Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Gary Cook, Dec 11, 2013.
Did anyone say this was not true?
But i dont think many people are labelled in such ways really.
Even the creator of Loose change is regarded as a filmmaker on Wikipedia
People can have more than one label. Dylan Avery, the creator of Loose Change, is a conspiracy theorist. He's also a filmmaker and a bunch of other things.
Maybe because Wikipedia can be authored and editted by anybody. (not just the 'powers that be' as some would have you believe - I have made numerous entries and updated articles concerning some of the more obscure and cult UK 1980's rock and heavy metal bands) If the author / editor agrees with the person concerneds stand point they will get called something like 'investigative reporter', if on the other hand they don't your gonna get tarred with the old brush of negativity. And it may well change from week to week as the infamous 'edit wars' rage and various pro and anti posters edit and re-edit eachothers edits to paint each article with their personal slanted hue of choice.
This open editting process is wikipedias biggest asset and biggest downfall at the same time, and is why the site should only be used as a rough guide to general information (especially when it comes to anything remotely controversial) and in no way deamed as authoritive or definative.
that guy Russell IS a journalist.
and on wiki he DOES get tarred with the brush of negativity
They use the word conspiracy theory as a bludgeon now days, and I can understand why. Sometimes these conspiracies people believe in are just crazy, easily explained away, flat earth being one of them. I agree with the book mostly, that we all have our demarcation lines, and we draw the line somewhere, and that what someone believes of what a conspiracy theory is can be a lot different than what someone else would have theirs.
When people read or hear conspiracy theorists they think scale #10 for the most part, but its a spectrum. Even me, I believe that there is a conspiracy to hide certain technologies from the public, I have no proof of this, but I just believe it. That's where I draw the line for, the most part, some might think that project bluebeam is real or that sandyhook never happened. Everyone is a conspiracy theorist at some level, no?
The line that is crossed when I consider a person to be a conspiracy theorist, is belief in the conspiracy theory in spite of a lack of verifiable evidence from reputable sources. Metabunk examines claims of evidence. I do not consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe that people do/would conspire to do all sorts of things. Without any firm evidence to back up a particular belief, it is simply a thought experiment. From your post it is not unwarranted to:
since cutting edge technology used in military and spy-craft is not made public in order to maintain an advantage over an adversary. It is understandable belief based on what has been published by reputable sources.
Take for example 'directed-energy weapons'. At Armywarcollege.edu (not HTTPS)
Directed-Energy Warfare, a Revolution in Military Affairs
However when someone makes the claim that directed energy weapons were used to cause the Camp Fires, that crosses over into conspiracy theorist, since it is not based on any verifiable evidence from a reputable source that 'directed energy weapons' were used to create that fire.
Separate names with a comma.