Should conspiracy theory research inform public policy?


Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family.  The U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks.  Pharmaceutical companies cover up evidence of harmful side effects of vaccines.  Each statement is a ‘conspiracy theory’; defined as a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal (e.g., Wood, Douglas & Sutton, 2012).  Current psychological research is exploring the reasons behind why people endorse conspiracy theories, and investigating the impact such theories can have on individuals, and society.  One question that presents itself is: is the impact of conspiracy theories recognised in current UK public policy?  Using anti-vaccine conspiracy theories as a specific case study, this will be explored.

One important area of current psychological research is investigating the impact of conspiracy theories on the individual, and society.  For example, research has shown that conspiracy theories may change the way people think about social events.  After exposure to conspiracy theories about the death of Princess Diana, participants were persuaded to endorse the conspiracy theory account without being aware of it (Douglas & Sutton, 2008).  Further, scholars have experimentally demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy information can be detrimental by reducing pro-environmental intentions and willingness to engage in politics (Butler, Koopman & Zimbardo, 1995; Jolley & Douglas, 2014a).

Conspiracy theories can also have potentially negative consequences for the prevention of diseases.  The development of vaccines is one of the most important advances in the history of medicine.  Indeed, a recent Parliament Postnote discussed how governments should further stimulate vaccine research (Post, 2008).  However, even with increased efforts of policy makers, in recent year’s vaccination rates have declined.  In many regions of the UK rates lie well below the recommended 95% uptake (Health Protection Service, 2013).   One obstacle may be the influence of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories.  Rather, current psychological research has shown exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy information reduces pro-vaccination intentions (Jolley & Douglas, 2014b). Thus, whilst the decrease uptake of vaccines could be for several reasons, it highlights the contributing potential detrimental effect of conspiracy theories.

immunisationCurrent UK public policy is based around voluntary immunisation.  This has been successful in most cases.  However, policy makers do need to take into account ways to effectively approach the ever increasing number of parents in the UK who do not vaccinate their children. Research has shown that detailed information about risk and benefits of immunisations appear to be successful in altering the decision of parents who were initially opposed to vaccination (e.g., Moran, Gainotti, & Petrini, 2008).  Thus, as recently suggested by Fine-Goulden (2010), all parents who have not arranged for their children’s vaccinations should meet with a well-informed healthcare professional who can provide this information face to face and address any particular concerns in a sensitive manner.

However, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories reflect suspicion and mistrust of scientific research examining vaccine efficacy and safety.  Rather, they attempt to explain away overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines are effective, safe, and necessary (Kata, 2010).  Therefore, such a policy that involves a meeting with a health care professional may not be successful with parents who hold anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs due to their suspicion and mistrust of scientific research.  This clearly demonstrates the importance of current public policy taking in to account conspiracy theories and their impact.

Conspiracy theories are a popular area of conversation, with beliefs seemingly to be increasing over time.  Current psychological research is showing conspiracy theories to be potentially detrimental to us all.  This research is timely in the face of declining vaccination rates, and recent outbreaks of vaccinated-against diseases such as measles. For those parents who hold anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, just being given information about vaccines may not be sufficient to improve their vaccine uptake.  Instead, further interventions need to be explored and tested empirically for those parents who hold anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, which can then inform future public policy. Similarly, such an intervention developed may be fruitful in other domains, such as in policy to encourage pro-environmental engagement.  This clearly highlights the importance of psychological research informing future intervention and public policy.

This entry was posted in Social psychology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

229 Responses to Should conspiracy theory research inform public policy?

  1. Pingback: Should conspiracy theory research inform public policy?

  2. Ray says:

    I just don’t get it and neither does any one who researches conspiracy it’s not just about cover ups it’s about public servants voted in by the elect to Govern on our behalf not keep secrets from us or tell us it’s in our best interest, they are not being paid by us to fuck us over or keep us in the dark, we should be informed immediately, not cover up truth, this only serves those who have a conflict of interest and their only motivation is greed and power over us, treason is been committed by a criminal elements which infest Government at the highest levels..

    • It’s clear you missed the point in the article discussing how conspiracy theorising causes an unhealthy mistrust of politics, a refusal to interact to make change, and therefore an unhealthy mistrust of policy makers and policies. This is precisely what you are exhibiting Ray, and that is why you don’t get it, your vision is utterly clouded by your conspiratorial manifestations.

      • So, CK, how do you explain the guy in the Boston bombing being wheeled down the street fully conscious when he had his legs blown off? How did that happen? It didn’t is the correct answer.

      • How is that even a relevant point to the debate, we are talking about how conspiracy theorism informs public policy, and how even conspiracy theorism reacts towards public policy. I’m not sure how a maimed human beings consciousness is relevant here.

  3. futuret says:


  4. Conspiracist ideation has already crossed into the public policy sphere to the point where it has “infiltrated” a few state legislatures in the US. In some districts it has reached a tipping point where voters are able to elect like minded conspiracy theorists to state office. An impression has even been made at the national level with the GOP platform in 2012 incorporating a statement based on the hysterical claims of constituents.

    In my work in public science education I occasionally encounter individuals who are alarmingly susceptible to believe in the most far fetched ideas. If you do a video search for “Comet ISON” AND “End of the World” you will understand why I flinch every time someone approaches me and says “I saw on YouTube that…” I sometimes receive stiff resistance to the most mundane explanations.

    Conspiracy theory research is now desperately needed for both public policy and also in public education.

    I just wanted to tell you that I enjoyed this post and look forward to reading the paper. (I also hope that this will provide an encouraging counterbalance to the other comments that you have received.)

    • G says:

      Most interesting. In a way this is actually good news, but not for the obvious ideological reason. For the past three+ decades, Republicans have become increasingly involved with the extreme religious right, which has led to anti-science policies and anti-civil-rights policies, both of which cause real harm. Now they’ve gone off the deep end with paranoid CT.

      The good thing about that is, per “crank magnetism” (belief in one wacko CT leads to belief in more wacko CTs, or to quote the old advert for potato chips, “bet you can’t eat just one!”), we can expect these candidates and elected officials to endorse more and more CT over time. Once it crosses the “bizarro threshold” where it’s too far-out for mainstream voters to accept, it should provoke a backlash. By analogy consider what would happen if leading Democrats endorsed the “9/11 Truth” stuff. Ideally the backlash would be against CT generally, rather than against only one party’s embrace of it.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Michael Umbricht,

      Perhaps the issue of critical thinking is of more import, and why students in this system don’t seem to have been taught the fundamentals of critical thinking skills.
      The issue falls under the heading of “The Dumbing Down of America” – which I am sure will be attacked as another “conspiracy theory” by those stuck in this ridiculous meme.


  5. Pingback: Spinneyhead | Conspiracy Theorists want to kill your children!!!!

  6. Lol, you are a scientist, Daniel. Explain to me why the guy in the wheelchair could have his legs blown off and be completely conscious? Explain it Mike. It has no basis in scientific theory, and yet you can’t explain it because maybe you are afraid? Stand up and tell the truth, Daniel! The guy was an actor. We even have pictures pre peg and post peg after the explosion.

    • Oh gosh, have you ever looked into the effects of shock ?

      Shock slows blood flow and a person only goes unconscious when the persons systems shut down, not everyone goes unconscious, and I think ordinarily going unconscious is the sign when things are very serious. Since the body needs to shut down non important functions. Of course this is a very basic explanation, and I am not a professional medic, but I think what I say is near enough close to the various things that can happen.

      I sometimes fear that people who interpret things so wildly over the mundane and obvious might go one step further and act on their beliefs. How you got from a person being conscious from an explosion, to there is someone who looks like him on an image from an earlier period, then to him being an actor and it being a staged event is an example of crank magnetism, apophenia, and paranoid belief systems. That’s just me simplifying the brains pattern making system and the way it incorporates data into it’s existing belief systems, but yeah quite an example you gave us there.

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        Having seen footage from various conflicts and disasters over the years, I’ve seen soldiers with limbs blown off, civilians crushed in rubble, etc. and many have been fully conscious with horrendous injuries. (I am told it can be better to keep a patient awake in these situations.)

