Catch 22 – Show me the evidence you conspiracy loony! Evidence sucks!

Evidence obviously does not suck.

But quite often very worthwhile topics which are very worthy of speculative discussion can be blind sided by the appearance of the "Show me the evidence" demand/request.

All too often we are told to ‘deny ignorance’ by seeking proof, evidence, something solid on paper that can be traced back to a trusted body. Or empirical evidence backed up by research on a peer reviewed paper.

“Show me the evidence.”

Court cases
Court rulings
Police reports
Scientific studies (usually funded with bias)
Etc etc

When discussing conspiracies which are based around corruption of authorities, big pharmas (who pay for studies to support new products), police, justice system, MPs - at what point does it become futile to ask the question “Show me the evidence”?

Surely the evidence that is requested is only ever going to come from one of the agencies we are accusing of being corrupt and therefore will not be valid.

Even independent inquiries are not independent and often spearheaded by the worst offenders.

In the mind of the conspiracy theorist the evidence will have been doctored, manipulated, witnesses covered up and misled. Statistics altered.

Yet in the mind of the debunker/ignorance denier these are the items of solid proof they search for.

Be aware ATS members, there are people there that will force you into quitting your day job unless you can provide them proof! DOn't back down. BE STRONG!

a reply to: and14263

Do you have proof of this ? i would like to see a peer reviewed paper proving what you say ...

No one forces conspiracy theorists to back their wild claims with at least a bit of facts.

But no one forces anyone else to believe the unsubstantial claims made by conspiracy theorists.



And it's not true looking for proofs is a waste of time. It's the only way to navigate through all the BS. If you believe in something just because "you have a gut feeling" and do not try to critically analyse the facts, you are simply setting yourself on tracks to self-delusion and confirmation bias.


There is almost always a paper trail of the misdeeds of corrupt organization, that you believe they will always cover their tracks and doctoring the content of these documents is a bit laughable. Have you ever worked in a large-size organization? People there are not the brightests...

originally posted by: Develo
There is almost always a paper trail of the misdeeds of corrupt organization, that you believe they will always cover their tracks and doctoring the content of these documents is a bit laughable. Have you ever worked in a large-size organization? People there are not the brightests...

I have, I have been witness to big business cover ups and in a previous job I was paid to compile reports in favour of local government decisions. Using qualitative research I had to change into numbers to support whatever the decision was. The final report conclusion was always decided before the research was ever conducted.

People who are in charge of Mi5, Scotland Yard, large businesses - they are very very bright. They are good with people, good with words and brilliant manipulators, hence their position. Do not judge them on the puppets you see on TV eg Cameron, Milliband, Johnson et al.

Audit trails can be fabricated or made to disappear.

Paper trail - lost documents - important documents too!

That card is from "The Illuminati Card Game."

Please note on that card, power = 0.

In my opinion that implies that if any conspiracy theorist has any "power" which in my mind would include solid proof for their case, they won't be out in the public for long. That's the plan in a nutshell in my opinion. The really good conspiracy theorists with solid proof either end up dead like Jim Keith or marginalized like Glen Kealey.

I believe that any conspiracy theorist that gets time on a national radio show sold out somewhere or they wouldn't be there. I'm talking about David Icke, Michael Tsarion, Jordan Maxwell, and others like them. That's my conclusion after following this stuff closely for over 15 years.

a reply to: and14263

I just replied to a mh370 thread about something my brother in law told me he had heard . He has official contacts in the middle east . Royal contacts . Will i try to verify my claims . No . Could i , well i could possibly go a long way down that path without revealing to much . IF one of the owners asked i may consider but really is it worth it .Blood is thicker than conspiracy theories .

first off people that believe in a conspiracy of any kind (i mean down to the details) need to agree on what evidence looks like. because so far they hardly can do that.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
first off people that believe in a conspiracy of any kind (i mean down to the details) need to agree on what evidence looks like. because so far they hardly can do that.

Can you elaborate further?

originally posted by: and14263
I have been witness to big business cover ups and in a previous job I was paid to compile reports in favour of local government decisions. Using qualitative research I had to change into numbers to support whatever the decision was. The final report conclusion was always decided before the research was ever conducted.

Your testimony is the proof.

Looks like the cover-up wasn't so efficient after all

a reply to: and14263

The debunker/ignorance denier who believe all conspiracies are nothing but loony theories, I would remind them of all these past no evidence conspiracies that turned out to be true...

