an alien spacecraft on the road I still travel on to visit my grandmother's house. Do I believe they're hollowing out cows or probing people's rectums in the middle of the night while the government covers it all up? No I do not. What I previously thought was rock solid physical evidence of alien visitation turned out to be less so after I began re-examining my beliefs in the wake of my own personal wake up call described above. I wish more than anything I could go back in time and witness what really happened that day for myself. I wish I could get the proof for that which I wish to believe, but I no longer allow that desire to cloud my judgement. From the years since of critically analyzing contemporary "UFO reports" I've found that the vast, vast majority are either incorrect identifications of common things or outright hoaxes. In fact I have yet to find a single case to be personally very compelling in any way. I still watch the occasional UFO program for purely entertainment purposes. The wild tales are fun to listen to, but now I recognize that they do not constitute the solid proof that I used to think they did.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  22. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Thanks for your honest response. I harbor the belief in the miracelous. I have had a few occurrences that truly defy a scientific explanation and feel there are too many to ignore as simply nonsense. Possibly we just don't have the technology or vocabulary to analyze such events because they appear to be totally random and unrepeatable for scientific examination.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  23. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    Since I do believe there is the rare unexplainable event, it is often difficult for me to confidently attempt to debunk other people's beliefs. So the debunking I attempt is strictly confined to the conspiracies that have a solid base of scientific data to call on. The example of Chemtrails fits this situation nicely. Other conspiracies are those where misunderstandings, exaggerations, intentional deceptions are detectable. Another category is the conspiracies that obsess and/or debilitate the believer. An example of this was the Planet-X, Nibiru conspiracy and the Rapture date predictions.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Only until it has been explained, by science ;)

    (I am thinking of an example....the advance of science, and thus greater understanding of things previously not understood.

    The sound of thunder...as just one).
     
  25. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    I have no argument with your position. However, your example of the sound of Thunder is not what I consider miraculous because it is very predictable. It would usually occur when there was a storm and when lightning was observed. They may not have been able to scientifically explain it but could easily observe it, and predict reliably when it might happen.
     
  26. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Yes, of course. I am referring more to ancients. And the (possible) lack of a connection to the flash of lightning, and the thunder.

    (The lightning itself, was likely something awe-inspiring). It relates to Human perception, and of course, science of sound versus light speed propagation.

    Years ago I learned a simple "rule-of-thumb": Flash of lightning, count the seconds....about 5 seconds per mile. Of course, these are modern units of measurement ( and certainly subjectively inaccurate! ). One must learn to count (absent a timepiece), "One potato, two potato (etc)".
    Or, "One mississippi, two mississippi (etc)". Or, "One one thousand, two one thousand"....(etc). (OR, whatever cultural language version).

    But in any particular violent storm, with multiple lightning flashes? From countless directions (from perspective of the person
    on the ground), and contribute the possible echoing effects OF the resulting thunder due to terrain features? (Along with the obvious time delay, for the sound to travel).

    You can see how this can become very confusing, and even "frightening".

    Science. Always will provide an answer. ;)
     
  27. E**

    E** Member

    Yes this. I see where Mick is coming from but (for the most part) you aren't going to convince someone who only believes in chemtrails because they believe in illuminati/NWO stuff, the details don't matter to them. All they see is the flashy youtube video saying "whistleblower exposes X" and confirmation bias kicks in. Which is to say all of these techniques work great online or in a formal debate as eventually you'll reach someone but they aren't much use with family unless they are willing to visit debunking sites even if only to debate.

    I've been thinking a lot about this topic and I wonder if the best thing to do if you have a family member that believes is incorporate some of kind Al-anon/Nar-anon type skills where you focus on yourself and lovingly detach from the person.
     
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Maybe so. But I would at least see how they respond to the very simplest type of debunking. The showing of old books on clouds.

    This is me for three minutes, reading from my collection:


    This is a good litmus test, especially if you combine it with actually showing them one of the books, with passages highlighted. This one is only $4.00, shipping included:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...?ie=UTF8&condition=used&sr=8-1&qid=1414173901

    Now chemtrail believers are generally full-spectrum believers in the conspiracy theory of history. Even if you get them to admit that contrails do not persist, they may not take that as evidence that chemtrails are not read, and they certainly won't suddenly stop thinking that 9/11 was an inside job, or or that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA/whoever.

    I wonder if there might be some detail in trying to find the common ground you share in your own conspiratorial view of the world. Where's the actual area of the spectrum where you start to disagree?

    Here's an interesting article that discusses that area:
    http://mises.org/daily/2809
    Perhaps you can turn them from bad conspiracy theorists into good conspiracy theorists.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  29. E**

    E** Member

    I've shown them such videos and info and they reluctantly agree that the info is true and hasn't been faked but it doesn't change their mind. They really don't care about the details, they just dismiss all science as being part of the conspiracy and point to a debunked video of supposed scientists and documents proving HAARP controls the weather and uses chemtrails to do it.

    I've tried sharing my views and injecting small amounts of critical thinking but it's like fighting a tank with a toothpick. Any info gets drowned out by Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, dabooh7 or whatever stream of nonsense is on their facebook page.
     
