The so-called Top10 traits of conspiracy theorists

[megafish33]

Here's the link. (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)

And a copy n' paste:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3.Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Bolding by me. I left the spelling errors intact.

Do you spot any holes? There are quite a few. lol Agree; disagree? I found the first one to be quite true when talking to many in the conspiracy theory circles. If you question the official story you're their best buddy, but if you question their "official" story, you're not only the enemy, by proxy, but also a stupid motherfucker.

[cheeb]

Here's the link. (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)

And a copy n' paste:

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3.Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

Bolding by me. I left the spelling errors intact.

Do you spot any holes? There are quite a few. lol Agree; disagree? I found the first one to be quite true when talking to many in the conspiracy theory circles. If you question the official story you're their best buddy, but if you question their "official" story, you're not only the enemy, by proxy, but also a stupid motherfucker.

Yes but there are many conspiracy facts.

The watergate Scandal,
Being one of many,
#It involved :

Obstruction of justice,
Cover ups,
Hush money,
Smoking guns,

Nixon Resigned before he was impeached.

WMD in IraQ,
No evidence for this claim,
DR Kelley commits suicide in unusual circumstances.

Operation Northwoods,

Pearl Harbour,

9/11,

7/ 7 false flag.

Mai Lai know what i mean!!!

:eek:

[megafish33]

Yeah, I wasn't saying that conspiracies don't exist. If they didn't than there would be no reason to call them such or make them illegal. People are always conspiring in the financial world.

Top10 traits of "Sheeple?" lol

[rossus]

the guy who wrote that must be really bored

[synak]

the guy who wrote that must be really bored

And perceivably bothered by said 'conspiracies theories'. A bit of a hostile vibe is what I get based on what was written.

[dondaz]

I think it points out exactly what our governments and the illuminati are like, after all, they are the biggest conspiricists going!

It's just a subjective article, very narrow with no substance. No case study, research or examples. I wouldn't take it serious.

[woghd]

10 characteristics of die-hard skeptics
A useless guide by Donna Ferentes
lampooned by Archangel_woghd

1. Arrogance. They are always grounded in reality and ALREADY KNOW the truth: conspiracy theorists are always "nut cases", or "hippies"

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about how there is no conspiracy no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of them, or how credible the witnesses are. They keep bringing up the same tired "scientific explanations" as if they hadn't already been disproven 1000 times. "Seriously, the UFO was swamp gas."

3.Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise how grounded they are, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions about the gaping holes in their explanations that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "the photo is too perfect", "the photo is bad quality", "it's been photoshopped", "everyone knows this is BS", "I don't need your facts, I KNOW", "I'll believe it when I see it", "I don't know what we just saw, could have been anything."

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor when it comes to their explanations of paranormal phenomena or conspiracies. Die hard skeptics never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inabilityto be satisfied with good evidence. Die hard skeptics have no place for peer-review, eye witness testimony, for the respectability of sources. Video evidence, audio evidence, radar evidence, paper trails, etc., are never enough, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of killing the messenger. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the conspiracy theorist, even to the point of faking the evidence, all without proof.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a die-hard skeptic admits that they need to adjust their world view. regardless of the mountains of evidence and in-your-face facts. It's easier for them to simply attack the messenger.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Die Hard Skeptics are very keen indeed to declare the perfectly valid evidence totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Phrases like "They said that photo was phoney on the news" and "This isn't proof of anything", especially with particularly damning evidence.

9. Using proven hoaxes as evidence to support their claims. This argument goes something like this: "One alien autopsy video is fake, so they are all fake. One guy admits making crop-circles, so they are all fake. One guy lied about being in a 9/11 cover-up, so they are all lying."

10. It's never a conspiracy. And it never is, is it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, whitewashing the facts, producing fake witnesses, shredding papertrails, planting evidence. It doesn't matter if you find some half-burned passport belonging to a so-called terrorist at ground zero...who turns out later to be ALIVE. Or if the fires could not possibly have burned hot enought to bend steel. Or a single pristine bullet would have had to have taken a very laughable and quite impossible journey to do what it supposedly did.

[lookfar]

10 characteristics of die-hard skeptics
A useless guide by Donna Ferentes
lampooned by Archangel_woghd

1. Arrogance. They are always grounded in reality and ALREADY KNOW the truth: conspiracy theorists are always "nut cases", or "hippies"

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about how there is no conspiracy no matter how much evidence is piled up in front of them, or how credible the witnesses are. They keep bringing up the same tired "scientific explanations" as if they hadn't already been disproven 1000 times. "Seriously, the UFO was swamp gas."

