Agreed but we both know this will fall on deaf ears. Those who are here to disrupt, argue and derail, regardless of their individual motives, will continue to do just that.

And we will continue to shut them down. Truth trumps trolls.

Oh, agreed. I'm not going anywhere.

I don't think this should go for every theory. If I post a comment saying that Bigfoot shot JFK I hope somebody would say "No he didn't. You're making us all look stupid." Debate is necessary to weed out the ridiculous claims and fine tune the ones that are feasible. Listen to/read about every theory with an open mind but be willing to question the parts that don't make sense. Those who are supporting certain theories should also be willing to defend them with whatever reasons or evidence they have. I don't see it as a necessarily bad thing so long as the debate isn't just a bunch of ad hominem attacks.

Linking doesn't imply support

I see I have you tagged. So before I begin to address any of your points, please answer this simple "yes or no" litmus test considering all availabe information regarding these topics to gauge your level of skepticism. I have given my own real answers as a reference. Note: I will ask this from everyone I have tagged. You are welcome to not participate, however please don't downvote any other user's answers and please disregard this post.

False Flags:

Sandy Hook: Yes

Boston Marathon: Yes

Aurora shooting: Yes

9/11: Yes

Navy shooter: Yes

1. Are chemtrails real? Yes

2. Can HAARP cause earthquakes? Yes

3. Is Fukushima a real threat to life on Earth?: Yes

4. Is Comet ISON just a meaningless comet? No

5. Is depopulation real? Yes

6. GMO/Monsanto: good or bad? Bad

7. Aspartame: good or bad? Bad

8. Fluoride: good or bad? Bad

9. Vaccines: good or bad? Bad

10. Edward Snowden: good or bad? Good

Oh fuck that I'm not gonna take a test for you. What are you? The conspiracy police? Get real man.

EDIT: and also I don't ever downvote people so don't worry about that.

If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

I could just as easily lie on every answer or just say what I think you want to hear. I just think it is ridiculous that you think that people should have to qualify themselves to you. Who are you to require that? If you don't wanna acknowledge any of my comments that's fine by me.

You can lie, I don't care. It's not to me, far from it, it's to the community. Indulge me if you will. Have a go at it.

No thanks. I don't particularly care for taking orders from strangers over the internet as a way to "prove myself." I'll just continue to comment on posts that interest me and people that want to read my comments will read them and people who don't want to read them won't and life will go on just the same.

"For those who have eyes to see, let them see, and for those who have ears to hear, let them hear." You are refusing the test.

If you prefer, you can delete your comments on this post and I will delete mine, as if we never had this conversation. Are you up for it?

No need to make this weird. I don't mind if my comments are up.

If it's not important, let's delete them. Yes?

I don't really delete my posts. I'm not trying to hide anything.

Then... quiz? Humor me.

If you made a general post that was that quiz and your title was "I put together a quiz to see where everybody stands. Take it if you want to" I probably would have clicked on it and taken the quiz. The whole "I see I have you flagged so before I even acknowledge what you are saying I'm gonna need ya to answer some questions for me" approach is pretty obnoxious. It's actually a little police-state like if you think about it. How's that for irony? A mini-TSA checkpoint right here in the conspiracy sub.

I'm not going to outright call you out. I'm going to let logical deduction do the job for me. Let's begin:

1. You never post anything in this sub. This means that your personal views are never exposed. To not say you don't post anything, we can use this one as an example. You claim LHO acted alone and was an extremist, exactly the same story told by the government but you added your own little twist. It received 4 upvotes and it's been around 1 month. Meaning: your opinion was not well received. This post also was largely neglected. It was from The Times of Israel (let's not get into the whole semitic thing, ok). It was not critical of the government's agenda. It was just an observation.

2. Like my post stated, all I have seen from you is questioning the theories brought on by this sub, never the official narratives. Even though you fiercely engage in posts by others, especially Sandy Hook and the other carfully selected topics on my litmus test, you never post about them.

3. You say you don't owe my "mini-TSA checkpoint" any satisfaction, but other people must give you satisfaction for their opinions beyond the shadow of a doubt.

4. You will not take my litmus test because you don't want this information on record, for 2 reasons: 1. If you say Yes that the Boston bombing was a a false flag, you will never be able to engage in those topics requiring piles of evidence since you already stated here you think it was a hoax, and 2. If you answer contrary to too many of my answers, it puts you in a complicated situation because all my answers are the ones most debated against by those who choose to question the theory and not the narrative.

In conclusion, it's really hard to take you seriously.

edit: spelling

The whole point of that post about Oswald is to say exactly the opposite. He didn't act alone. You either didn't read it or you didn't comprehend it. I also was the first person to post the article about Tamerlan Tsarnaev believing he was a Manchurian Candidate which got 130 or so "upvotes" before about a dozen other people posted the same article but I don't care about upvotes or downvotes.

Edit: Also this idea of yours that you think that people shouldn't "question the questioner" is ridiculous and kind of hypocritical.

I read your post, Here is my analysis:

Killing the President is obviously a radical political statement [conjecture]. We are told that Oswald had ties to Russia and Cuba and Communism in general. [citation needed]

If Oswald was the lone gunman who killed Kennedy this was the best case scenario for him. [official narrative]

Instead of taking this time to explain his political views and why Kennedy needed to be taken out Oswald vehemently denies involvement in the killing, claims he is a patsy, and says, somewhat cryptically, that he hopes someone can come forward and offer him a defense. [exactly what the conspiracy theorists claim, that he was innocent]

The only reason I can see for Oswald not to take this opportunity to explain his grievances with the President/American Government are if he really was not involved, or if he was a part of something bigger and thought he still could get out of this.

And finally, your own, unsourced opinion, or twist. You made an unsourced, unproven claim and that was fine and dandy. If we say Lanza was a patsy, we must have 24/7 footage of him not being there as well as an alibi to be able to convince you.

I also was the first person to post the article about Tamerlan Tsarnaev believing he was a Manchurian Candidate

Please provide a link to this post, it's not in your submitted posts section. I would like to do an analysis of that as well.

I am offering the official story of LHO as a way to compare that to how somebody who was actually a political extremist would act (in my opinion). If LHO was really a radical communist who killed Kennedy for political reasons he would want his message to be known. He wouldn't pretend he didn't do it. He would use the cameras to say "Kennedy needed to die because of X, Y, and Z." And if you think trying to be a professor by asking for citations is analysis you are pretty weak. I'm assuming most people here have at least read a little about the Kennedy assassination so no citation is necessary. This isn't a group of first-timers. I am agreeing with the conspiracy theorists but a big part of my reason is based on how Oswald acted following his arrest. We all know about the magic bullet and the ties to CIA and all that other shit so I was offering another bit of information that maybe people didn't consider. That is the crux of what this post was about. I wasn't stating it as a fact. It was an opinion. Opinions aren't sourced unless I should cite myself for an original thought? You need to go ahead and unsaddle your high horse.

