Too many people would have to keep it a secret...

Of course you maintain that a huge number of people can keep a lie, you openly believe the entire space program is faked. Something that would involve millions of people perfectly keeping a secret across generations.

The problem for most conspiracy theorists is they don't have the courage of their convictions, they'll agree that something isn't right but can't agree with either themselves and others what that thing is and even a very low level of knowledge of the subject shows up huge gaps in their theory (one of which is usually thousands or millions of people needing to keep it a secret)

To take an example, in the space thread, I reduced it to a very simple ask to show an approximate image of what you think the earth looks like, we reduced your theory down to it's most base level to try and see if something could be built on it, but you ran away, went off on different rants, scoffed at others. Flat earth started off the same way as a way to try and debate something that's clearly nonsense and convince others, and it can work for a bit (I mean it all falls apart very quickly, but as a thought exercise it's interesting, it's also a pity that some people seem to have taken it seriously and wasted their lives on it).

Start with some basic principles and work from there, if you can show some evidence for the most basic point, then you have a discussion and theory, you can't start off with a "everything is a lie", you need to work to get there, sure it might only go 1 level deep, but at least it gets conversation going and challenges people's understanding of the world and how we interact with each other.

It looks like you've invested a significant amount of time into your beliefs (even though you won't share them) which can make you zealous when defending them (don't want to show them up as wasted time). Scientists are always prepared to be disproven, the hope is that new information comes to light that proves the impossible as it enhances our understanding of the universe, but similarly, it has to be based on facts and data and not just belief.

I don't believe in any of that HAARP nonsense that you are bringing up so why are you doing it? Is it another attempt to shut me down?

What is your game here? Make me look like a nut? It's very simple. Stop bringing up idiotic theories like the Earth is flat or that the Moon is a massive celestial monitoring station that controls us all, and we might get somewhere.

Would you like to do that or not? If not then just say so.

Your thought processes are the same

People who maintain that the world is flat can't believe they are on a ball spinning at 1000 mph, so they have decided it's not true. Likewise some individuals can't believe 1960's technology took man to the moon, so they claim it didn't happen. You can't believe that passports and perishable items survived certain plane impacts, so according to you it didn't happen. You think the same way they do.

Passports and identity cards and other items from people on those flights physically exist, some are sitting in museums. You have no explanation for that, you don't even try. You don't have any counter-theory. Your entire view is predicted on your subjective view that you can't believe it, therefore it didn't happen. Just like flat-earthers and moon landing hoaxers.

I don't believe that anything was a massive global conspiracy. These are your words, not mine. I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of things I have not maintained.

I don't have to refute anything that you say or proffer. My doubts about something are not going to be smashed into my head purely because you think otherwise.

You have posited the theory that ....let's use the passport example shall we.. that X event happened (or so it was so reported) and the outcome was Y.

This is your admitted logic, your own admission. Coupled with that, you maintained that if someone expresses doubt or diseleif at X then they are to be dismissed, purely because of Y. To simplify, a paper passport was found. It survived a fireball, and was turned in. It happened to be the passport of a Saudi hijacker.

So far you are au fait with this narrative. Not only than but your rationales is that this passport exists so all doubt about how it came to be must be extinguished.

Your conjecture is that as long as it exists then the manner in how it came into being is unquestionable.

Does that line of thinking extend universally or just to certain circumstances? If we were to extend your logic a little further outwards then it becomes a tad flawed.

A paper passport is found in the rubble of the WTC imbroglio. It exists, ergo how it got there is indisputable [Your logic]

A doll exists by a fire-place on December 25th. The narrative is that a guy flew across the sky, came down the chimney and left it there. The child doubts this story but again by your logic .. "the doll exists. It's right there. How else can you explain its existence?"

Again tou use your logic (i.e. something exists, hence the story as to how it got there must be believed, or according to you it never happened because one doesn't believe it.)

You are trying to lump me in with those who believe in the supernatural.

I'll hammer this point....you think that the existence of something vindicates the explanation as to why and how it came into existence. By your own admission you state that a coin left under a pillow is proof that a fairy came and replaced a tooth with a coin. After all, the coin is there so how else could things have transpired?

Multiple passports, identity cards, tickets, even paper itineraries survived the impacts. Some of which are on display in the 9/11 museum. That answers it for you..

The fact that this stuff survived, at the impact sites, demonstrates that perishable stuff did survive the plane impacts.

Yet you claim it's impossible for these kind of things to have survived, so how did this stuff survive? If you can't address this your argument is complete and utter nonsense

The intelligence agencies are said to have a rule of thumb that the percentage chance of a secret being leaked is the square of the number of people who are in on it. Once you reach 6 your secret is already in big trouble... 😀

That's where you're wrong. Leaks come from the inside, but conspiracy theorists are working very much from the outside, and their "evidence" shows it. Where is the leaked information from NASA that proves the faked moon landings? Which member of the 9/11 conspiracy spilled the beans? What was the nature of the revelations and what was their role in the conspiracy? That's what leaked information looks like. All I've ever seen put forward to promote conspiracy theories is a lot of innuendo, combined with bad science and maths and a lot of outright falsehoods. If there is evidence from actual leaked information, I've yet to see it presented.