3.Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise how grounded they are, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions about the gaping holes in their explanations that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include "the photo is too perfect", "the photo is bad quality", "it's been photoshopped", "everyone knows this is BS", "I don't need your facts, I KNOW", "I'll believe it when I see it", "I don't know what we just saw, could have been anything."

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor when it comes to their explanations of paranormal phenomena or conspiracies. Die hard skeptics never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inabilityto be satisfied with good evidence. Die hard skeptics have no place for peer-review, eye witness testimony, for the respectability of sources. Video evidence, audio evidence, radar evidence, paper trails, etc., are never enough, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of killing the messenger. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the conspiracy theorist, even to the point of faking the evidence, all without proof.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a die-hard skeptic admits that they need to adjust their world view. regardless of the mountains of evidence and in-your-face facts. It's easier for them to simply attack the messenger.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Die Hard Skeptics are very keen indeed to declare the perfectly valid evidence totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Phrases like "They said that photo was phoney on the news" and "This isn't proof of anything", especially with particularly damning evidence.

9. Using proven hoaxes as evidence to support their claims. This argument goes something like this: "One alien autopsy video is fake, so they are all fake. One guy admits making crop-circles, so they are all fake. One guy lied about being in a 9/11 cover-up, so they are all lying."

10. It's never a conspiracy. And it never is, is it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, whitewashing the facts, producing fake witnesses, shredding papertrails, planting evidence. It doesn't matter if you find some half-burned passport belonging to a so-called terrorist at ground zero...who turns out later to be ALIVE. Or if the fires could not possibly have burned hot enought to bend steel. Or a single pristine bullet would have had to have taken a very laughable and quite impossible journey to do what it supposedly did.

LOL, nice one woghd!!:D

[i_am]

Here's the link. (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)


Bolding by me. I left the spelling errors intact.

Do you spot any holes? There are quite a few. lol Agree; disagree? I found the first one to be quite true when talking to many in the conspiracy theory circles. If you question the official story you're their best buddy, but if you question their "official" story, you're not only the enemy, by proxy, but also a stupid motherfucker.

Unfortunately for many, this is correct but for others nah! It depends on where people are in their own evolution.

I didn't see any spelling errors. Are you American? You guys spell a lot of things differently :D

[megafish33]

I didn't see any spelling errors. Are you American? You guys spell a lot of things differently :D

Yeah lol I think the writer is English. English is a strange language as is, but we can sure butcher it no? lol :p

[1 2 free]

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.


Do you spot any holes? There are quite a few. lol Agree; disagree? I found the first one to be quite true when talking to many in the conspiracy theory circles. If you question the official story you're their best buddy, but if you question their "official" story, you're not only the enemy, by proxy, but also a stupid motherfucker.

I agree that point one is pretty spot on in regards to many 'conspiracy theorists' (what do we call ourselves? Conspiracy researchers? Truth seekers?). Calling people 'sheep' of the often used term 'sheeple' only serves to make us look like arrogant arseholes. It pushes people away. Just us people calling us 'loons' or 'woo woos' or 'tin foil hat wearing nuts' only serves to divide and to polarise calling people 'sheep' or 'sheeple' does the same.

Also it's a pretty common theme that people who disagree with us are written off as the enemy. Particularly if those people have some fame or power. Alex Jones doesn't talk about the Jesuits enough? Enemy!! Micheal Moore isn't questioning 911 enough? Enemy!! Bill Mahr thinks we're nuts? Enemy!! I used to think people like me were nuts too. I was never the enemy. I just lacked information.

[veritas2007]

I too agree that terms such as 'sheeple' serve only to drive a wedge between those that accept the status quo and those that do not.

I only started to research the truth a few months ago and a quote I came across, helps me in accepting new knowledge:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

I am mindful of this when I discuss this with firends and family and so, do not force it upon them, rather sew the seed and let them persue it themselves.

I began my research by accident when I came across some videos on YouTube regarding 9/11. The more I watched, the more I realised that our lives are not our own and it scared me. I was aprehensive when clicking links that I knew would reveal more of this new knowledge.

After a short while, I became angry. The next stage for me was a feeling of helplesness but right now I feel renewed and awakened. I don't know what the next stage for me will be but I haven't forgotten how I felt in the beginning and you have to remember that there are a lot of scared people out there, so much so that they will accept anything else rather than face the 'scary truth'.

I say, give them some time and help them to dicover the truth in their own way.

[albie]

That's my experience of Conspiracy theorists.

[baron von lotsov]

the guy who wrote that must be really bored


Do a search on the pseudonym name given. He/she/it has clocked up 26 000 posts on one forum alone. Other thinks he/she/it is a New Labour stooge. Who knows but I expect there is a reason for he/she/it talking so much shit.