Nothing to analyze here but the article itself, professor. http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1sysgm/bostonbomber_tamerlan_tsarnaev_believed_he_was_a/

I am offering the official story of LHO as a way to compare that to how somebody who was actually a political extremist would act

No, it was not a comparison by any means of the word. The title of your post: "My thoughts on Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman."

Could it be a coicidence that the government also thinks he was a lone gunman?

If LHO was really a radical communist who killed Kennedy for political reasons he would want his message to be known.

That's why he didn't share his "message". There was no "message" to share. This is the official narrative, again.

He wouldn't pretend he didn't do it.

Conspiracy theorists don't think he pretended, they think he didn't do it at all.

I am agreeing with the conspiracy theorists

In what instance?

We all know about the magic bullet and the ties to CIA and all that other shit

This was told by someone who commented on your post, it was not told in your post by you.

I was offering another bit of information that maybe people didn't consider.

Like your own, unsourced opinion.

That is the crux of what this post was about.

Exactly. You posting an opinion, not citing absolutely anything in the post's description and we're supposed to go along with that?

Opinions aren't sourced unless I should cite myself for an original thought?

Remember this post and all the scrutiny and bullshit I had to listen to? All the top comments did was ridicule and attack me. It added absolutely nothing to the discussion. I was not allowed to have an unsourced opinion the same way you did.

You need to go ahead and unsaddle your high horse.

Try to keep it civil, please. Is all this scrutiny making you uncomfortable? All of a sudden this idea of yours that you think that people shouldn't "question the questioner" is ridiculous and kind of hypocritical.

Now, in regards to your post:

edit: Reminder: Your post was just a link to Yahoo News, mainstream media. It did not contain your personal view of the incident whatsoever.

From the article: The 26-year-old, who was killed in a shootout with police, carried out the twin bombings with his 19-year-old brother, Dzhokhar, who was later captured and charged with an act of terror. OFFICIAL NARRATIVE

This was the first comment you made on that post, and it was making apology to someone who used a series of ad hominem attacks.

Comment: How is it that in the news we are hearing nothing about his victims and the tragedy he caused in Boston . The sooner he is tried and executed the world will be a much better place. If they need help executing him, count me in.

Your response: LOL.. she is so informed that she doesn't even realize that this is the brother who is dead. (Apparently she didn't even read the article because it mentions within the article that he was "killed during a shootout with the police).

That is you, confirming the official narrative.

I rest my case.

Are you kiddin me? My post about LHO as the official gunman is an entire post about how he actually wasn't the lone gunman! How are you not getting that? What level is your reading comprehension at?

EDIT: I'm beginning to think that you are either crazy or you are just trying to fuck with me/trolling in some way? I don't mind being questioned but you are not even understanding what I am saying so you aren't even asking the right questions.

EDIT 2: Took out the word idiot. It was unnecessarily harsh.

Are you an idiot?

Keep. It. Civilized. I gave you solid rebuttals. Reply using the same coin.

My post about LHO as the official gunman is an entire post about how he actually wasn't the lone gunman! How are you not getting that?

Because the post title is: My thoughts on Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone gunman. Are you suggesting your post title was misleading? Because anyone who reads that will think your opinion is a confirmation of that idea, and your whole description is a testament of that.

I'm beginning to think that you are either crazy or you are just trying to fuck with me/trolling in some way?

Why is it after people begin to run out of arguments they always fall back on "you must be trolling". I'm making an informed analysis using the information you provided yourself. If it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, you only have yourself to blame. Saying I'm trolling you is just fucking lazy. Any convincing fact I present to you can be accused of being "trolling" just because you have no comment to actually debate my points. After all, I've dissected all your comments, sentence by sentence and you were not able to reference my rebuttals in any of your follow up comments. Ignorance is bliss?

I don't mind being questioned but you are not even understanding what I am saying so you aren't even asking the right questions.

I'm not questioning you anymore, I stopped after you refused my little pop-quiz. Now I'm scrutinizing your claim that you have a legit reason to do so and throwing rhetorical questions to prove my points. It's not my fault your replies raise more questions than they answer.

Now, tell me how this is trolling? I haven't insulted you once or dismissed your comments using conjecture. I'm using your comments and sources to prove that you have an agenda, and so far you've done a poor job of convincing me otherwise. You came into my post voluntarily and the first thing you did was question my claim that how things are done here is wrong before looking at the current situation and then proving without a shadow of a doubt that I was wrong.

I'm beginning to think that you are just bitter that more people don't agree with you. My title is "My thoughts on Lee Harvey Oswald being the Lone Gunman" and when you read my post you see that my thoughts are that HE WASN'T the lone gunman. This would be similar to if I was writing a basketball article and I titled it "My thoughts on Lebron James being the best basketball player ever" and then I give some of his stats and conclude that he is, in fact, not the best basketball player ever. You are the only person who has read that post and not picked up on that. This is why I think you are fucking with me. I lay out the official narrative and then I say that that doesn't make sense because if the official narrative was true then LHO would have acted totally differently than he did upon being arrested THEREFOR the official narrative does not seem to be true. It is crystal clear what my post says and you are ignoring the end. You keep acknowledging where I am laying out the official narrative version of him being a "communist radical" and then ignoring the end where I say that this doesn't hold true BASED ON HOW HE ACTED AFTER BEING ARRESTED. You are either intentionally ignoring this or you truly don't get it which if that is the case then I dunno what to tell ya.

I'm beginning to think that you are just bitter because you haven't debated any of my points calling out your bullshit and are now falling back on excuses. And I don't give a shit what you think about Lebron James.

You are the only person who has read that post and not picked up on that.

I must've been one of the only 5 people who actually wasted time reading it!

Anyways, your opinion on JFK is moot. It has no relation to my initial line of questioning and it's a dead horse you still think is worth a few more beatings. What about the Yahoo News article you posted where the author clearly confirmed the official story, as quoted in my previous comment?

You are either intentionally ignoring this or you truly don't get it which if that is the case then I dunno what to tell ya.

