What is the difference between a conspiracy theorist and an investigator?

[Shangs]

Right off the bat, no this isn't about James Holmes. However, we do live in an age of truthers and the age-of-anyone-can-have-their-own streaming-talkshow whether or not they have experience in the fields of political science, psychology, criminal justice, JOURNALISM etc...

The postulate of every person who has an alternative theory being a fringe lunatic has to be delineated from people who just simply have investigative mindsets who have no vested interest in the case... They just want to solve a puzzle. One question is, are the more popular "prophets" of RED ALERT RED ALERT YOU ARE BEING LIED TO actors employed to discredit these types of people by making them look as insane as possible? People like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck for example? Who really tells us the absolute truth but ourselves, if some of us are even capable of that, which a lot of people aren't? Another question, even if those who have theories that differ from an official story that one deems to be a cover up prove to be true to a large group of people, what is that person really going to do that matters? Why not go into a profession that allows you to handle that evidence firsthand and be like Abbey form NCIS? Don't we all love her?

This can get off track very easily so I'll leave it pretty much at that. How do you differentiate between a true lunatic and a person who is made out to sound like a lunatic? Yes, that's how I'll put it. I look forward to everyone's replies. I also know this is general chat and all, so if you want to troll it with boobies that's fine too. I'd actually really fucking enjoy that. If you want to kick me in the balls that's fine too. I'm wearing riot gear so it won't hurt j/k

[AssetReign]

Alien abduction.

[Shangs]

Alien abduction.

[Celebrity Killing Spree]

I think investigators, as in people who real world, day to day experience, understand that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Do a lot of people go missing every year in Alaska? Sure. But what's more logical and basic? They got lost in the wilderness or were alien abductees?

I think with inevstigators it's a matter of pragmatism. Evidence is of course is key, but theorists have a habit of interpreting evidence to support a wild conclusion which may be several logical steps removed. And they are almost always willing to accept lack of evidence as outright proof. Investigators don't make conclusions based on general assumptions of how the world works, they use years of experience and the advice and resources of colleagues in the top fields. They are also willing to admit they "don't know" when evidence is lacking instead of engaging in speculation.

[Shangs]

I think investigators, as in people who real world, day to day experience, understand that the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Do a lot of people go missing every year in Alaska? Sure. But what's more logical and basic? They got lost in the wilderness or were alien abductees?

I think with inevstigators it's a matter of pragmatism. Evidence is of course is key, but theorists have a habit of interpreting evidence to support a wild conclusion which may be several logical steps removed. And they are almost always willing to accept lack of evidence as outright proof. Investigators don't make conclusions based on general assumptions of how the world works, they use years of experience and the advice and resources of colleagues in the top fields. They are also willing to admit they "don't know" when evidence is lacking instead of engaging in speculation.

You're right about the pragmatic more logical approach. Then again there is something called plausible deniability. I'm not challenging your statement, though it may come across like it. We know that conspiracies exist, have existed, and that government programs are in place such as Fast and Furious and MKUltra which are real military operations. You're also right about the lack of evidence attitude that leads people to think that something is definitely "up". I liked your answer, but if you could, explain how you think that people could expose inconsistencies in evidence/real cover ups/impossibilities and be taken seriously? Not only taken seriously but how to be effective in the outcome of the situation from an observational civilian with a voice rank.

[Celebrity Killing Spree]

I liked your answer, but if you could, explain how you think that people could expose inconsistencies in evidence/real cover ups/impossibilities and be taken seriously? Not only taken seriously but how to be effective in the outcome of the situation from an observational civilian with a voice rank.

I think that, ironically, the internet has made it a lot harder. With all of this new "mass communication" and "transparency" we've really just used it for "mass confusion" and "static." We aren't making history so much as hysteria. I don't think anyone is going to be able to go all Leonard and Bernstien from behind a keyboard anymore it's all going to come down to whistle blowers.

The good news is... there are always whistle blowers. And governments are too big to keep secrets for long. They're historically bad at it. You mentioned Fast and Furious for instance, in that case the actual fuck up itself is only dwarfed by the massive fuck up of that was the cover up.

[MixMastahTee]

I liked your answer, but if you could, explain how you think that people could expose inconsistencies in evidence/real cover ups/impossibilities and be taken seriously? Not only taken seriously but how to be effective in the outcome of the situation from an observational civilian with a voice rank.

Inconsistencies in evidence don't prove anything other than inconsistencies in evidence. Lack of proof for Outcome A doesn't automatically mean Outcome B is true. You need to offer up any sort of incontrovertible evidence to prove Outcome B, and "inconsistencies in evidence" for Outcome A doesn't cut it. You also don't need to 'fight' to be taken seriously if your evidence is even slightly reliable.

Regarding the Aurora shooting, which obviously sparked this thread, you and Lydia and that troll with all the alt accounts clearly weren't "investigators". You weren't just looking at all sides of the story and offering up alternatives. You had an obvious agenda and a conclusion you had already reached. You were just trying to get everyone else to reach that same conclusion.

[Shangs]

Inconsistencies in evidence don't prove anything other than inconsistencies in evidence. Lack of proof for Outcome A doesn't automatically mean Outcome B is true. You need to offer up any sort of incontrovertible evidence to prove Outcome B, and "inconsistencies in evidence" for Outcome A doesn't cut it. You also don't need to 'fight' to be taken seriously if your evidence is even slightly reliable.

Regarding the Aurora shooting, which obviously sparked this thread, you and Lydia and that troll with all the alt accounts clearly weren't "investigators". You weren't just looking at all sides of the story and offering up alternatives. You had an obvious agenda and a conclusion you had already reached. You were just trying to get everyone else to reach that same conclusion.

Back. Oh hey MMT, I got really drunk last night, now I am in a better state of mind to reply to this. My original reply that I almost entered last night was going to be a rant that would just have been embarrassing to wake up to this morning and see it bulldozed. lol.

I think that you are right and wrong. I don't want to say what I think you are right and wrong about because then that'd be biased and just my opinion. You did make some good points though. As for it being inspired by the Aurora shooting, I can honestly say that it wasn't. There are a fuck ton of truther sites/videos as well as conspiracies that people talk about that span over many different events. Fuck. I think I made my brain retarded last night for a bit and I think I may still be just a little. Anyway, as for what I or anyone else has to say about the Colorado shootings, let's just keep that to their respective threads. I need a large glass of water and some food. Also, pain killers. Heavy duty pain killers. Ttyl.

[Atom]

I don't want to say what I think you are right and wrong about because then that'd be biased and just my opinion.

Then don't say someone is right or wrong in the first place if you're not willing to offer up the reasons why you think so.

[Shangs]

Then don't say someone is right or wrong in the first place if you're not willing to offer up the reasons why you think so.

Good point. Give me like 7 hours to recover and reply to this properly. lol. My bad.