  7. Pingback: Anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and their potential impact on children’s health | The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

  8. Jenn says:

    I am really disappointed in this blog, well, actually all of your blogs. You do not present anything concrete or scientific to back up your claims. The rhetoric you use to manipulate the reader to just believe what you are saying, because you are saying it and so it must be true, is very apparent. Using the word ‘intervention’ immediately implies that there is ‘something seriously wrong’ with a person who doesn’t follow mainstream thinking/storylines and therefore, they need to be ‘fixed’. If a reader was undecided to believe some conspiracy theories, or the mainstream folklore, they are made to be fearful of thinking anyway outside the mainstream stories, so you are actually not helping a person make independent decisions. Most ‘conspiracy theorists’ I know are really smart, usually educated at a post-secondary level, research many angles of all topics before deciding for themselves and consider conspiracy theorist a derogatory word for critical thinking. Instead of wasting your time with blogs like this, you should be investigating the claims of the conspiracy theorists and start thinking for yourself too. Because clearly, you are thinking on behalf of whoever is paying you, or who you hope pays you once you’re done your PhD.

    • “You do not present anything concrete or scientific to back up your claims. The rhetoric you use to manipulate the reader to just believe what you are saying, because you are saying it and so it must be true, is very apparent.”

      LOL I guess you missed all the links to the reference and sources provided ?

      “Most ‘conspiracy theorists’ I know are really smart, usually educated at a post-secondary level, research many angles of all topics before deciding for themselves and consider conspiracy theorist a derogatory word for critical thinking.”

      That’s beyond funny. I am pretty certain you are just making this up.The internet is full of undereducated conspiracy theorists who have no clue about how to conduct thorough research, or how to interpret data, information beyond their cognitive biases. If you know educated conspiracy theorists beyond secondary school that’s not saying anything much [in the UK that’s undergraduate, not even bachelors level]

      “Instead of wasting your time with blogs like this, you should be investigating the claims of the conspiracy theorists and start thinking for yourself too. Because clearly, you are thinking on behalf of whoever is paying you, or who you hope pays you once you’re done your PhD.”

      haha the tropes are strong in this one, do your own research [check], think for yourself [check], paid to do the research [check], I don’t think you could have been more predictable.

      • olivefarmer says:

        “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

        Woodrow Wilson,The New Freedom (1913)

        “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

        A letter written by President FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

        “For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

        Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

        John F Kennedy April 27th 1961. Assassinated two years later.

        “We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world. No longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men”

        Woodrow Wilson.

        I could of course go on. There is a kind of stupidity that abounds in the world that is predicated on an unreasoning belief in the system called “democracy”, that politicians in such systems are not controlled, that the voice of the people carries weight. Similar stupidity can be discovered in the unreasoning belief that large corporations (owned by the same forces referred to by the leaders quoted) would do nothing to intentionally harm human beings driven by a lust for profit or, worse, a eugenicist agenda.
        You claim an understanding of psychology and yet seem ignorant of the history of the Tavistock institute and absent an understanding of the psychological shaping of the human mind that has been taking place for the century since its foundation, relying as it does on the control of media and education and staged, shock inducing events.
        Of course there are conspiracies. Recently in Rotherham (England) there has been exposed a conspiracy between the police, local government and social services to conceal a vast paedophile network. The same conspiracy in the same subject area involving the same arms of the state and higher (at Government level) can be discovered by a few minutes research. The Catholic church has the same history.
        Your work lacks an understanding of the nature of evil, which for someone in your field is alarming. Begin by discovering the nature of evil, then perhaps do some research into the Thule society, Skull and Bones, The Order of the Golden Dawn, MI5, Aleister Crowley, the business deals between Prescott Bush and Hitler and then the business deals between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
        Conspiracy “nuts” understand the driving forces behind world events, as did the Presidents quoted above, and have an understanding of evil.

        I draw your attention to Government/Corporate/University evil again here:
        Published Findings

        “Though much of the information concerning these experiments was kept classified until Hazel O’Leary, there are a number of human radiation studies whose findings were published in the medical literature long before Clinton Administration. For example, the study in which pregnant women were given intermittent doses of radioactive iron at Vanderbilt University had its findings published in American Journal of Epidemiology in 1969. Among mothers who received the doses of radioactive iron, four gave birth to children who would later develop malignancies ranging from acute lymphatic leukemia to synovial sarcoma. All four children died over the span of the study. No malignancies were discovered in the non-exposed children of the control group. The study showed a small, but statistically significant, increase in the propensity of children exposed to radiation towards developing cancer. [7] Though patient selection and consent is not clearly addressed in the publication, later legal action suggests that the women in the study were lied to.

        Similarly, the experiment in which terminally-ill cancer patients were injected radioactive calcium and strontium was also published. The experiment, conducted at Columbia University, studied the metabolic fate of intravenously administered calcium and strontium. It was found that though the isotopes were essentially equally absorbed by the bone and soft tissue immediately after administration, over time, more than 99% of the fraction of both isotopes remaining in the body was found exclusively in the bone. Overall, the net retention of radioactive calcium was found to be higher than that of strontium, 60% to 25%, a function of the kidney preferentially excreting the strontium isotope. The survival length of patients in the experiment ranged from 3 hr to 124 days. [8] It is unclear whether any of the patients injected consented to the study as no legal action was taken. That being said, the lack of response is likely due to the fact that virtually all the participating patients died within months of the experiment, decades before their existence would be brought to the forefront of the public eye.”

        Belief that there are no conspiracies is, I would suggest, an illness.

      • Look up the word conspiracy, and then look up conspiracy theory, get back to us when you can differentiate the difference between the two. Then try and understand that no one here has denied that conspiracies occur, conspiracy theories however and unfounded claims made by people who haven’t the slightest evidence to support their beliefs.

      • eggmunkee says:

        “no one here has denied that conspiracies occur, conspiracy theories however and [are] unfounded claims” -conspiracykilller
        This is pretty telling doublethink you have shown us. Conspiracies exist, but theories about conspiracies “are unfounded claims.” Can you show us how we can talk about conspiracies that aren’t publicly acknowledged *yet* without them being dismissed as unfounded claims with your definition? I guess things are only true once, and only after, some public institution tells you they are true.
        Also, your username seems to indicate you are all about slaying conspiracies, not conspiracy theories, but conspiracies are factual, so why are you against them? Or, maybe you are for going after real conspirators, since you know the difference in terms, but you kind of have to wait around from someone else to tell you its okay on a case-by-case basis, without getting into unfounded claim territory. It sounds (extrapolating a bit) like a small world to place oneself in, instead of just realizing you have to do your own investigation into things.

      • @eggmunkee
        It’s a matter of undeniable evidence showing said claims of conspiracy exist, nothing to do with double think. Simply stating a belief that there is a conspiracy or basing it on anecdote or some flawed logic is simply not enough. Having no evidence makes it a belief or an unfounded accusation.

        Doing one’s own research based on claims that have no backing and forming an opinion or judgement is neither constructive nor realistic. If the claim is unproven and lacks evidence withholding judgement in its factuality is the only sensible option.

        I like to think that people who believe in matters that have no solid backing are logically wrong. If they can provide evidence that can stand up to scrutiny then fair play. Pointing to previous conspiracies that have been proven and in hindsight saying if one exists therefore another separate claim is simply the wrong way of going about things.

        I have no doubt there are real conspiracies that occur now and in the future regarding some topics, however without evidence supporting them, then they are merely unjustified claims. If hindsight proves them later down the line and I have said they don’t exist I would happily raise my hand as being wrong.

      • futuret says:


        Click to access SILENT%20WEAPONS%20for%20QUIET%20WARS.pdf

    • andrew says:

      well put

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      For Jenn:

      Who makes some very prescient points in her comment, only to be slapped in the face with the same rhetorical nonsense she was pointing out.

      In essence she is being told to shut up and listen to the voices of authority who know better than she – after all they have that piece of paper that cost them their soul and independent mind to achieve.

      Academia is an echo chamber of the mundane.