I don't care what the author was doing. I posted it because it said that Tamerlan believed he was a victim of some sort of MK Ultra type mind control. That was one of the theories that many people here believed. This theory now has a bit of evidence backing it since Tamerlan himself also said he believed this to be the case. You need to grasp the context of these posts a little better. If you think you are "beating me" on anything you are mistaken. You are just consistently missing the point of every post you are trying to "dismantle." You even said that you don't care what I think about Lebron James when I brought that up as an analogy. You are really not comprehending things well.

And as far as how many people read my posts? I don't care if nobody reads them or if a million people read them. I just put stuff out there. Nobody is obligated to read anything I say or agree with anything I say. You seem to take this shit a little too personally. You need to relax a bit. It's just the internet.

You knowingly posted propaganda and mocked the person in the article as your first comment. You did not question the author's credibility or his sources.

The article stated: "The 26-year-old, who was killed in a shootout with police, carried out the twin bombings with his 19-year-old brother, Dzhokhar, who was later captured and charged with an act of terror."

This is propaganda in the eyes of a conspiracy theorist, since the author has not scrutinized the facts before posting this information, which makes him just as ignorant as you. You blindly accepted this information. Your post had no intent on informing, its purpose was to mock, which is what most of the commenters did on that post. Here is the most upvoted comment:

... Where do these lunatics get these ideas? Saddam said he was attacked by a CIA psychotronic weapon? Jared Loughner was obsessed with mind control before shooting Congresswoman Giffords? He's crazy. All those people are crazy.

Now tell me (not rhetorical): what scrutiny of the narrative was accomplished on that post? No one questioned the validity of his claim and went right to attacking his person.

If you think you are "beating me" on anything you are mistaken.

I disagree. Any person with half a brain reading this can see you have no ground to stand on.

You are really not comprehending things well.

For someone who clearly did not get my Lebron joke, you talk too much about "missing the point".

Yeah cause you are just a barrel of laughs and jokes.

What is happening here is that you think I am a shill. You are drawing that conclusion and then working backwards to make the evidence fit the conclusion. You need a break from the internet. When I post something it is open forum for people to discuss. Just because somebody gets upvoted for mocking the content of the post doesn't mean I need to swoop in and interrogate them (as seems to be your style). I'm not a nanny or a referee to jump in and control how the conversations go. Everybody on here can handle themselves and I trust that they follow the rules of the sub and it's up to the moderators to intervene if anything gets out of line. A lot of people commenting did discuss the mind control program and offered links to each other for more information about this sort of thing. Again you are looking for things that agree with your conclusion (I'm a shill intentionally posting propaganda) and ignoring the things that don't support that. I assume this is also the same approach you take to your other conspiracy theories. Only look at the stuff that supports your ideas and shout down everything that doesn't. That isn't the way I operate. I accept all information and if some of it proves me wrong, then I admit I'm wrong. You only see one side of every argument: your side.

All aboard the SS Deflect!

I knew it would come down to this eventually. It's been fun. Better luck next time and thanks for participating. My pop-quiz will stay here in case you decide to grow balls sometime this century.

Haha. The best part is that you actually think you were making good points and stunning me.

Oh man! Questioning my masculinity?! I guess I better take this quiz so some internet stranger doesn't think I'm a coward! Go hop on one of your other accounts, pal.

The best part is that you actually think you were making good points and stunning me.

You failed miserably at proving the contrary. Your lack of rebuttals to my dismateling of your nonsense is a clear proof of that.

Oh man! Questioning my masculinity?!

Yeah, because I asked before if you were afraid to answer my questions and what did you say? I could just as easily lie on every answer or just say what I think you want to hear.

You hinted at pleasing my ego. As much as I appreciated that, the fact the questionnaire remains blank, again, proves my point.

Go hop on one of your other accounts, pal.

Do you know anything else other than make false claims? I'm not even going to bother asking you to prove that. This is already pathetic enough as it is.

Well your account is only active for 18 days and I really doubt you only have had reddit for 18 days so you either have other accounts or you started a new account because your last one is no longer usable for some reason. And of course I'm never going to take your quiz because in the end I couldn't care any less about what you think about me. You have some delusions of grandeur if you think that I'm trying to prove anything to you. If you aren't pleased with the way this sub operates start your own sub and get people who like the way you want things to be to crossover to your sub. You can weed out all the "shills" and never have to worry about anybody disagreeing with you or questioning anything you post ever again.

I'm sorry, were you trying to make a point? I already got what I wanted from you. You can punch out now, or switch your cubicle with a more competent "analyst".

Ha. Nice rebuttal. Guess that multiple account claim was a little more than you wanted to address? Keep up the good fight against all those shills.

Aw, the hypocrite is still trying. That's so cute!

Cute? And to think you were questioning my masculinity. So how many accounts are we talking? More or less than the number of original colonies of the US?

edit: Today, Junior. Try to keep up.

edit 2: Fuck this. I'll continue to bash in your skull with logic tomorrow. I think you've had enough for one day. I'll be nice. For now.

Look kid, before you try and do the ol' switcheroo, You'll have to try and get your credibility back.

And to think you were questioning my masculinity.

Exactly, what masculinity?

So how many accounts are we talking?

Before you blindly and ignorantly assume I have more accounts, you'll have to prove that, sonny. You do know how burden of proof works, don't you?

Recapping:

You knowingly posted propaganda and mocked the person in the article as your first comment. You did not question the author's credibility or his sources.

The article stated: "The 26-year-old, who was killed in a shootout with police, carried out the twin bombings with his 19-year-old brother, Dzhokhar, who was later captured and charged with an act of terror."

This is propaganda in the eyes of a conspiracy theorist, since the author has not scrutinized the facts before posting this information, which makes him just as ignorant as you. You blindly accepted this information. Your post had no intent on informing, its purpose was to mock, which is what most of the commenters did on that post. Here is the most upvoted comment:

... Where do these lunatics get these ideas? Saddam said he was attacked by a CIA psychotronic weapon? Jared Loughner was obsessed with mind control before shooting Congresswoman Giffords? He's crazy. All those people are crazy.

No one questioned the validity of his claim and went right to attacking his person.

Now tell me (not rhetorical): what scrutiny of the narrative was accomplished on that post?

I guess that was a little more than you wanted to address? Are you foaming at the mouth yet?

Who did I mock? The person posted a comment about one of the comments in the yahoo article. I mocked the yahoo article poster (the same way that the person commenting about her did) because she had no idea what she was talking about. Again your lack of reading what actually happened has lead you to a false conclusion. Plenty of people upvoted this post and the majority of the posts were people who realized that the only important part of the article were the claims of mind control. Again, you are in the minority who misses the big picture because you are presupposing that I must be a shill because you are sad that I disagreed with you about something in the past so you flagged me.

