r/conspiracy, what are the top 3 sources that you find as "credible".

6  2013-01-20 by [deleted]

It comes up a good bit with what sources are factual and which are crap. So, link me to your favorites. I am hoping this helps people get a feel for one another's preferences in this community.

30 comments

5  preventDefault 2013-01-20

I think The Guardian does great work. I also like checking out Wired's Danger Room and the ACLU & EFF.

WashingtonsBlog.com is also a great site, they actually cite their sources. A little while back they posted an article about some moon landing hoax shit though which pissed off alot of their readers if you check the comments. Hopefully they stick to the real meat & potatoes and don't turn into another Infowars.

3  Nebz604 2013-01-20

  • Scientists talking about something in their field of expertise

  • Police investigators / Medical examiners

Can't think of a third. Anyone who says a news agency should be laughed off /r/conspiracy

3  [deleted] 2013-01-20

  1. Look up lots of different sources.
  2. Use common sense and connect the dots.

1  AnOffDutyCop 2013-01-20

This.

1  [deleted] 2013-01-20

This guy is a real cop!

3  Himeetoe 2013-01-20

Naturalnews.com

1  retinal99 2013-01-20

Natural news is not a valid site. For fucks sake the guy who runs it calls himself the "Health Ranger"

1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-20

Dick Cheney called himself "Darth Vader".

What's your point?

1  retinal99 2013-01-20

Dick Cheney called himself Darth Vader as a joke (I'm no Bush fan)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21575478/ns/politics-white_house/t/cheney-being-darth-vader-not-so-bad/

Mike Adams calls himself the Health Ranger likes it's some kind of badge of honor. Hell his posts are written by "Mike Adams, the Health Ranger" even though as far as I can tell he has no verifiable credentials in Medicine, Health, Food Science, or anything else.

1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-20

You call yourself retinal99. Why?

2  [deleted] 2013-01-20

The very source, for one. Another, devout Christians (yes, no sarcasm, I mean it. At least I KNOW what their motives are, they have no "agenda"- and can we stick to the subject here? you asked, I'm telling u my idea of my source. I'd like to keep this thread on topic and not someone's' opinion of what they think of a faith they don't belong to) third, actual sigint- I mean,heh, say police calls, radio calls, air to ground comms, things of that nature. No better intel than communications unless those themselves are compromised, as has happened during some exercises in the m1ddl ea$t during some radio contacts that were jammed, then "grabbed" - re-cycled back into the air with conflicting information, and re-aired to confuse the receivers. OK sorry maybe I said too much. But you get the picture

2  danxmason 2013-01-20

Depends on what you're talking about.

I think Michael Springman and Susan Lindauer are the most credible sources for 9/11.

1  bubblestheclown 2013-01-20

I don't trust anyone but my own instinct. Anyone could be disinfo, nwo. You really can't trust anyone but your own intuition.

6  renholder777 2013-01-20

Stephen Colbert would be so proud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

-2  [deleted] 2013-01-20

I don't trust anyone but my own instinct.

You really can't trust anyone but your own intuition.

So a peer-reviewed scientific paper is totally valueless if it disagrees with your own instinct, whereas an anonymous blog post on a sensationalist website citing zero sources is perfectly trustworthy if your instinct tells you it's true?

2  bubblestheclown 2013-01-20

Peer reviewed by whom? More NWO agents? No thank you.

2  [deleted] 2013-01-20

Peer reviewed by peers. Who else?

Not every scientist is a NWO agent, you know.

0  [deleted] 2013-01-20

"Shut up already! It's science!"

edit: downvotes, so I guess I should mention that that was both sarcasm and a No Agenda reference, for those that don't listen to thebestpocastintheuniverse.

-1  retinal99 2013-01-20

So how many people are in this New World Order exactly? Obviously the government, the TSA, FBI, CIA, And now Scientists who peer review each others works. How big do you think this conspiracy could be before something came out? Seriously use common sense.

1  renholder777 2013-01-20

Everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. However, my 3 favorite sites are listed below. I do not take any of them as gospel, but I do weight their opinion higher in my overall synthesis. I then cross-reference with MSM and the rest of the internet rumor mill in order to form my opinion:

  1. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/ - Roberts is the smartest and most truthful economist out there. He doesn't write in half-truths. He's blunt and opinionated, but he tells it like it is.

  2. http://vigilantcitizen.com/ - Vigilant has no agenda other than to point out symbolism. It is everywhere and it is creepy. Once you get past the cognitive dissonance that this shit is real and has been going on in plain sight for eons, Vigilant is a great place to go to find out more.

  3. http://www.guardiannews.com/ - The Guardian is the highest quality newspaper out there right now. It is by no means completely free of censorship, collusion and disinfo, but it is the least corporate-influenced and strongest traditional piece of journalism on the market.

Anyway, those are mine. Take them for what they're worth.

1  [deleted] 2013-01-20

Upvote for VC. Can't watch my tv the same ever again.

1  drunkenshrew 2013-01-20

I mainly use news aggregators to find information. Of cause this means that I must evaluate each posted article separately.

Favourite aggregators:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/?context=latestNews

http://therealnews.com/t2/

As far as authors go - I really like the work of.

  1. Peter Dale Scott as a careful, scholary researcher of contemporary and historic events and developments (his website seems to be currently down). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dale_Scott

  2. Kevin Ryan on 9/11 http://digwithin.net/

  3. Glenn Greenwald on civil liberties http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald

1  poruss 2013-01-20

Observation

Experience

Information sharing

1  SovereignMan 2013-01-20

I'm going to take a different tack here and list the three sources I find the least credible.

  • Government officials

  • Mainstream media

  • Corporate or government funded "scientific" studies.

1  ronintetsuro 2013-01-20

What a disservice you do yourself if the first question you have to ask is "What sources are credible?"

Credible isn't an actual thing. All reporting has slant and fabrication. You must possess logic to parse the information out there. But if you're looking for unfettered truth, you won't find it in this realm.

0  KonDon 2013-01-20

presstv.ir for some news, rt.com for some news, globalresearch.ca for almost all news. At the end of the day you need to use your own eyes and ears and try to discern what is true

-1  destraht 2013-01-20

+1 for globalresearch.ca, although I don't go there enough.

-4  monicadubph 2013-01-20

http://infowars.com

http://rense.com/

http://beforeitsnews.com/

-5  [deleted] 2013-01-20

[deleted]

0  matrage 2013-01-20

Don't forget the National Enquirer and The Weekly world news

-6  [deleted] 2013-01-20

[deleted]

2  Lokikong 2013-01-20

lol