      • jenn says:

        On march 25, 2014, you said: “haha the tropes are strong in this one, do your own research [check], think for yourself [check], paid to do the research [check],..”

        That’s the problem with lying and manipulation – it’s hard to remember what you’ve said over time.

        Your entire blog is rhetoric. All of your blogs are. Keep insulting me – shows your intelligence like I said.

      • You have severely misinterpreted what was said there, your buddy hydro knob said something about my reading comprehension a moment ago, something he pulled out of his ass. However, he should have really targeted the claim in your direction as you obviously have no idea what was being said in my comment.

        I was not admitting to being paid, I don’t even run this blog or get grants for any research haha, you should probably try reading things in context and try and understand what’s being said before jumping both feet in and making a faulty conclusion.

      • jenn says:

        Please put it into context then lmao.

        What exactly did you mean by “paid to do the research [check]”??

      • I was ticking off the stupid claims being made by the previous commenter.

        The typical tropes that conspiracy theorists accuse people who don’t believe their fantasies of.

        IE you calling people a paid shill [tick box]

      • jenn says:

        You said you were paid to do the research. Period. You are clearly paid to do the research. Or were you lying? Cuz that would mean all (if any) credibility on your part is lost. Period.

      • No I didn’t, you just lack the comprehension skills to read what was written and correctly translate it. Honestly it’s no wonder that you believe the stupid shit you do if you ca’t even understand what was written above, even after you asked me to explain it to you and I did you still lack the cognitive ability.


      • jenn says:

        Fishing through your rhetoric and highly intelligent arguments makes it difficult for one to ascertain any reasonableness from what you say.

        My initial comment in march was to the writer of the blog. If that is not you, why are you spending your time defending his blog?? And my initial comment was that the writer is either being paid or wishes to be paid. You replied saying paid to do the research check. You’re minimizing my statements by implying my comments were ‘predictable’, that I’m following some sort of checklist. Which is absurd.

        If you’re not getting paid to insult anyone who leaves a comment, then you need some new hobbies and a life lol.

      • Refomed Conspiracist says:

        For Jenn: CK isn’t admitting he’s being paid, he’s ticking off the use of common rebuttals that you utilise in your comment – a common one being to claim that the proponent of an alternate position is doing the bidding of whomsoever is paying them. CK is using a common linguisitic device: how could you not recognise this? Without wishing to criticise or insult you personally, I have to ask how you can facilitate the critical thinking you urge others to follow when you misunderstood such a simple device?

        Equally, you keep referring to this as being CK’s blog/s which, even a cursory period of research, would discover is written by a small group of Psychology PhD students – all of whom post under their own names in both the posts and the comments. This is simple research: again, without wishing to insult you, I have to wonder what this infers about your other research (which you set such store by).

        Lastly, you have accused the original blog-post authors of using no more than rhetoric (which is argument/ discourse) whereas what the authors are actually publishing is the results of scientific research backed up with full references for their statistics.

      • jenn says:

        I was under the impression that ck was the name of the writer, since he was defending the blog. Did you read my initial comment in march? I recognized the PhD aspect, which is when ck made his highly intelligent comment. Knowing now he is not the writer makes me understand the facetious tone of the comment.

      • “My initial comment in march was to the writer of the blog. If that is not you, why are you spending your time defending his blog??”

        Because I have a low tolerance for ridiculous claims, and the writers infrequently post in the comment section. I feel it is a public service to make sure that conspiracy theorists are set straight, or at the least ridiculed on blogs like these.

        Reformed Conspiracist has at least clarified it for you, hopefully you can grasp the reality of what was said now, otherwise there’s probably no hope.

      • jenn says:

        You are doing the public nothing but harm. It is not a public service. You’re protecting the propoganda and indoctrination systems. One day, you will understand this is not a service for others, but a service to yourself.

      • The only harm being done is the misinformation and lies spread by conspiracy theorists. Beliefs that are wrecking the lives and sanity of less articulate and educated people, who for no fault of their own are prone to fantasy and harmful belief structures.

        The irony is that you are saying that I will understand one day, when in fact I was once like you, I eventually understood that conspiracy theorists and their claims are nothing but vapourware that do more harm than good because they are unsubstantiated paranoia.

      • jenn says:

        You have no clue what level of education I have. Like I said earlier, they are not theories. There is a huge amount of verifiable proof and evidence of what is claimed, which means we’ve moved past the ‘theory’ stage. Calling people like me conspiracy theorists is just plain unreasonable and highly insulting because truly, we are critical thinkers. Minimizing our arguments and statements by insults or saying we are ‘cranks’ and must listen to alex jones and others you refer to is funny, because it’s a common linguistic device used by the sheeple. If you were to read the true timeline of our history, you would not be able to deny what you do today. It makes more sense than the nonsense you hold so close and protect wholeheartedly. But, there’s really no point to giving you any further time or effort. Sit in your box and have fun holding the walls up around you. Just remember: in order to think outside that box, you need to first realize you are in it. That will be hard for you to admit to yourself.

      • Refomed Conspiracist says:

        I did read (and just re-read) your March comment: I did see your recognition of the PhD aspect. (I can’t see the comment by CK to which you refer – there are pushing 60 comments in a somewhat miscellaneous order and CK has been somewhat prolific – the blog owner comments are highlighted in a pale-orange colour [they are somewhat few and far between] and concentrate solely on the specific field of their research. They commendably remain above the fray.)

        By the way, while ‘intervention’ has somewhat pejorative connotations in the mainstream world, in science/ research it has specific meaning relating to ‘intervening’ in a process (such as a chemical experiment) with the intention of finding out whether there is or isn’t a new/ different outcome.

      • jenn says:

        Psychology is not science. They can’t even prove a chemical imbalance in the brain, which they attribute to every ‘disorder’ they’ve voted on creating.

        Intervention in any subject matter means stopping an adverse outcome. Stating that people who think for themselves need an intervention is rhetoric. Rhetoric is manipulative writing. Anyone who attends post-secondary is schooled in rhetorical writing. That’s what this blog is. One big manipulative piece that is unfounded and only promotes fear in the reader. Fear to think any way they haven’t been told to.

      • “If you were to read the true timeline of our history, you would not be able to deny what you do today.”

        It’s because I have fully immersed myself in conspiracy ideology that I am able to deny it, that’s the problem you seem incapable of comprehending.

      • jenn says:

        Any person who has fully immersed themselves in conspiracy ideology would not be able to deny the facts & evidence discovered. For you to spend your time, unpaid, to denounce critical thinkers, And think it’s a public service of some sort, shows just how fully you immersed yourself lol.

        What’s your explanation of building 7 on 9/11?? Lol

      • I’ve dealt with that stuff on other blog posts here, feel free to read them.

        You seem to have way too much confidence in your own abilities, Dunning Kruger.

      • jenn says:

        Tsk, tsk – more insults. Can you not come up with anything other than ad hominem attacks? Lol

        I am having a conversation with you here, now. So answer my question here, now. I do not have time to fish through all of your comments to find your explanation of building 7 on 9/11, lol.

      • jenn says:

        “The second 9/11 truth breakthrough this week was the success of the High Rise Safety Initiative in New York City, which would force a new investigation of the obvious (but officially denied) controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Organizers of the initiative finished gathering the 100,000 signatures they need to override a mayoral veto, virtually guaranteeing that the initiative will be voted on by the citizens of New York. Since Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has acquired WTC-7’s blueprints and found slam-dunk proof of demolition, and since organized crime kingpin Larry Silverstein’s confession to demolishing WTC-7 has become widely known, the new investigation by New York’s Department of Buildings is threatening to rip the lid off the Pandora’s box of 9/11 scandals.” (

        So what happens when a conspiracy theory turns conspiracy fact CK?

      • It’s not an ad hominem attack it’s an honest observation being made of your inability to recognise your ineptitude.

        If you want to know what i think about building 7 and other 911 critiques made by non expert conspiracy theorists you are going to have to read the rest of the blog posts. I have no wish to get into a discussion about your fantasy theories on this particular post.

      • jenn says:

        Referring to me as a ‘dunning kruger’ is an attack on my character, which is ad hominem.

