posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:41 AM
I am happy to be objective and see both sides of the fence but all too often we see publications that, as has been pointed out, consist of material
trawled from the research of others and simply slam-jammed into a book. The topics are often banal and as a debunking tool only regurgitate the facts
that are known over both sides of the fence anyway. This is not to say that this book falls into this category. I haven't read it so I cannot
comment - it is the subject view that I find interesting - debunking!
Conspiracy theories, by nature, tend to predominate within the "minority" of the population. Marketing rules tend to favour sales that are aimed at
the "majority" of the population and so we almost always see mainstream publicity for articles and publications that "debunk" conspiracy theories
rather than "support" them.
The problem is also concerned with the objects of derision. Inevitably, the theories chosen are often at the tip of the conspiracy iceberg,
those events that touched everybody's life in some way and to which there is a clear demarcation of favour between the "crackpot" minority and the
"grounded" majority, such as the "moon landings", "the death of Princess Diana", "the events of 911".
Of course, this belies the divisions that exists even within the conspiracy community itself. Here on ATS, we see evidence of people on the one hand
believing in fairies at the end of the garden and yet vehemently denying that the moon landings could have taken place. Such topics are subject to
the extremes of belief and caution, there isn't much room for sitting on the fence and this makes for good marketing because you are selling to an
audience that already wants to believe that conspiracy theories are "bunk".
Admittedly, some theories are bizarre and we each adjudge what we are willing to believe in or not - the point being that the "theorists" tend to
have a more open mind to such things. The debunkers seem to like to roll us all up into a single minded group and declare us all as weirdos or
fanatics, perhaps imagining all of us wearing the famed tin foil hats. The truth is that there is as much division between the theorists as there is
between us and the debunkers.
In none of the mainstream publications do we see a serious attempt to understand "why" conspiracy theories abound. Debunking them is a rather
simplistic method of assuring the majority that "everything is OK" and that there is nothing to worry about. Even if the specifics of each
conspiracy do not stand up to scrutiny, it is still valid to ask "why?", to question the status quo.
It is much harder to perform a great deal of conclusive research than to amass a large body of interesting titbits. That is the reason we don't see
authoritative books on "why" people believe the moon landings were "hoaxed". Why would chemtrails exists? Why is there a fear of a New World
Order? The mechanics of the topic are much less interesting than the perceptions and realities of intent.
Debunking can also be seen in a much more insidious light. By deed the purpose of debunking is not only to convince the uninitiated that everything
is OK, but also to change the ideas and beliefs of those that do believe! Whether we are right or wrong, we all fear somebody else's attempt to make
us believe what THEY want us to believe. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem with all debunking?
[edit on 8-5-2009 by SugarCube]