How the hell am I supposed to be responsible for everything that everybody comments on one of my posts? If nothing was accomplished just because somebody had a differing opinion and people attacked him. What does any of that have to do with me? I'm not sitting there reading every comment on my article. What am I supposed to be the NSA?

And as far as that article being propaganda, you are missing that what it really was was a main stream media article revealing that Tamerlan Tsarnaev claimed to be a victim of mind control. That is the important part. If Tamerlan was telling the truth that disproves the entire official narrative so the rest of the article wouldn't even matter.

Now let me guess. You had some other account(s) and people downvoted you a lot or maybe you got banned for ridiculous posts and that made you think "oh man, there must be a bunch of shills attacking me because I'm onto some real truths here!" so you made up this account and are now on some crusade against the "shills" and trying to change the way business is done on this sub instead of just making a new sub and running it the way you think it should be run. I mean, obviously this isn't your first account since it's only been active for 18 days. How would 18 days even be long enough to think you know how the conspiracy sub should be. You are constantly posting about how the purpose of this sub is not to debunk alternate theories etc. It'd take longer than 18 days to notice any real pattern of activity on here.

Oh, now I finally managed to make the kiddie actually acknowledge my amnesia-inducing rebuttal. Let's do this, you hollow shell of man:

I believe this is your comment. Amnesia sucks :(

Now, let's analyze this for a moment. Your abilities to theorize about conspiracies by posting an article from Yahoo News (of all places) where the author confirms and is apologetic to the official narrative (which you collaborated in driving traffic to that tripe) is somewhat, just a tad, lacking. The first comment you made also had no relevance to the article itself, rather you commented about a comment a user made about a comment a misinformed person made on the site. Holy. Fucking. Shit. It is even possible to get farther away from the point of the article? Again, you are in the majority who misses the big picture because you are too focused on nuances, completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Now let me guess... bla bla bla

Is this guess, and that whole meaningless paragraph anything else other than speculation? Recapping: Before you blindly and ignorantly assume I have more accounts, you'll have to prove that, empirically. Your "guess" is worthless. You do know how burden of proof works, don't you? You don't have be a member of Reddit to be able to visualize the site. Must've forgotten that, huh. So much for considering all the possibilities and not sticking to your own version of events to confirm your bias :(

How the hell am I supposed to be responsible for everything that everybody comments on one of my posts?

You opened the door to that possibility by posting propaganda from a mainstream media site. You made that behavior possible. That's what you had to do with it. So much for looking at the "big picture". Cause and effect. You left the troll door wide open and polluted the site with meaningless comments, of which the very first, most upvoted was nothing more than an attack. Actual informed debates were drowned out by that tripe. It contributed, and you contributed absolutely nothing.

I'm not sitting there reading every comment on my article.

If you were more thoughtful about that you would be able to produce more productive posts, unless that's not what you want here. Then again you have 4 posts total in 9 months. I have double that and more link karma from /r/conspiracy alone in 18 days. I don't think you're here to contribute much.

And as far as that article being propaganda, you are missing that what it really was was a main stream media article revealing that Tamerlan Tsarnaev claimed to be a victim of mind control.

Wait, so did the article it reveal anything, or did it just claim what a 67-year-old who claims attended a Boston mosque with Tamerlan told the Globe? Tamerlan didn't affirm anything. This was told by some guy we cannot confirm the identity of at all based on that article alone!

Are you paying attention, champ? This is what scrutiny and objective investigation looks like. Try to keep up.

The "important" part was all speculation and hearsay. It contained no verifiable information.

If Tamerlan was telling the truth that disproves the entire official narrative so the rest of the article wouldn't even matter.

How about you start looking for the truth instead of having Yahoo News spoon-feed it to you? Mainstream media is a last resource, not the first thing you consider when dealing with conspiracies.

What the fuck, man. Conspiracy theorist? You?

Now, do you think based on all the present information, Tamerlan Tsarnaev was responsible for the bombings based on this article?

Well you are full of shit and a liar if you are saying this is your first/only account. You need to maybe get a job and get out of the house once in a while. Ill continue to post and you are welcome to read my posts/comments and down vote them all you want but you are impossibly thick to talk to. Just, be clear about one thing. It's people like you that give this sub a bad name. People here are supposed to be open-minded to information. You only listen to things that confirm your ideas. How is that any different than being a rube you only believes everything from MSM.

If my posts/ideas are detrimental to this sub I don't think they'd get as many up votes and people agreeing. Seems u are the one struggling in that department. Wonder why that could be? Stop trying to be the police of conspiracy theorists and just check out/share information. Your are trying to control debate (limit freedom of speech) and disallow use of certain media sources because it opens the door for meaningless arguing (this can be compared to trying to ban guns cause it opens the door to shootings). How very anti-government of you. You are an inconsistent, hypocritical hack and you don't even know it.

That's my last response to ya. Gotta go to work. Enjoy the day.

Well you are full of shit and a liar if you are saying this is your first/only account.

Burden of proof. Can you speak it, besides the language of insults and ad hominems?

You need to maybe get a job and get out of the house once in a while.

What are you insinuating? This was utterly pointless.

Ill continue to post and you are welcome to read my posts/comments and down vote them all you want but you are impossibly thick to talk to.

Because you are not fooling me.

Just, be clear about one thing. It's people like you that give this sub a bad name.

Appeal to attack. Again. Are you even trying anymore?

People here are supposed to be open-minded to information.

YES, alternative information, not official reports or mainstream media news.

You only listen to things that confirm your ideas.

What are my ideas?

How is that any different than being a rube you only believes everything from MSM.

Because MSM has a history of pushing propaganda and lying, as well as the government. They have more reason to be scrutinized.

If my posts/ideas are detrimental to this sub I don't think they'd get as many up votes and people agreeing. Seems u are the one struggling in that department. Wonder why that could be?

Completely irrelevant. Upvotes are meaningless here considering the existence or puppet accounts of which you yourself accuse me of having. My negative karma count is a testament that I don't care if people "agree" with me. I choose to let the facts speak for themselves.

My positive link karma, which is greater than yours are the true opinions of the members.

Stop trying to be the police of conspiracy theorists and just check out/share information.

The moment people do that, they get attacked. Are you even paying attention?

Your are trying to control debate (limit freedom of speech) and disallow use of certain media sources because it opens the door for meaningless arguing (this can be compared to trying to ban guns cause it opens the door to shootings).

Because, as I've stated before, MSM has a history of pushing propaganda and lying, as well as the government.