        Really, with regards to building 7, there is no ‘official’ story. We were never told a plane was flown into it. So, what do You think happened? How do you think it collapsed? Or can you not answer because it’s not on your script and you’re not allowed to have your own opinion? Because I read through your convo with hybrid and you’re really, really good at deflecting the conversation AND you’re really good with ad hominem attacks.

        In fact, you always seem to claim that what you say is true because the premise is popular (aka mainstream belief/official stories) and this is bandwagon fallacy. You’re failing at logic. Just sayin’

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Well it is obvious that the killer clown has no idea how to answer the question as to how Bldg 7 was destroyed.
        A waffle is as a waffle does…and stupid is as stupid does.

        The “psychology” presented here is nothing but a circle jerk of conformist theorizing.

        Jenn is on the ball and obviously is not intimidated by the bullying tactics of the gatekeeper here.

        World Trade 7 was a blatant example of classic explosive demolition. Only fools and agent provocateurs deny this. That’s why jingoberry killer clown won’t go there.

      • I already dealt with it elsewhere buddy and you know this as I directly addressed you and ridiculous claims. Once again you show your dishonesty on the blog.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Ahh…that’s what you mean by ‘you dealt with it’ {grin}

        In that case Jenn, here is the page killer clown refers to:

        Conspiracykiller’s triumph is in his own deluded mind.
        Have fun Jenn.

  9. TinyCO2 says:

    As an interested follower of pandemic science I’ve often observed nascent conspiracy ideation, even amongst those who most fervently support vaccination. From this one might conclude that it gets everywhere but knowing more about what sparks it I can say that there are logical reasons why such thinking arises and I’m sorry but experts and government authorities should shoulder at least half the blame.

    There is a tendency for intelligent people to underestimate the public’s ability to sense or uncover half truths and also there’s a practice of lumping the very brightest lay person in with the dumbest. Messages are often aimed at the lowest common denominator and in consequence gloss over countless issues that the public might want to know about and in many cases need to know. Edicts are often made in the form ‘nanny knows best, do as you’re told’. That attitude goes down sooo well. The more authorities reduce the story to its basics the more the public, quite rightly, assumes there’s more to it than the authorities are telling. They’re sometimes, but not always, right that what the authorities are keeping quiet, are things that would make the lay person balk. The thinking goes that if they told the truth, the public would never co-operate. Possibly true but in our mass information world, someone WILL tell them the truth and at that point the public are doubly convinced the government is up to no good. Even more ludicrous is when a government withholds information simply because it would make the message too complicated. They create an unconvincing argument because some might not understand the details.

    When it comes to vaccines, there are known and documented issues, especially with adjuvents. There are and always will be hazards for some people. Antivirals have a chequered history of success, failure and side effects. I’m not even sure the authorities know now whether it’s worth stocking the most common versions, let alone issuing them for anything other than a serious pandemic. By pretending these issues don’t exist, the conspiracists are right, we are being lied to and there is a conspiracy of sorts. For the public, only time can tell them if THIS time the authorities are right and not just guessing. It’s also worth noting that governments and politicians DO lie. Mostly it’s because they think it’s the right thing to do but not always. Expenses scandal?

    The MMR fiasco was a perfect example of experts creating the conspiracy. Firstly the Wakefield paper was the child of peer review, which is held up as a gold standard but is little more than well edited trade literature. Peer review is not a measure of accuracy but it is held up as such and any paper that successfully negotiates the arbitrary hurdles, automatically gains legitimacy. Are we then surprised when the public latch on to a paper like Wakefield’s and become alarmed? Worse, the main method for correcting peer reviewed literature is to either write a few lines of rebuttal or write another paper. Both of these have major problems and as we saw with MMR, by the time the rebuttal papers were in print, the damage had been done. Wakefield’s paper wasn’t retracted until he was struck off as a doctor almost 10 years later and the medical board investigation was probably only triggered by the dogged persistence of a journalist. The key to breaking Wakefield’s credibility was in the data for the study, data Brian Deer could only access because of American disclosure rules for the libel case Wakefield tried to bring against the journalist. It was a real mess and are the public to blame for suspecting somebody was lying?

    There is an increasing use of expert testimony as a way to prod the public into compliance. Politicians and sometimes the scientists themselves like to gloss over the limitations of knowledge. They substitute expert opinion for actual facts but don’t flag up where one stops and the other starts. When the public finds out for themselves and get angry are they guilty of conspiracy ideation, or is there really a conspiracy, albeit one without nefarious intent?

    • TinyCO2 says:

      Posted this in the wrong place, sorry.

    • jenn says:

      That was really well written – excellent points 🙂

      • TinyCO2 says:

        Thank you, it seems Conspiracykiller doesn’t agree and thinks being a Conversationkiller is an effective debating technique. I’m sure it converts people in their droves. Cough. I think CK thinks I’m antiscience but I’m not. Science is fine but it’s not great. Unfortunately it’s too full of arrogant, bright people who don’t react well to criticism. When caught in the wrong, the SOP is to bluster and argue a way out. The more respected you are, the harder you fall when people realise that you’re covering stuff up. Now scientists are perfectly at liberty to behave in the same way politicians do but they have to accept the same level of trust.

        Conspiracies flourish when people start behaving as if there is one. And the worst person to kill a conspiracy is someone who is so frustrated they stomp on anything vaguely dissenting.

    • “When the public finds out for themselves and get angry are they guilty of conspiracy ideation, or is there really a conspiracy, albeit one without nefarious intent?”

      In short yes the public are guilty of conspiracy ideation. One thing you seem not to have mentioned, government and science are not monolithic entities. Government and Scientific areas are individually managed small sectors of people. Communication and professional conduct amongst each of them varies, in effect we are discussing moral and professional relativism in a sociological level. One has to understand exactly who we are discussing as responsible for the ineffective conduct, and what level of intention and responsibility is applicable to be able to surmise that there is a conspiracy.

      In respect to the MMR issue, the media and its talking heads [anti vax believers] have to take full responsibility for the way they treat the topic. Had the media taken a professional stance and conducted thorough background checks on the scientific topic, they would have found that one paper that suggested a link to autism does not a theory make. Scientific bodies were not sold on the idea as there was already a consensus in place, doctors were not withdrawing MMR from the general public based on a single report, the evidence stacked against it was already in place and efficacy was known. Trying to pin the responsibility on Medical research, Science, Government is inadmissible. The media and the internet is responsible for the mass hysteria. surrounding this case. Also the originator of the paper [Wakefield] and his so called peer process must be held solely accountable for their actions. nobody else can be blamed for the actions of a few individuals.

      The public and the talking heads, and a lack of thorough research and understanding of scientific consensus drove this to be the moral panic it became.

      Skeptoid covers this issue quite effectively:

      • TinyCO2 says:

        You’re arguing as if the internet and the media should act at odds to their natural characters.

        The media, even the respectable media are always looking for sensationalism. They have become aware of the science community as a source of that. It often suits the authorities and authors when the media takes a story and jumps to all the conclusions the scientists can’t honestly make. Thus you will see a dramatic headline that isn’t really supported by the article below that was roughly devised from a press release. The press release itself is sometimes a skewed version of the main conclusions of a paper, which often turns out to be a solid but essentially boring bit of work. The newspaper headline might say what everyone wanted to say but couldn’t prove and it certainly draws public attention. Unfortunately for the authorities, newspapers don’t do this on demand and often write their stories up in a way that doesn’t fit the preferred version. What? Did we expect journalists to treat science differently from any other subject?

        Sometimes the media gets the gist of what an author wants them to but it isn’t what the mainstream thinks is suitable. Do you expect journalists to check to see if what they’re reporting on is the consensus? Why should they do that if a paper has been deemed good enough to print in a journal? And even where science isn’t peer reviewed do we really want a small sector of society (scientists) to be completely free of contradicting media attention? Or where an even smaller band of people get to decide what the public can be told or discuss?

        The internet is like journalism but more so. Some of it’s good, some of it’s bad but it will never be managed. It can be a good indicator for what issues need to be addressed but too often the questions raised are not answered, they’re dismissed. Instead of fearing the internet, scientific communicators need to see it as a barometer of public mood and uncertainty. Scientists need to understand what people are asking before they can reply in a persuasive manner. The public do not need the endless repetition of an overly simplified message.