1. The Dreyfus Affair
2. The Mafia
3. MK-ULTRA
4. Operation Mockingbird
5. Manhattan Project
6. Asbestos
7. Watergate
8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
9. Operation Northwoods
10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah
11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s
12. The Iran-Contra Affair
13. The BCCI Scandal
14. CIA Drug Running in LA
15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened
16. The Business Plot
17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler
18. Operation Ajax
19. Operation Snow White
20. Operation Gladio
21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee)
22. The New World Order
23. Kennedy Assassination – the 2nd Investigation by Congress Few People Know About, United States House of
Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy
25. Karen Silkwood
26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas
27. Bohemian Grove
28. Operation Paperclip
29. The Round Table
30. The Illuminati
31. The Trilateral Commission
32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government
33. The Federal Reserve Bank
34. Nayirah al-Sabah Testimony
35. U.S. spying on it's own citizens

And there's more...

Sources

www.businessinsider.com...

truththeory.com...

www.trueactivist.com...

www.infowars.com...

NOTE...Of course skeptics will claim some of these sources are not credible. On the flip side, we can also find skeptic sources that will deny some of these same conspiracies.

a reply to: and14263

This is all part of NSA manual for shills and debunkers

In the end if evidence is presented, they attack the messenger, trying to make the message questionable

a reply to: and14263

Granted, it is a little unfair sometimes, but only in cases when there is at least some probability, some reason to suggest a certain conspiracy exists, and no alternative evidence to the contrary.

Example - if someone claims that Mole People live in the London Underground and the government is covering it up, and there is no evidence offered, and there is plenty of reason to claim the opposite is true, it cannot be considered a genuine conspiracy theory.

Either something is true or it isn't, people who claim something outlandish have to give reason for sane and sensible people to consider it, not simply ignore all the analytical opposition to it in favour of their belief.

The simple statement that Mole People live in the London Underground could be true or false at the start, but it then needs to be fleshed out to become a reality. If you want people to believe it, there needs to be some evidence to support it. If there is no evidence yet, then you at least have to consider all arguments against the possibility.

This is a process of weighing up the evidence for each side of the theory. I can say that it would be very hard for those Mole People to exist without being seen by one of the thousands of workers who walk the lines every year, that the air quality would hinder life, that the limited supply of food and clean water would make sustaining life there almost impossible, that many would have been killed by passing trains...

If this "theory" cannot then be supported in the face of rational debate and reasonable arguments as to why it can't be true, then it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a delusion.

As I find myself saying a lot on these forums, it's great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

originally posted by: DanielJacksonKree
a reply to: and14263

This is all part of NSA manual for shills and debunkers

Or it's just rational and intelligent people not instantly believing something they're told because they can't face the reality.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
first off people that believe in a conspiracy of any kind (i mean down to the details) need to agree on what evidence looks like. because so far they hardly can do that.

Both sides need to learn what evidence for both sides looks like.

Its not good enough to simply make a claim without any evidence to support it, those who seek to debunk it also need to offer plausible explanations as to why it cannot be true rather than just rejecting the entire notion. At least offer some explanation as to why it's not plausible, likely or possible etc. We are all guilty of just denying something can be true when it's particularly outrageous and obvious to us, but offering no reasoning behind that belief does nothing to move the discussion forward and only serves to bolster those who claim it to be true - usually by claiming that the person is a CIA shill or something equally ridiculous.

Everything claimed should really be considered to exist in a vacuum of either true or false, it's then up to each group to put their case, not avoiding the debate and accepting what is clearly reality.

Another example - some Boston Bombing conspiracy theorists claim that there were actors involved. As they can offer no proof of this, and debunker's have correctly pointed out that this would require thousands upon thousands of actors in the Police dept, Fire dept, Hospitals, family and friends of those hurt etc, this is clearly a false belief and has been debunked.

It's not being open-minded to simply accept that belief when the evidence all suggests it to be entirely false.

I've been followed around by some kind of cult for four years, or at least that long since I first noticed. All the police tell me is to either see a doctor or to present evidence. Thing is, the only way I could have gained sufficient evidence is to obsessively use a camera. If I had been going around taking photos nilly-willy then a lot of people would have complained and the police would then have asked me to stop. What's more is that somebody would most likely have killed me by now. Don't get me wrong, if I were to say that Obama is from the planet Flurrmplinkley then I'd be expected to, well, prove that planet even exists. Which it does.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Either something is true or it isn't, people who claim something outlandish have to give reason for sane and sensible people to consider it, not simply ignore all the analytical opposition to it in favour of their belief.