How very anti-government of you.

Accepting official narratives unquestionably and berating theorists for sources is very pro-government of you.

You are an inconsistent, hypocritical hack and you don't even know it.

That's my last response to ya.

Of course. As expected. End your nonsense with ad hominems, because you can't debate someone using consistent logic. Take care. Better luck next time.

I can't help myself. I have to respond. There is a sub called "altnewz" that is purely alternative news sources. I think that is where you should be. This sub isnt ONLY alternative media sources. Sometimes the mainstream media accidentally says something that is worth discussing. Even InfoWars.com ran with the yahoo story about Tamerlan and mind control. They are decidedly alternative.

As far as burden of proof when it comes to your previous accounts: this isn't court. I just want to be clear that you aren't fooling anybody about this being your first account. You are too invested in this sub for you to have only been here for 18 days unless you are that wrapped up in this shit that after 18 days you sniffed out a conspiracy within the conspiracy sub.

I can't help myself. I have to respond. There is a sub called "news" that is purely propaganda sources. I think that is where you should be. This sub isnt ONLY propaganda media sources. Sometimes the alternative media accidentally says something that is worth discussing. Even InfoWars.com ran with the yahoo story about Tamerlan and mind control. They are decidedly debunked.

As far as burden of proof when it comes to your previous accounts: this isn't court.

The hypocrisy is just mind blowing.

I just want to be clear that you aren't fooling anybody about this being a legit account. You are too invested in this sub for you to have only been here for 9 months unless you are that wrapped up in this shit that after 9 months you sniffed out and hunted down truth within the conspiracy sub.

Well I guess I didn't realize that you were the authority of "all things conspiracy." You should start your own sub (as I am now suggesting for the 5th time). Make it an invite only sub so that you don't have any shills. Hey, maybe only invite in people who answer your little quiz the way you like it. This will be pretty fun cause then you'll have your little sub of all people who agree with you and nobody will ever downvote you or make you feel sad again. That'll show us all!

As far as how invested I am in this sub? I comment here and post here once in a while. I never once tried to suggest changes to the way people post, comment, or debate topics. When somebody has evidence and sound logic to back up their beliefs they don't need to be afraid of people questioning them. I have changed my mind about a lot of things thanks to people sharing information with me and being willing to look at things critically. This requires hearing more than one side of the argument.

Well I guess I didn't realize that you were the authority of "all things conspiracy." You should start your own sub (as I am now suggesting for the 5th time). But /r/news already exists. Make it an invite only sub so that you only have your shills buddies. Hey, maybe only invite in people who don't question the narrative at all, the way you like it. This will be pretty fun cause then you'll have your little sub of all people who agree with you and nobody will ever downvote you or make you feel sad again. That'll show us all!

As far as how invested I am in this sub? I comment here and post here as often as I like. I have free will. I never once tried to suggest changes to the way legit people post, comment, or debate topics.

Whenever someone posts a link, that in and of itself is what the OP agrees with. If you want to debunk the article or understand what is claimed, you should question the author of the article, not the OP unless he is the author of that article. The OP is merely stating information he thinks deserves some attention. Mocking, criticizing, ridiculing and poking holes at the first opportunity adds nothing to the debate. The OP does not need to provide satisfaction, his opinion is already stated in the link he posted. Poke holes in the article, on the article if it has a comments section which most do nowadays. This should be an incentive to have you investigate yourself if you think the information presented is bunk. However, like I've said over and over again, this should only begin to be done if you feel the official narrative is 100% bullet-proof.

When the media and government have 100% bullet-proof evidence and sound logic to back up their narrative they don't need to be afraid of people questioning them. I have changed my mind about a lot of things thanks to people sharing information with me and being willing to look at things critically. This requires hearing more than one side of the argument.

I don't need to create a sub. I'm not the one here with issues about how this sub is being handled. I get along with most of the people I encounter here and even when we disagree about things it isn't ever taken personally. You're the first person to really dig in on this idea that everybody who disagrees with you is a shill.

For example, I don't think Oswald shot Kennedy, but somebody a while back made a post about how Jackie Kennedy actually shot Oswald and offerend links that allegedly show her ties to the CIA. That is a claim that I think is patently absurd (as the Zapruder film shows - along with many other reasons) and therefore I commented on that post that it didn't really have much merit. Now, this wasn't me endorsing the official narrative, but rather it was me disassociating my ideas about what happened from this whacko theory. Ya, see there is a big difference between being a shill and being a person who wants legitimacy within the conspiracies being presented. I don't believe the official narrative about 9/11 but when somebody makes a post saying no planes hit the buildings, they were holograms positioned perfectly to match the location and time of the explosions, I say that that is ridiculous because I don't want all 9/11 "truthers" to be lumped in with a nutjob idea.

Also if I am a shill I think I would be fired cause a majority of my posts are on cringepics, thewalkingdead, breakingbad, movies etc.

Everyone who does not begin their line of questioning with the official narrative I consider questionable until proven otherwise. I never accuse people for disagreeing with me, that would be a ridiculous claim, I question those who disagree with every information presented here regardless of its merit.

Also if I am a shill I think I would be fired cause a majority of my posts are on cringepics, thewalkingdead, breakingbad, movies etc.

Easy karma = easy credibility. Moot point.

I'm thinking most people who enter the conspiracy sub have alreadyquestioned the official narrative and are here for other information. Most people here are not first-timers to the world of conspiracy theories. Once here, you begin to question all of the information to find out what makes sense and what is just fantasy. (My examples from my lost comment demonstrate how I do that).

The shills do not serve to convince those that naturally question the narrative. They serve to ridicule them and show the newcomers it's not worth their time in order to stop the numbers from growing and creating more skeptics.

Most people here are not first-timers

But a lot are.

Once here, you begin to question all of the information to find out what makes sense and what is just fantasy.

Then they reach a controversial front page post about a recent questionable news event and the comments are all ridicule, as proven by your Boston bomber article.

This drives newcomers away and makes them more dependent on official-narrative-parroting mass media because they slander conspiracy theorists as nutjobs, naturally confirming what the media says and the ridicule they observed here from the theorists. Against theorists. After that they will never question the media again. Mission fucking accomplished.

But I figure you already know all of this.