        If the public are led astray it’s largely because there’s something wrong with the scientific system. Scientists have traded too long on their historical reputation and haven’t looked at other fields to see how they build confidence in their work. There seems to be little thought put in to managing what science does, how to achieve quality and how to best present the science to the public, especially when mistakes have been made in the past. The time of uncritical belief in science is over and will never return. Scientists need to accept that they have to work for public trust rather than leave the field clear for conspiracy theorists and journalists.

      • “Do you expect journalists to check to see if what they’re reporting on is the consensus? Why should they do that if a paper has been deemed good enough to print in a journal? ”

        That would be a little thing called journalistic and academic integrity.

        “If the public are led astray it’s largely because there’s something wrong with the scientific system. Scientists have traded too long on their historical reputation and haven’t looked at other fields to see how they build confidence in their work. ”


        If the public is led astray it is because they lack knowledge for how the system functions and make faulty assumptions based on the premise of a single paper reported by uneducated journalists. While science, to paraphrase Beck ‘has squandered its historic reputation through the mismanagement of risk’, it can not be said that there is something wrong with the scientific system because an individual is corrupted by external influences and manages to convince an editor to publish his work. This is nothing short of blaming an entire system for the behaviour of an individual.

        “There seems to be little thought put in to managing what science does, how to achieve quality and how to best present the science to the public, especially when mistakes have been made in the past. The time of uncritical belief in science is over and will never return. Scientists need to accept that they have to work for public trust rather than leave the field clear for conspiracy theorists and journalists.”

        The work that needs doing is an education of the public in how the scientific method actually works, and an honest representation of it by scientific bodies and the media. It’s not exactly difficult to hold back on findings and presentations to the public if the evidence is amiss. Something journalists and Wakefield should have paid attention to in the first place. the consensus was not on their side, yet they sought to expose the information out of personal interests. That is nothing to do with the scientific system, it is personal greed that motivated the action.

        You don’t seem to have bothered reading that article on skeptoid, I recommend you read it thoroughly.

    • Sounds pretty much like today, where people are hysterical about viral outbreaks (despite the fact that a lot of them are hoaxes). Nothing’s really changed.

    • The last part especially resonates with me:

      “There is an increasing use of expert testimony as a way to prod the public into compliance. Politicians and sometimes the scientists themselves like to gloss over the limitations of knowledge. They substitute expert opinion for actual facts but don’t flag up where one stops and the other starts. When the public finds out for themselves and get angry are they guilty of conspiracy ideation, or is there really a conspiracy, albeit one without nefarious intent?”

      It reminds me of the constant berage of propaganda depicting self-anointed “experts” testifying that the COVID-19 vaccines are perfectly “safe and sound”. Then they use that as an excuse to justify the need for more restrictions and vaccine mandates. They substitute the reality that the Coronavirus has not been proven to actually exist via rigorous scientific testing with the disingenuous opinions of faux-experts like Dr. Fauci and others who claim that it does exist. We’ve seen this happen before under the Bush II administration where they manufactured evidence that Iraq and Afghanistan held weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the endless fake wars in the Middle East. We’ve seen the same thing happen during the Spanish Flu pandemic – which is eerily similar to the current pandemic we’re living through – where much of the world suffered lockdowns to curb the spread of a purportedly lethal flu whose origins weren’t even really known, much less it having been proven to actually exist.

      Here in America, Biden recently dictated that businesses employing more than a hundred workers must fully jab their employees for Sars-CoV-2, or at the very least test them weekly to see if they have the virus. He also demanded that the TSA must double the fines for those who refuse to wear face coverings in airports when passing inspection.

      Oh, and if you’re interested about the Spanish Flu psyop, watch this good video:

  10. TinyCO2 says:

    “That would be a little thing called journalistic and academic integrity.”
    Yeah, and I wish for loads of money and world peace but I’m not relying on it. Bemoaning other’s failures might make you feel better but it won’t change things. Also integrity isn’t a universal truth. What you might think is wrongly published, another might vehemently disagree. Often only time can tell which was the right viewpoint. Like it or loath it (and I loath it), the media has a huge influence on our society but without it things would be worse. eg The media undoubtedly made the financial crash much deeper than it needed to be but would we be better off if those things that triggered it had not been made public? Would the public think they didn’t have a right to know? I’m sure that not every claim or idea explored by the press actually turned out to be true but a lot of respectable people were up to no good. Remember too, it was a journalist, going well beyond what the scientists were prepared to do that got Wakefield canned.

    “If the public is led astray it is because they lack knowledge for how the system functions” and I’m sure most companies said much the same when society started to put in laws and regulations on how they should behave. I’m sure they bemoaned the public judging them on the actions of a few rogues. They still do. Does it mean they shouldn’t be set standards or made to prove their claims? Just because science has followed this path for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s not time to change.

    First steps should be to make it so that any paper substantially affecting the public and/or wanting to be considered definitive, should be made free to view and its data and code should be made available also. Where patient confidentiality or something similar is an issue then there would have to be procedures in place but it should still be available to people with the right credentials. I’m sure if the truth about the tiny sample size of Wakefield’s study had been known from the start it would not have achieved anywhere near as much credibility, let alone if Wakefield’s connections to the patients had been visible. I’ll bet a lot of pro vaccination doctors kicked themselves for not checking the details of Wakefield’s study but they didn’t because it was too difficult. Or maybe they did know but a great many other studies are hiding their shortcomings by not revealing the paucity of data. Perhaps scientists didn’t want to rock the boat? At this point I hear a cry of ‘what about intellectual property rights or the cost?’ No problem, if you want to keep stuff to yourself then don’t expect it to be taken seriously. If the authorities wants science to have credibility, it needs to fund and support such an endeavour.

    I did read the article on Skeptoid but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know. You sound like you want the modern world to adapt to how science is traditionally done, rather than adapt science to the 21st century. Good luck with that.

    • All I am hearing is anti science noise, and avoidance of blame where it rightfully belongs.

      Dull stuff really.

    • hybridrogue1 says:


      There is a vast gulf between science and ‘scientism’ –the latter being a ‘belief system’ rather akin to religion in it’s structure.
      You might look up Jacques Ellul and his masterpiece THE TECHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY.
      It is a long difficult read, but well worth the effort.

      • Refomed Conspiracist says:

        “There is a vast gulf between science and ‘scientism’ –the latter being a ‘belief system’ rather akin to religion in it’s structure.”

        Conspiracy Hypothesists are follow a ‘belief system’ also rather akin to religion – don’t question the groupthink of the other accepted Conspiracy Hypothesists, you’ll get ostracised from the group. Accept the literature? Don’t ask too many tricky or contradictory questions or you won’t get continued acceptance by your Conspiracy Hypothesist cult or sect. See everything through your own self-justifying prism. Persecute anyone who dissents. Troll the internet until you beat ‘The Man’ into submission. Retreat into the comfort of some omniscient conspiracy which is persecuting you because it explains why life is Hell; and fight back against the illusory persecutor because it gives focus to your impotence and makes you think you might actually change something and makes you feel like your life has purpose – and when you fail because you have chosen the wrong enemy to fight you can always claim it is because the ‘enemy’ is too strong, they’ve got it all sewn up (not dissimilar to the noxious Faith Healers who blame the cancer-sufferer for not having enough Faith to be cured by the laying on of hands). It’s all so similar to sects, cults and religions like Scientology (who also don’t like the study of the mind either), Mormons, etc.

        You claim to be Freethinkers yet you merely replace belief in a God for belief in a conspiracy.

  11. jsipprell says:

    Like everyone I’ve been aware of conspiracy ideation for quite some time. I just never put much credence in it. I thought it was the result of some form of relatively uncommon psychological pathology. Then I discovered Profession James Henry Fetzer. He’s an articulate credentialed man of impressive intellect. He holds multiple doctorates in domains such as philosophy of science, mind and cognition. He is exceedingly well educated and understands epistemology well. He also believes that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, *all* the moon landings were faked, 9//11 was an inside job, Osama bin Ladin still lives … the list goes on and on and on. I’ve heard him speak in a video and he sounds as though his thinking is generally well organized as well as coming across as *incredibly* sincere and invested in these delusions.