Of course, if common sense and analytical opposition are worthy of consideration then yes they would triumph over the theory which lacks evidence, just as shown in your mole example.

If this "theory" cannot then be supported in the face of rational debate and reasonable arguments as to why it can't be true, then it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a delusion.

With the quote above we are faced with the problem that our rationality is a product of paradigms. So if the paradigms themselves are created from falsehoods then what we deem rational is false and irrational.... See what I'm getting at?

It's more about putting people to task in a way that sounds sensible but when you look deeper it is not sensible. Like some of us have it embedded that the police are trustworthy, or what's on the news is news and not just pre set agenda to make money from TV production. I think it has a great deal to do with the schemas we develop in our psyches as we are growing up.

What gets me is the naysayers that can't face the possibility or the reality that UFO's/or extraterrestrial visitation has no basis of being a true conspiracy. Even when the evidence and credible eye-witness reports say otherwise. They have found chemical residue and radiation residue. Government secret documents and whistle blowers have surfaced. Coincidental alien technology has been witnessed decades earlier and is now being experimented and developed. Multiple eye-witnesses the world over have never waiverd from their original descriptions or stories.

This kind of evidence is at the very least circumstantial, which would be enough to use in a court of law. It has all the signs of being a conspiracy, and based upon the numerous eyewitness cases and the similar descriptions of eyewitnesses everywhere, I would bet the house that years from now the lid on this conspiracy will be the most startling the world has ever known. This "conspiracy" is not something based on hearsay or because people just say it's so.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: and14263

I just replied to a mh370 thread about something my brother in law told me he had heard . He has official contacts in the middle east . Royal contacts . Will i try to verify my claims . No . Could i , well i could possibly go a long way down that path without revealing to much . IF one of the owners asked i may consider but really is it worth it .Blood is thicker than conspiracy theories .

I would like to read your post.

Which Forum did you place it in?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: and14263

The debunker/ignorance denier who believe all conspiracies are nothing but loony theories, I would remind them of all these past no evidence conspiracies that turned out to be true...

1. The Dreyfus Affair
2. The Mafia
3. MK-ULTRA
4. Operation Mockingbird
5. Manhattan Project
6. Asbestos
7. Watergate
8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
9. Operation Northwoods
10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah
11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s
12. The Iran-Contra Affair
13. The BCCI Scandal
14. CIA Drug Running in LA
15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened
16. The Business Plot
17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler
18. Operation Ajax
19. Operation Snow White
20. Operation Gladio
21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee)
22. The New World Order
23. Kennedy Assassination – the 2nd Investigation by Congress Few People Know About, United States House of
Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy
25. Karen Silkwood
26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas
27. Bohemian Grove
28. Operation Paperclip
29. The Round Table
30. The Illuminati
31. The Trilateral Commission
32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government
33. The Federal Reserve Bank
34. Nayirah al-Sabah Testimony
35. U.S. spying on it's own citizens

And there's more...

Sources

www.businessinsider.com...

truththeory.com...

www.trueactivist.com...

www.infowars.com...

NOTE...Of course skeptics will claim some of these sources are not credible. On the flip side, we can also find skeptic sources that will deny some of these same conspiracies.

Much, much more.

a reply to: and14263

The worst kind of "evidence" is the lack of evidence to substantiate (prove) a denial: "There is no evidence that UFOs exist."

That is after you have tailored your box for containing evidence to disregard everything that normally would be decent evidence for the act under question.

In the UFO situation, denial is the weapon of choice because it works hand-in-glove with consensus reality to play upon the point of view of onlookers. "Consensus reality" is the central mantle of belief held about a topic which has been generated by inputs of superstition, religion, perceived common sense and science.

Reality doesn't stand a change when any of these limiting factors appear to block the honest road to understanding. The best example is the reality or not of UFOs. Decent evidence abounds, but If science denies every scrap of that evidence based on absolutely nothing but the demand for evidence that cannot be accepted at face value, than science itself is a fraud, a self-imposed firewall against understanding the true nature of reality. The other factors mentioned, superstition, religion and perceived common sense all have their play in the scene as well.