So basically nobody should post anything because it might get ridiculed? And in your world somebody ridiculing something renders it instantly unbelievable and nobody will pay attention to it because somebody said it was stupid? If you are very weak-minded and don't have courage of your convictions or evidence on your side then, yes, I could see how somebody calling you a name might make you change your mind. I, however, don't care if somebody says something I think is stupid. I post information that I think is worth sharing. I don't monitor or censor the conversations that the post leads to (the same way that I don't ever downvote comments or posts because I don't want them to disappear. People should be able to read them and decide for themselves). People are free to believe what they want based on the information provided and their judgment. Most of my friends in real life don't believe any of the shit I do about JFK, 9/11, USS Liberty, World Banking, Fed Reserve, etc. That doesn't mean we aren't friends or they are some sort of government gatekeeper. It just means we don't agree about some shit. You are taking things to some intense extreme where there are 2 types of people here: People who believe ONLY the conspiracy theories, and shills. There is a little more nuance to these sorts of topics than you are allowing for.

I've debated you enough. You got my point. Since you have proven to me (and anyone following this) beyond a shadow of a doubt you are questionable I won't indulge you anymore.

Yep. I'm exposed and everyone knows it. Now watch as I continue to use this account instead of creating a new one.

It's my opinion. Creating a new one gives margin for people to question you because it is new, and giving up 7k karma will be severely damaging to your reputation.

I couldn't resist. You just make it too easy.

My reputation? haha. This is the internet buddy. I don't give a shit about my internet reputation. I have a real life outside of this. I use reddit as a way to get thru my work day and talk about shit with people.

talk about shit with people

Couldn't have said it better myself.

PS IgnoreTheShill is an awfully peculiar name for somebody's FIRST account being as if this was your first account you wouldn't have been encountering any "shills" yet. You'd have been taking a leap-of-faith just assuming the place was overrun with shills and making an account name based on that.

EDIT: and if I'm a shill you didn't do very well ignoring me.

It's a warning to those who see who I'm replying to, to ignore the person above me. Must've gone above your head. Don't feel bad about that.

Hey, that woman who you demanded the personal information from is still waiting for your phone call to confirm she's a nurse that worked at Sandy Hook. That is ... unless you're a troll and don't mean the stuff you say?

Yes. And she's taking her sweet time to get back to me. Keep your comments on the relevant post. I don't need you polluting this one too. Thanks for stalking by! Take care.

That's okay, enjoy the trolling! people are still really convinced.

Oh wow you didn't even call her to ask about Sandy Hook. You stopped caring once you realised you couldn't embarrass her in the thread itself.

So how is that not an admission you don't give a shit about sandy hook ( you intentionally stopped yourself from investigating it after pretending you wanted to)? And that you're just here to ruffle feathers?

I could give a shit. Are you done?

You couldn't give a shit about whether Sandy Hook was real or not?

If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?

You're hired.

-NSA

Prove you're NSA.

hold on a sec lemme pull up your porn searches...

So you believe in almost every single conspiracy theory. That's not critical thought.

And any conspiracy site that exists for any reason other than distinguishing truth from fiction (regardless of what agenda that fiction supports) should die a quick death.

So you believe in almost every single conspiracy theory.

I give these theories the benefit of the doubt. That's critical thought. If I want to know the "official" version of events, I'd stick to TV news or /r/news

And any conspiracy site that exists for any reason other than distinguishing truth from fiction (regardless of what agenda that fiction supports) should die a quick death.

If the official narrative stands up to scrutiny, which is what we are supposed to be doing here first and foremost, then we can disregard the theory presented, not the other way around.

I give these theories the benefit of the doubt. That's critical thought.

Critical thought is examining the information available and forming a conclusion consistent with all of the facts. You do not begin with a default stance on any particular theory. You do not give any idea the 'benefit of the doubt,' you examine every new idea for flaws and toss those that don't hold up.

If I want to know the "official" version of events, I'd stick to TV news or /r/news

Finding flaws in official stories is the best and easiest way to open minds. Proving a particular conspiracy is impossible, because nobody has all of the information required to put the pieces together. It's better to find holes and let people think for themselves.

If the official narrative stands up to scrutiny, which is what we are supposed to be doing here first and foremost, then we can disregard the theory presented, not the other way around.

I agree with that, but debunking poorly thought out conspiracy theories is vital for two reasons. One, chasing false leads wastes time, and two, if we never question any conspiracy theory, no matter how incongruent it is with reality, we lose all credibility. Credibility is precious as it is.

Fucking finally, I was getting impatient.

Critical thought is examining the information available and forming a conclusion consistent with all of the facts.

The first information available does not come from conspiracy theorists. It comes from government sources and the media. Are BBC/Fox/NBC articles and government statements scrutinized to see if they are consistent first? People who begin to do that are the first marginalized.

You do not begin with a default stance on any particular theory.

The government reports it through the actions taken by law enforcement (sandy hook for example) and the media embraces and reports on it. The mainstream media itself does no scrutinizing, they parrot government reports, as do most of the people who'd rather scrutinize OP rather then official sources.

You do not give any idea the 'benefit of the doubt'

People's opinions should always be considered. That is the primordial purpose of this sub. To hear what the people are saying. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise what makes it different than the official narrative? Are you suggesting people don't have a right to their own opinions?

you examine every new idea for flaws and toss those that don't hold up.

You should always examine the "established" idea for flaws first.

Finding flaws in official stories is the best and easiest way to open minds.

But that is not what happens here most of the time. This is my point.

Proving a particular conspiracy is impossible, because nobody has all of the information required to put the pieces together

People shouldn't have to prove their theory is true, because that's all it is, a theory, "because nobody has all of the information required to put the pieces together", otherwise it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be news.

It's better to find holes and let people think for themselves.

People who find holes in government stories and media sources are the first to be ridiculed and scrutinized. These kind of "skeptics" are not thinking for themselves, they use the official story as a base for their opinion. "You say Lanza was not at the school?" "Well, kids were shot, police were there, as reported by THE NEWS."

I agree with that, but debunking poorly thought out conspiracy theories is vital

Like I said, if the official story doesn't hold up first, no scrutinizing of the conspiracy theory is needed, it becomes established fact.

One, chasing false leads wastes time

You only know it's false after you begin to chase it. You don't assume it's false and give up.

two, if we never question any conspiracy theory, no matter how incongruent it is with reality, we lose all credibility.

We already have no credibility, conspiracy theorist are borderline criminal according to the government and the media, but it is they who must be put to the test by us.

Credibility is precious as it is.

And we only get that by proving how the official narrative is horseshit, not attacking each other over who is more "delusional", "batshit crazy", or "tin foil hat wearing conspiratards".

Discrediting ourselves is what makes us all those things.

I hope to God you get my point this time. It's like you all think in reverse!