  30. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Dahboo7 is funny though....!
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's very difficult with some people. Here's an email I got today:
    It almost seems like a parody. The believe it has been proven because other people tell them it has been proven. They really don't have any real understand any of the things they are talking about, so it essentially become about who they can trust.

    I use the old books as you'd think a 70 year old book on clouds would be something people can trust. But if people think that a 70 year old book is lying, then there's not a lot of hope for them. True believers are going to keep on believing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  32. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Part of the weirdness is that people may admit that books like yours aren't fake, but they won't grasp the significance of what it means. They just blithely abandon certain aspects of the chemtrail story and soldier on because they still have a "mountain of evidence" on their side.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I think it's very important, on an individual basis, to try to get them to focus on things like the books.
     
  34. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Regarding family members...
    If you can get them to truly read the books, that is a giant step.....even if they initially discount the book's content.
    ......because they will then have heard (read) and hopefully memorized an alternative view; and those ideas will have not come from a family mouth.
     
  35. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    Couldn't hurt to try that. I have never dealt with a family member on this and only briefly with one friend I don't often see. With the friend, it seemed very strange to talk to someone face to face about chemtrails. It's different than on line. I didn't like it and didn't pursue it very long.
     
  36. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Getting them to read the book is the hard part. If you can get them to read the book, then the first hurdle has been jumped over. How do you get them to read the book should be the question, not why they should read it. Obviously, we think they should read it because it will disprove all their previous beliefs, but often people who aren't "open minded" wouldn't dare to pick up such a book and read it. So how do you get them to pick up the book and read it. Shoving it in their face probably won't work. Sending it to them in the mail probably also won't work. Handing it to them in front of other family members will probably inflame their ego and put them on the defensive as well, so they will probably say things like' "it doesn't matter what you show me, my mind is made up".

    I think it's important to understand the psychology of someone who believes in something strongly, whether its about religion or CT's because often no matter what's said or provided to them they will automatically go into a defensive mode and block out everything that you are saying. Understanding the person you are going to help is key to being able to break through to them.

    So how do we present new or counter intuitive information to someone who has strong beliefs that are contrary to what we believe in. I think that's the key to any break through, and it has more to do with trust and them liking you than anything else because with all honesty they could find this information themselves on the net if they "wanted" too, yet they never bother to search it out. Why is that? Intelligent discussion rarely happens, even from the perspective of the debunker (metabunk excluded for obvious reasons). Most discussions dealing with differing beliefs are usually decided within the first few minutes of an encounter. They either decide they will listen and learn, or already made up their mind that no matter what you say, it's going in one ear and out the other.

    So how do we try to correct this? What steps can be taken to overcome this bridge? If it was as easy as showing someone a book, or facts on the net, or some photos then there would be no need for debunking, would there. But we all know that isn't the case. In fact, those who promote bunk also show books, "facts" on the net, and photos. So what needs to be done differently. You can't fight fire with fire because we all know what happens. Thats why understanding the psychology of the person you are trying to help is vital to being able to help them.

    I often see chemtrail discussions on any site deal with the analysis of photos. CT's promote their beliefs with photos, and debunkers disprove the CT with photos and scientific findings. To me that's just fighting fire with fire, and it rarely works. Well, it works from the perspective of intelligent information, but does it help the person who started the thread. How often do we see the person who started the thread say; "OMG, you know what you're right, I have no idea what I was thinking. I'm sorry I bothered everyone with this dribble". I say one out of 100 or even higher odds ever come to that conclusion, if any. Understanding the psychology of that individual or the masses and getting at the chore of their beliefs is how you help them. Understanding why they believe in chemtrails, and not discrediting the photos they provided could potentially yield better results.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  37. E**

    E** Member

    Not so funny when someone is taking it as 100% reality.

    It's not that they think the books are lying it's that they think the elite can just go beyond the science of these books. It's like a Christian that believes everything bad that happens is the devils work, he is capable of anything.

    It is much easier to view videos and listen to someone, unfortunately a lot of debunking relies on dry boring research that isn't entertaining.

    Really you start to get worried when they are putting their health at risks from naturopathy junk (totally eschewing doctors and modern medicine all together, they have a health condition that needs to be treated for life so I am extremely worried) and are seriously wanting to spend cash they don't have on hording weapons because the government might put us in concentration camps any day now. Conspiracy theories do hurt people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    There is no irony emicon, sorry...

    I used to subscribe to his channel as I did amuse myself watching his brain decide that everything was Obama's fault, pretty much including every single news event since 1998, and the inevitable predictions of WW3, economic collapse, Martial Law and gun control...

    But I suppose if anyone took him seriously, I guess I can see how unamusing that can be for a bystander...

    Did you ever ask why they believed him, and what was so convincing about a guy who never quotes references or sources and said every sentence with a bucket of hyperbole?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. Will

    Will Member

    I think much of this applies to conspiracy theorists in general (not just 9/11 "truthers")...

     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  40. E**

    E** Member

    Don't worry I didn't mean to sound snappish it is just depressing.

    They believe him because they don't have to do any fact checking, professor "It makes sense" with a PHD in youtube is all the evidence they need. The main stream media lies so somehow this means conspiracy theorists never do.

    I'm holding out hope that once ebola blows over and comes to nothing they'll realize these people are full of it but I'm not holding my breath, cognitive dissonance is deep.