You appear to have a very strange idea of what gullible means.

Note to Mods: It might be interesting to have a thread devoted to bona fide leaked evidence. I suspect one thread would cover all the conspiracies pretty easily. 😉

None of this addresses anything that I said.

This is truly pitiful stuff. In less than two pages you've gone from appearing to open a discussion about whether or not the number of people required to be involved in a conspiracy should be a factor in assessing its credibility, to "allow me to educate you or else you're just a debunker/member of the sheeple".

@Markus Antonius : "I'm not posting anything relating to any topic for the very reason that it will attract a mob of so called "debunkers"

Quite. That's how discussions are supposed to work. Have you considered the possibility that the problem is not the "debunkers", but is actually with the quality of the "evidence" that conspiracy theorists put forward? In my experience such evidence is nowhere near as conclusive as they like to think. Perhaps if they subjected their own evidence to some truly rigorous analysis they might see the flaws in it, but unfortunately they limit their intellectual exertions to - ironically - insulting the intelligence of the less-credulous, dropping the pretence of rational argument and going straight to ad hominem.

Imagine if a scientist claimed to have discovered a design for a perpetual motion machine, but he wasn't prepared to submit a paper for peer review because other scientists would only try to pick holes it it (which is how scientific peer review works). Such an individual's claims would (deservedly) have no credibility.

It seems that what you're really looking is an echo chamber, a conspiracy theories forum in which questioning the claims is prohibited by the forum's charter. I'm sure that could be set up for you if you asked.

@Markus Antonius : "Secondly, you don't come across as sincere and genuinely interested in learning of real conspiracies. You come across as someone who just wants confirm their own mainstream opinion to give yourself a sense of place and validation amongst peers."

The sheeple argument again, but using different words. Thanks for the free shoot-from-the-hip psychoanalysis (complete with the level of accuracy you'd expect from that type of aim), but my sense of "place and validation" is not dependent on what I imagine are other people's perceptions of me on any form of social media. I'm not interested in conspiracy for their own sake - you're right about that; what I'm interested in is the truth. I don't mind what it is; when the facts change I change my mind, but that requires real evidence and not just the collection of innuendo, bad maths, bad science and fallacious reasoning that tend to be presented by conspiracy theorists. If you want to be taken seriously, I suggest you try arguing seriously.

@Markus Antonius : "Tell me if I'm wrong and I'll happily point you in the direction of lots of interesting material. Otherwise, you can take your position as just another conspiracy hating "debunker" of the soulless conspiracy forum."

You're wrong. But I don't want to be pointed in the "direction of lots of interesting material", I've followed enough of those evidential rabbit holes to be sufficiently sure that there's nothing at the bottom that's of any real use. I'll define my own position thanks, which actually varies depending on the subject, because critical thinking involves a bit more than just gainsaying the official version of events on the basis of flimsy evidence.

Is your question a tacit admission that you believe truly critical thinking has no place in a forum that discusses conspiracy theories?

Go into the threads you believe the conspiracies in and start off with the very basics of what the conspiracy is and go from there. You are starting off with "space is fake" but not explaining why you think it's fake or what the simple truth of it is. Start with a small kernel of truth, don't over-reach and build from there. Lashing out and calling people sheep does not make your theories more convincing.

@Markus Antonius "Why dont you do that in any of the other forums? I have no interest in engaging with you on any topic."

Well that's my sleep ruined for tonight.

@Markus Antonius "In all likelihood if you did what you are doing here in any other forum, you'd be banned. Simple as that. But because the conspiracy forum is seen as some kind of "alt-right extremist" "neo-nazi" "antisemite" central hub by thought-policemen like you."

Outline the behaviour I've engaged in that would get me banned in any other forums. Quotes and examples, please, not vague handwaves.

@Markus Antonius "It is allowed to go on and so has been rendered an unusable and uninteresting bore-fest that nobody wants to post in."

I's say that's more to do with making exaggerating false claims for, at best, flimsy evidence, incontinent link-dumping, hopping from point to point and a general ducking and diving when challenged, denial of science and general bad logic that underlines the pointlessness of debating with conspiracy theory fanboys. It's as much a waste of time as trying to debate with a drunk. As the saying goes, "You can't use logic to argue someone out of a position they didn't use logic to argue themselves into".

Of course you won't be answering this, so I'll just wish you the best of luck with your echo chamber. I'm sure you'll have a fine old time.

most people who believe in jesus got that belief from their parents and community so that is not an appropriate comparison