I hope you will consider my responses:

False Flags:

Sandy Hook: possibly

Boston Marathon: more than likely. (If i had to give a yes/no answer, itd be yes.)

Aurora shooting: possibly

9/11: Yes

Navy shooter: Yes

Are chemtrails real? Definately

Can HAARP cause earthquakes? Possibly, though i dont understand the ohysics involved. They can, i think, at least induce earthquakes.

Is Fukushima a real threat to life on Earth?: holy fucking shit YES.

Is Comet ISON just a meaningless comet? Nope.

Is depopulation real? Yes, and an ongoing process. (Big Pharma is just one culprit here)

GMO/Monsanto: good or bad? Terrible.

Aspartame: good or bad? Rat poison.

Fluoride: good or bad? Destroys the pituary gland. Terrible.

Vaccines: good or bad? Horrible.

Edward Snowden: good or bad? On the fence (im into theories where he is possibly puppetted into releasing predetermined info, so he can be "trusted" by other governments while he steals their secrets. But, if pressed for yes/no amswer, id say he is good for the people.)

Edit: format

If hat is the case, you should rename your sub to accurately reflect it's true purpose as a worthless circle jerk for your own pet theories. As it is currently named, people would be reasonable to assume it is a objective forum to discuss the pros and cons of 'conspiracy theories'.

Based on your posts, you are already border line irrational. Insulating yourself from reasonable criticism is the last thing you should do.

If hat [sic] is the case, you should rename your sub to accurately reflect it's true purpose as a worthless circle jerk for your own pet theories.

They are not my theories, these are people's opinions that question what we see in official reports and TV news. Based on your flawed logic, any sub that has a consensus is a circlejerk.

As it is currently named, people would be reasonable to assume it is a objective forum to discuss the pros and cons of 'conspiracy theories'.

Yes, and people who'd rather question and criticize the theories presented are not "theorizing" about conspiracies, they are questioning, criticizing, and ridiculing the theories presented, not the official narrative. People who would rather question the theorists and not the media belong in /r/news (would that be considered a circlejerk? I wonder...)

Based on your posts, you are already border line irrational. Insulating yourself from reasonable criticism is the last thing you should do.

No further comment.

Please answer this simple "yes or no" litmus test considering all availabe information regarding these topics to gauge your level of skepticism. I have given my own real answers as a reference. You are welcome to not participate, however please don't downvote any other user's answers and please disregard this post.

False Flags:

Sandy Hook: Yes

Boston Marathon: Yes

Aurora shooting: Yes

9/11: Yes

Navy shooter: Yes

1. Are chemtrails real? Yes

2. Can HAARP cause earthquakes? Yes

3. Is Fukushima a real threat to life on Earth?: Yes

4. Is Comet ISON just a meaningless comet? No

5. Is depopulation real? Yes

6. GMO/Monsanto: good or bad? Bad

7. Aspartame: good or bad? Bad

8. Fluoride: good or bad? Bad

9. Vaccines: good or bad? Bad

10. Edward Snowden: good or bad? Good

It's called doing things away from the computer. But I'll play: I note that most of your theories rely on a rejection of science or other contradictory evidence. (The very heart of your message was an urge to resist evidence contrary to your conspiracy theory.) Likely there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from your beliefs. So I won't try, but I'll respond.

Chemtrails. No. At least not most of them. You can actually get the flight info on an app and see what planes are leaving the trails. Many of the planes leaving trails are easily identifiable as public airlines. A Southwest 737 is simply not equipped for top secret spraying I think you'll agree, but you'll see the trail none-the-less. How do you explain that?

HAARP. No. Yes, the military has programs involving energy weapons. No HAARP is not one of them. It's too small and too well known. Probably a red herring.


Fukusmhima. No. If you mean an threat to some lives or alter human civilization, then possibly. If you mean a threat to end all human life on earth, no. There are many nooks and crannies on the rock. There is no getting rid of us that easily.


Comet ISON. No. Meaningless? As in it won't strike the earth, or as in you think it's a spaceship? Either way, no. I think it will pass safely.


Depopulation. Yes. Good. I support it. Where do I join the conspiracy? But I can't respond precisely unless you indicate who you believe is conspiring to depopulate the earth.


GMO/Monsanto: Yes, and no. Monsanto is bad for using the tool of GMO to monopolize the worlds food markets. However, genetic modification in itself is neutral.


Aspartame. No. Personally, I don't eat 'diet' foods like aspartame, but I don't believe that is causes multiple sclerosis, lupus, etc. It's just crappy tasting.


Fluoride: No. Probably net good effect. I don't necessarily support it. I'm generally against compulsory medication. But I do not believe all the negative claims about fluoride. It's not a communist plot, and it's not killing every one.


Vaccines: If I were sinister, I'd support this conspiracy to thin out the herd. But no. I don't believe that vaccines cause autism, etc. Even though I have an issue with forced medication, there is a stronger argument for forced vaccines than for fluoridation.


Snowden: Good.

I'm sure you're a competent man of good character. We just disagree on a few things.

Edit: sorry about the formatting. I don't know what the fuck happened.

I note that most of your theories rely on a rejection of science or other contradictory evidence.

I posted no theories at all. I said either Yes, No, Good, or Bad to topics currently discussed on this sub. I did not elaborate on any of them. Those were my opinions that any skeptic should respect, as I respect yours. I'm not debating any of your answers. Also, my answers were not a rejection of science. At all. That was a broad statement used to marginalize me. You should know better.

(The very heart of your message was an urge to resist evidence contrary to your conspiracy theory.)

No. Again, my message was to reject the narrative before dismissing the theory. Stop seeing things where there are none. Critically think, man.

Thanks for participating. I'll let the members decide for themselves now.

Okay, i can agree with this. Despite our past "discussions", i like the point of this post.

However, for discussion purposes, i do see the legit purpose of asking for supporting information to alternative theories for the purpose of understanding what is claimed, as well as how the claim came to be, and to further the claim by adding supporting ideas, or even to identify holes in the alternative theories in a manner to fix said holes in order to stregthen said alternative theories.

I like constructive criticism for the purpose of furthering alternative ideas. I find it useful and essential for this sub. But, like you said, the purpose should not be to "debunk" alternative theories.

I agree, partially.

This is where I disagree: The idea is to have people thinking critically. Whenever someone posts a link, that in and of itself is what the OP agrees with. If you want to debunk the article or understand what is claimed, you should question the author of the article, not the OP unless he is the author of that article. The OP is merely stating information he thinks deserves some attention. Mocking, criticizing, ridiculing and poking holes at the first opportunity adds nothing to the debate. The OP does not need to provide satisfaction, his opinion is already stated in the link he posted. Poke holes in the article, on the article if it has a comments section which most do nowadays. This should be an incentive to have you investigate yourself if you think the information presented is bunk. However, like I've said over and over again, this should only begin to be done if you feel the official narrative is 100% bullet-proof.