    This drove me to research. Not the veracity of his voluminous claims of course, but how it could be that a seemingly rational man could experience such a significant cognitive deficit yet not be aware of it. He states quite plainly in numerous sources that his epistemology involves reaching a conclusion and then seeking confirmatory evidence — and he doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with this. This is incredibly hard for me to understand, because I cannot fathom thinking that sort of methodology was generally acceptable. I’m not at all suggesting that I am perfectly rational or don’t suffer from the standard issue minor delusions that we all tend to have, but in terms of a general purpose mechanism for reaching conclusions that are more likely true than not … this is either outside my ability to conceptualize or I am experiencing false-consensus bias.

    It would seem then that this is not pathological. It would also seem unrelated causally to intelligence, education or rationality (even if it does appear to effect rationality as a symptom). I’ve seen some mention of a hypothetical crisis of inner self worth or trust which is then projected onto those in the world that are already least trusted; but I am not so sure on the plausibility of that conclusion yet.

    I can see how a prerequisite of political distrust seems logical, but obviously it would only be a small part of a larger causal puzzle. I actually personally have very low trust levels for certain political organizations and individuals, but I also understand that no matter how poorly intentioned an actor is there is still the problem of corralling individual motivations, emotional spectrums and the constant stream of unpredictability injected into life.

    One thing I have noticed is that those afflicted with conspiracy ideation appear to experience some sort of fundamental resorting or reconfiguration of out-group selection such that they become unable to realize that those they hold responsible for ultimately controlling the reigns cannot possibly all be of a single unified purpose or motivation. That is, even the suspected conspirators logically will tend to have the same general set of diverse motivations and background desires as everyone else yet the delusion seems to mask one’s ability to recognize this (or it’s just extended out-group selection ala extreme discrimination).

    I’m wondering if this is really generally increasing in the more well developed cultures over time? As if our progressive information saturation has revealed a previously unknown flaw in human information processing or cognition. Perhaps it’s an information virus? Oh even … dear god … a meta-conspiracy! Uh oh. … Just kidding. 😉


    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Hey Jesse,
      I have debated “Professor” James Fetzer many times on the blogs. I have come to the conclusion that he is actually a government mole, a 5th column agitprop provocateur.

      He pretends at his intelligence and actually hasn’t the slightest idea of what applied physics are. He can quote Newton for hours – but only knows the words by rote. He actually argued that a building at rest had the quality of vector during one of our exchanges! The man is a dangerous charlatan, a public relations man, not a scientist.

      He achieved his objective with you brilliantly. Didn’t he Jesse?

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Pardon, I meant my comments on Fetzer for, jsipprell.

      • jsipprell says:

        Unless his “objective” was to make people curious about the psychology of conspiracy ideation, I’ve no idea what you could mean. My comments on him, aside from the being initial charitable, were not exactly what one might call “flattering”.

        Do you find it interesting that in your denouncement of Fetzer you didn’t mention the fundamental analytic problem corrupting his epistemology, namely the acceptance of affirming the consequent as being either equivalent, conforming or reducing to modus ponens instead of actually being fallacious?

        That is the a greater problem than all the specific physics knowledge or other intellectual capacities one might find lacking in a given individual.

    • jenn says:

      Jesse – I think most people who understand our control system do not blame the ‘little guy’ for the ‘conspiracy’ and intent. They, like us all, are being lied to. Agenda 21 is carried out on a municipal under the guise of ‘sustainability’. They think what they’re doing will benefit future generations and have been told they are. The guys at the top, very, very top, hold the intent. The illuminati. The people who carry out the agenda are the freemasons. That is why there is a masonic hall in almost every town/city. That is why when you look at the history of prominent figures in society, most were average people who after joining the masons, were suddenly in positions of authority or power. It’s pretty clear how the pyramid works. You and I are on the bottom, the people carrying out the agenda are a step above us, but still very low in the pyramid. You can tell what professions are essential to maintaining our ‘reality’ by how much they make. Public servants, lawyers, judges, politicians. People in the entertainment industry (actors, sports, etc.) get paid exorbitant amounts off money because they are instrumental in keeping the ‘division of the people’ ‘real’ and to keep us from realizing we’re all one & together we have immense power.

      • This is what happens when the school system fails society, you end up with a gullible citizenship who believe the crank stories of rednecks and chavs like Alex Jones and David Icke.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “This is what happens when the school system fails society..”~conspiracykiller

        Yes, this is what happens when the school system is purposely hamstrung by the introduction of the Prussian Kindergarten system of schooling, which is not education but programming and conditioning to produce a compliant population in the thrall of Authority.
        [See: Antony Sutton, SKULL & BONES -PDF available free on web — also; Iserbyt THE DUMBING DOWN OF AMERICA]


      • That would include the likes of you seeing as you are constantly espousing the pessimistic and nonsense conspiracy theories that Icke and Jones are fond of.

        You seem to read anything that falls into your confirmation bias and likely assume that makes you well read and educated. All it really does is make you more entrenched and paranoid about the world you live in, I bet your parties are suicidal.

      • jenn says:

        Conspiracykiller – who are Alex Jones & David Icke?? *scratches head* You can’t insult me by saying I know who those guys are when none of my research included anything by those names. Plus, I was talking to Jesse, who said everyone is in on the intent and I was pointing out that it’s not true. Being paid to rebut everything someone has said against your bosses, shows loyalty on your part. It must be hard turning your back on your fellow human beings, and knowing that you’re part of the problem and not the solution. I really hope the money is worth your conscience. I know I couldn’t do what you do because (a) I’m too smart and (2) I care too much, even about people like you.

      • “Being paid to rebut everything someone has said against your bosses, shows loyalty on your part. ”
        wow, I just got accused of being paid to laugh at cranks on the internet. ha ha ha

        ” It must be hard turning your back on your fellow human beings, and knowing that you’re part of the problem and not the solution. ”

        You have no idea what good I do in the world, step down from your pedestal. Plus your conspiracy theories are all fantasy so I have no idea how me ridiculing your crazy beliefs somehow translates.

        I think (a) is extremely debatable.

      • jenn says:

        Looool!!! Manipulating your readers minds to not think for themselves is acting against humanity. Doesn’t matter how many ‘good’ things you *might* do. You admitted to me in march that you’re paid for your research, lol 🙂 researching the propaganda you’ve been fed since childhood is NOT research.

        There are tons of facts & evidence to the theories you laugh at – oh wait! That would make them not theories anymore lmao. Your comebacks are pretty intelligent and full of persuading arguments lmao. You make me smile…and shake my head hahaha

      • “Manipulating your readers minds”
        It’s not my blog.

        “You admitted to me in march that you’re paid for your research, lol”
        I think you might be getting a bit confused sweetheart.

        You wouldn’t know what was a convincing argument or a proven fact if it slapped you upside the head.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        The ‘killer-guy’ here keeps repeating the charge of “confirmation bias”, when he is obviously a product of that very thing. He has no reasonable debating skills, just jive ass insults and scripts from his Party Line.

        He gets paid to laugh? If he gets anything for his gatekeeping here he should be fired.
        His reading comprehension skills are deplorable because he keeps asserting that we are paranoid of society [?] While the actual fact is we are against those who manipulate the society with bullshit PR, psyops, and violent police tactics.

        Everything is just peachy on sugar mountain with the barkers and the colored balloons, in the delusional world of the ‘killer-guy’.

      • jenn says:

        Very true 😉 I know I’m wasting my breath & time 😉 every valid point we make falls upon daftness. And there are no intelligent responses from him either. He’s a protector of his propaganda, holds it very close to his heart. I just wish we didn’t have to fight each other and I wish people like this weren’t propogating the bullshit for $$. There are more honorable jobs out there. Maybe he thinks he’s doing good and his slave masters will be nicer to him, but that’s sheer delusion at the very best. He will be put in the same boat as us no matter how hard he plays their side. 😦

      • Crank Magnetism in effect y’all.