I can agree with this. This is actually why i prefer to reply to self.posts instead of link posts.

I like the posts where OP presents their own opinions/theories, as i find it more conducive for discussion on alternative ideas, rather than arguing about the credibility of links posted. Thats why when i post a link, i do so in a self.post and add the link in the details section, adding in my views on the subject matter and offering my speculations on said subject matter.

Yes, self posts are an invitation to collaboration and debate, where it makes sense to try and understand how OP reached that conclusion since the description is where the case is made. It makes no sense at all to question OP on link posts which unfortunately are the majority and where the comments become a total clusterfuck. Happy to share this view with you.

Agreed 100%. Did we just become friends?

Don't take this the wrong way but I'm at work so I don't have my RES to be able to locate exactly where we hit a conflict, but I'm sure I had my reasons. I'll have to do a comparison of what you are saying here to what you were saying before. I'm a skeptic after all, I hope you understand. I do get more satisfaction in positively tagging people than the contrary so I hope this will be the case. Take care.

Its possible i misunderstood your intentions in the past as inflammatory trolling. My previous comments would be a reflection of that. But this current post helped clear things from my perspective.

I hope so! I told a guy here who used my comment karma as proof I'm a troll. Comment karma is meaningless considering the use of sockpuppets by foreign agents, but the reason my current count is the way it is, is because it serves as proof that I'd rather the facts speak for themselves then have this fake system of reputation speak for me. Also, I did troll /r/conspiratard and /r/SubredditDrama for shits and giggles (hence the karma) since they targeted me many times for my views, but I never deviated from serious discussion here.

Who made YOU the Fuehrer of this subreddit?

Why made YOU the one to decide what can and can not be discussed here?

Common sense leads me to believe my argument is sound, and perhaps the 27 people who upvoted this post also agree with the sentiment. You on the other hand...

The day that imaginary internet points determine the validity of an argument will be a sad day indeed.

I concurr. -768 comment karma proves it.

Now, if you'd like we can argue about the validity of my argument. Want to have a go at it?

the validity of my argument

You make some claims about the purpose of this subreddit, who should be allowed to post and what the content of posts should be.

None of your demands can be supported by the subreddit rules.

Your argument is therefore invalid.

Problem is, it's a conspiracy most of the time, because little proof is there and there are 20+ contradictions provided by 'the news'

I think most threads here should be split in half either ADDING to the article via other news articles, or experience (1st person or 3rd) or debating it using logic,reason,news items either U.S. or international

What I hope doesn't happen is if someone disagrees with the article being presented, that it's downvoted simply because one disagrees.

Downvotes are for vulgar,juvenile posts or totally off topic/rails type rants.

No thanks. I don't particularly care for taking orders from strangers over the internet as a way to "prove myself." I'll just continue to comment on posts that interest me and people that want to read my comments will read them and people who don't want to read them won't and life will go on just the same.

"For those who have eyes to see, let them see, and for those who have ears to hear, let them hear." You are refusing the test.

If you prefer, you can delete your comments on this post and I will delete mine, as if we never had this conversation. Are you up for it?

Fucking finally, I was getting impatient.

Critical thought is examining the information available and forming a conclusion consistent with all of the facts.

The first information available does not come from conspiracy theorists. It comes from government sources and the media. Are BBC/Fox/NBC articles and government statements scrutinized to see if they are consistent first? People who begin to do that are the first marginalized.

You do not begin with a default stance on any particular theory.

The government reports it through the actions taken by law enforcement (sandy hook for example) and the media embraces and reports on it. The mainstream media itself does no scrutinizing, they parrot government reports, as do most of the people who'd rather scrutinize OP rather then official sources.

You do not give any idea the 'benefit of the doubt'

People's opinions should always be considered. That is the primordial purpose of this sub. To hear what the people are saying. You have to give them the benefit of the doubt, otherwise what makes it different than the official narrative? Are you suggesting people don't have a right to their own opinions?

you examine every new idea for flaws and toss those that don't hold up.

You should always examine the "established" idea for flaws first.

Finding flaws in official stories is the best and easiest way to open minds.

But that is not what happens here most of the time. This is my point.

Proving a particular conspiracy is impossible, because nobody has all of the information required to put the pieces together

People shouldn't have to prove their theory is true, because that's all it is, a theory, "because nobody has all of the information required to put the pieces together", otherwise it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be news.

It's better to find holes and let people think for themselves.

People who find holes in government stories and media sources are the first to be ridiculed and scrutinized. These kind of "skeptics" are not thinking for themselves, they use the official story as a base for their opinion. "You say Lanza was not at the school?" "Well, kids were shot, police were there, as reported by THE NEWS."

I agree with that, but debunking poorly thought out conspiracy theories is vital

Like I said, if the official story doesn't hold up first, no scrutinizing of the conspiracy theory is needed, it becomes established fact.

One, chasing false leads wastes time

You only know it's false after you begin to chase it. You don't assume it's false and give up.

two, if we never question any conspiracy theory, no matter how incongruent it is with reality, we lose all credibility.

We already have no credibility, conspiracy theorist are borderline criminal according to the government and the media, but it is they who must be put to the test by us.

Credibility is precious as it is.

And we only get that by proving how the official narrative is horseshit, not attacking each other over who is more "delusional", "batshit crazy", or "tin foil hat wearing conspiratards".

Discrediting ourselves is what makes us all those things.

I hope to God you get my point this time. It's like you all think in reverse!

Hey, that woman who you demanded the personal information from is still waiting for your phone call to confirm she's a nurse that worked at Sandy Hook. That is ... unless you're a troll and don't mean the stuff you say?

The best part is that you actually think you were making good points and stunning me.

You failed miserably at proving the contrary. Your lack of rebuttals to my dismateling of your nonsense is a clear proof of that.

Oh man! Questioning my masculinity?!

Yeah, because I asked before if you were afraid to answer my questions and what did you say? I could just as easily lie on every answer or just say what I think you want to hear.

You hinted at pleasing my ego. As much as I appreciated that, the fact the questionnaire remains blank, again, proves my point.

Go hop on one of your other accounts, pal.

Do you know anything else other than make false claims? I'm not even going to bother asking you to prove that. This is already pathetic enough as it is.

talk about shit with people

Couldn't have said it better myself.