      • jenn says:

        Scientific terminology at its best right here lmao!!!

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Look up ‘Truth and Shadows’ Jenn, it’s the best blog on the net as far as 9/11 research.
        I know you would enjoy the discussions there.
        Try this one for a starter:


      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Hell is empty, the devils are here”~Shakespeare

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Of course Jenn,

        We can’t blame the killer clown, and must forgive his belligerent transgressions and anger. After all he has no free will, and he knows this if he has studied the works of the professors he so closely guards and defends here. He is just a biological automaton reacting to the stimuli of his environment according to his genetic makeup and predispositions.
        In effect as their story goes, we are all programmed by the hand of fate, and there is no escape but to try to understand this.


      • jenn says:

        {{{BIG GRIN}}} I know 😀 it’s sad but true. Luckily, I am very understanding lol

      • aww how cute, the crazy people are making friends.

      • Refomed Conspiracist says:

        “Hell is empty, the devils are here”~Shakespeare

        Is quoting Shakespeare what now passes for evidence in the US?

        ‘Freethinkers strive to build their opinions independent of the intellectually limiting effects of conventional wisdom, popular culture, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas.’

        Or not, apparently.

  12. hybridrogue1 says:

    “Every time someone makes fun of the idea of “conspiracy theories” they are exhibiting a conditioned response – like salivating when they hear a bell or believing a TV news program.” ~Craig McKee


  13. hybridrogue1 says:

    Rather than ‘The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories’
    this blog should be ‘The Conspiracy Psychology Theories’


  14. hybridrogue1 says:

    What we have here on ‘The Conspiracy of Psychology Theories’ is:

    Design masquerading as Diagnosis – social engineering in the guise of social analysis, ie; psychologism and scientism, a cultist pretense to science. In essence, a theology.

    Those who grasp history, especially the last 200 years of our contemporary era will note that there have been ‘predictions’ that have come to pass. A rational person would thus conclude that the only way to predict the future is to engineer it. The only caveat to that is to point out that there have been those who have studied the social engineers and discovered the agenda, such as Huxley, and Orwell who both gave dire warnings as to this future we now inhabit.

    So here, where the social engineers gather to design their glorious despotic future of a world raped and stripped of its free will; we find a place of study, where we can see the latest trends in the social engineering agenda.


  15. Respectfully, I have a question for those who are attempting to put Mr. Killer in his place through words, arguments, references, etc:

    Why exactly do you feel that his utter bullcrap deserves your rebuttal, your energy, your intellect or your emotional investment?

    He is obviously a big time douchebag no matter what kind of degree he holds (my guess is that he has a BS, because that is what he is dishing out)

    He is obviously incapable of carrying on valid and well thought out arguments…

    He obviously has an agenda, whether paid for or not…

    So, why can’t you just let him sit in the warmness of his own poop in front of his mirror while telling himself how smart and knowledgeable he is? Aren’t you just elevating his rhetoric by acknowledging and humoring him?

    • Refomed Conspiracist says:

      Ooh look! An ad hominem attack! Always the best form of debate – shout a little louder, be a bit more insulting, it will only improve your argument.

      I’m guessing you’re an American – your debating technique is typical of the way you and your fellow citizens have been brainwashed and programmed by your Government to behave when confronted with a position you with which you disagree: shout, insult, avoid the actual subject…

      (CK hasn’t mentioned any degree he may or may not hold – clearly Lilaleo couldn’t be bothered to do the research – not a good example of Freethinking!)

      • Look at you two… (or is it you one?) You’re giddy like two bored fisherman who think they caught something…

        No, thank you. I will not play the game… I said my peace, which was directed to people arguing with you.

        Have a great day.

        (What does “Refomed” mean by the way?)

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        Lilaleo, you’re the one playing. You insult and shout and then, passive-aggressive, declare ‘I will not play the game’.

        I think you know full well ‘Refomed’ was merely a typo (unless you really couldn’t work that out – which explains why you’re a Conspiracy Hypothesist) unlike in your comment…

        …where you use the phrase ‘I said my peace’. Was this part of an act of Christian worship or ignorance of the difference between ‘peace’ and ‘piece’?

        I do love that your paranoia is such that you think CK and I are actually the same person: a snapshot of your worldview in microcosm!

        I now see why CK mocks the afflicted.

        The big questions: will you bite, will you play or will you take your ball and skulk off?

      • “I said my peace,”

        I think you meant piece dearest.

      • Looks like a drive by shooting RC, typical weak kneed conspiracist mouthing off to make themselves feel better.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        I will answer Lilaleo’s very valid question and observations.

        We do not argue with skeptitard flatulence to change the mind of the propagandists, we make the argument to the candid world to reveal the disingenuous rhetorical bullshit for what it is.

        I have no delusions that I could change the killer clowns mind – I don’t think he even has one to change. I make my arguments to the general readership, those that are still sane in this pathological society. As rare as the critical self thinking individual might be in this postmodern madhouse called “civilization”, these individuals need to reassured that they are not alone.

        So, let us wait for the killer clown to pop like the weasel out of his jack-in-the-box. I have likely turned the handle enough times…

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        You do write with such wonderfully superfluous verbosity Mr. Rogue!

        ‘Skeptitard flatulence’ is particularly amusing – and, of course, another of the standard ad hominem attacks which are expected from Conspiracy Hypothesists.

        As is ‘I don’t think he [killer clowns mind – sic] even has one to change’.

        As is ‘like the weasel out of his jack-in-the-box’.

        You do like to insult…

        I also rather like your use of ‘disingenuous rhetorical bullshit’ (such a pity you feel the need to resort to profanity – also somewhat tautological but you got to use another long word); ‘pathological society’ (somewhat without real meaning); ‘postmodern madhouse’ (also somewhat devoid of meaning – what have you got against Samuel Beckett!)

        Of course, pathological, sane, disingenuous, rhetoric, and bullshit are merely your opinions and examples, ironically, of nothing more than ‘disingenuous rhetoric’: you do like using long words – long words always work well to convince the masses that there is a greater intelligence at work than there really is – politicians have been using this trick to manipulate the masses for decades.

        You’re following in some interesting footsteps there!

        ‘As rare as the critical self thinking individual might be in this […] “civilization” ‘. And here we reach the real issue: you believe yourself to be a ‘critical self-thinking individual’, so you think yourself something ‘rare’ – something special, different, important, as opposed to being just one amongst the 7 billion meaningless lives on the planet (except that includes non-Americans – so it’s really you wanting to be one amongst the 300 million). “These individuals need to reassured that they are not alone”, and you, presumably, are just the one to lead them out of the wilderness into your great Revelation – revealing the ‘truth’ to them like some latter day John the Divine or Jim Jones!

        It’s just like a secular cult!

      • jenn says:

        I think it’s very amusing how yesterday I pointed out the use of ad hominen attacks by killer clown (as well as bandwagon fallacy) and now, you seem to have latched onto the term as a new favourite…interesting psychology of the anti-conspiracy agents.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        I think rather that a typo, he means “Reamed Conspiracist”

        By the way there is no such word as “conspiracist” in the English language – it is a cult term used by these postmodernist shamans who call themselves “psychologists”.

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        “I think rather that a typo, he means “Reamed Conspiracist”

        Presumably you mean ‘rather than’.

        ‘Reamed Conspiracist’ – another personal attack, rather than objective argument. And why ‘reamed’, which, where I come from, refers to the foam on top of a pint.

        ‘a cult term used by these postmodernist shamans’ – yet another example of excessive verbiage – who are you trying to prove your intelligence to? Yourself or your followers? ‘Postmodernist shamans’ is, yet again, an example of meaningless phraseology. (Faith Healers who reject James Joyce and Arnold Schoenberg?)

        “By the way there is no such word as “conspiracist” in the English language – it is a cult term used by these postmodernist shamans who call themselves “psychologists”.”

        There is, of course, a word ‘conspiracist’ in the English language both in the OED and on Wiktionary.

        It is you who, in a wonderful example of Newspeak, is trying to excise perfectly legitimate words (conspiracists) from the language in order to reduce the abilty to argue a point, as is your disputing of the entire field of psychology. Big Brother (or Stalin) would be proud of you!!!

    • Oh look I have another fan.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Don’t be naive, you’re looking in the mirror again. That’s no fan, it’s the reverse image of your own face.

        Eww…spooky aye?

    • jenn says:

      Lol, the simple answer lilaleo is: comedic relief, lmao. It’s very funny & entertaining 😉

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        There is that too, the killer clown is as funny as a monkey with his hand caught in a coconut, not wanting to let go of the treats the trapper put in the nut. They just try to struggle away with the coconut and are weighted down and get captured.

      • In that case, since Rob, the “flounder” of this site, calls himself “Conspiracy Theory Theorist”, I am hereby declaring Hybridrogue1 and Jenn and myself (if I may) as Conspiracy Theory Theorist Theorist.

      • futuret says:


      • Look at the academic company being kept by the conspiracists, it’s almost as if Einstein, Fermi, Feynman and Newton shat on 4 frogs and let them loose on the internet.

        So much back slapping I am starting to see red hands.

      • Jenn says:

        OMG, you are soooooo funny!!! 🙂 Made my afternoon, thanks, hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “In that case, since Rob, the “flounder” of this site, calls himself “Conspiracy Theory Theorist”, I am hereby declaring Hybridrogue1 and Jenn and myself (if I may) as Conspiracy Theory Theorist Theorist.”~Lilaleo

        And I double down that bet and say I am a Conspiracy Theory Theorist Theorist Theorist Theorist Theorist …and a neomodernist conspiracist conspirasist master X15… with pepper on it.

        This isn’t my spell checker, this is the Internet/Wordpress spellchecker, and it has lots of wiggly red lines under all sorts of terms bandied about here.

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        What is your obsession with Neomodernism: a late 90s school or art and architecture.

    • “By the way there is no such word as “conspiracist” in the English language – it is a cult term used by these postmodernist shamans who call themselves “psychologists”.”

      Oh look who would believe it, you are wrong yet again. I’ve lost count for the number of false claims you have made on these blogs.

      Oxford English dictionary.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Oh look who would believe it, you are wrong yet again”

        What do you mean “again” monkeyboy?

        My spellchecker says there’s no such word. I say it is a neomodernist term of Newspeak which your cult made up. The word doesn’t appear in my Websters New World Dictionary either. And yes I coined “neomodernist” to show we can all play the lexicon game.

      • lol your spell checker doesn’t show it !!

        PS: The Oxford ENGLISH dictionary classifies the word, you claimed there was no ENGLISH word as ‘conspiracist’.

        It must be unbearable being so wrong all the time.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      But Refoamed Conspicuous,

      This is the tone of the blog as set by your pal the killer clown. What are you bitching at the other guests for? We are just playing by the rules of the game here?

      If your diaper is soggy and itchy run to mamma, don’t cry to me.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        The above is in answer to the comment of Refoamed Conspicuous at August 12, 2014 at 7:22 pm

        “It must be unbearable being so wrong all the time.” ~killer clown
        I don’t know, you tell me monkeyboy.

        “So much back slapping I am starting to see red hands.”~killer clown

        You must be hallucinating again, all I see is black letters on a white background here.

      • Reformed Conspiracist says:

        But, of course, no actual answers…. merely empty verbiage.

  16. Reformed Conspiracist says:

    Actually, this is not the tone of the blog as set by purported pal Killer Clown – this is the tone set by someone ‘Ray’ as the first commenter (who was pro-Conspiracy Hypothesis – presumably you give him a free pass as he toed your Party Line).

    The tone of the blog was set by the original article: a serious and level-headed question asking ‘Should conspiracy theory research inform public policy?’ with specific reference to the British MMR vaccine controversy. This original question, and the specific issue it refers to, have barely been mentioned by the commenters who have criticised the original blog-author, questioned their funding, qualifications, etc. but not been directly addressed.

    I would suggest that, in your desperate narcissistic self-regard, you have ignored the original game entirely and decided everybody should play yours instead.

    Of course, yet again, you can only resort to personal abuse because your arguments lack real weight or merit.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      Your assertion as to proximate cause doesn’t apply to the first words written to me by the killer clown, who said:
      conspiracykiller says on August 9, 2014 at 1:44 am:
      “oh look another conspiracy crank has chimed in. Must be terrible living in that paranoid nightmare you create for yourself.”

      And on this page his first reference to me is to call me “hydro knob” in a comment to Jenn.
      “hydro knob” is clearly ad hominem, regardless of my opinion of his reading comprehension skills. If you think this creature killer clown is showing any form of proper web etiquette or civility then you are as psychotic as he is.

      • hydro knob was used a long time after you had mumbled on and on over the blog behaving in the same manner. Although granted your point about me calling you a crank on my first comment is true. Although all anyone has to do is read your comments throughout after me calling you a crank and I will be shown correct.

  17. hybridrogue1 says:

    “What is your obsession with Neomodernism: a late 90s school or art and architecture.” ~Refoamed Conspicuous

    I am just using my own lexicon here, where the term “conspiracy” has been redefined as a lunatic idea. All I have encountered here in the comments from you cultists is Newspeak, and Neurolinguistic programming.

    I have made several comments of substance only to be rebuked by insult and jive ass unsubstantiated bullshit from authority worshiping conformists. If it is tit-for-tat games you want, and it is obvious that it is, then that’s what you will get back.

  18. Hey, Reformed Conspiracist…

    How were you “reformed”? Did you have to take classes, go to a church or a school, follow a ten step program, self help books??? Any pointers for us? If you can please point in the right direction… That’d be just fantastic. Thanks a bunch in advance…

    • If you chat long enough with crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists with no evidence it’s enough to make you see sense and move past the anti authoritarian teenage anguish exhibited by you guys.

      • Oh… You have been reformed as well, killer?

      • I used to believe in the stupid shit you guys do when I was young, but being an adult usually requires a person to get educated and learn how to discern facts from fiction. Not everyone manages to grow out their teenage thinking though, as is exhibited by the delusional conspiracy theorising all over the pages on this blog and the internet.

      • So, you don’t believe in ANY conspiracies whatsoever?… Even though you believed in them when you were young?… That is some serious growing up you have done… May I ask how old you are?

      • And a follow up question: Who are the “you guys”?

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Oh I see killer guy, you see being anti-authoritarian as teenage angst, as paranoid.
        This is the sort of frank admission one finally gets from an authoritarian when he has been spun around enough times and becomes fatigued.

        Your claim of “no evidence” is just tired conformist mantra. It is the blindness of arrogance nurtured by the worship of authority.

        As far as Lialeo’s questions as to how to be reformed, I am sure they are rhetorical and he knows full well how to be reprogrammed by the institutions of academia, how to relearn to go along to get along with the herd. All of us forced into mandatory conditioning in middle school know the program, and how ‘sit down and shut up’ is the first and proximate lesson to be learned. Then you are ‘taught’ what to think, not how to think, and all of this is reinforced by all the mechanisms of the Public Relations Regime, and the conformist lessons of entertainment, and the conditioning to be a consumer of frivolity.

        Like I said, there’s no business like bullshit – it’s the only game that pays a living wage in the fucked up world.

      • In all honesty it was my scientific education that prompted me to re evaluate my beliefs. I realised I put far too much weight in anecdotes and unproven claims that weren’t substantiated. I decided that without evidence it is always best to reserve judgement and doubt the claims until someone can categorically prove it. Noone has ever proven a conspiracy theory I used to believe in, and I believed in loads of them.

        I am unwilling to give out my personal details and age, i’m sure you understand why. This is after all the internet and I don’t what kind of lunatics read and comment on this page.

      • The you guys is conspiracy theorists.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “If you chat long enough with crazy paranoid conspiracy theorists.”~conspiracykiller

        You don’t seem to appreciate that ‘paranoia’ is a delusional condition where an individual believes that he is the prime target, that he has been chosen to be tormented. It is not a condition having to do with ‘anti-authoritarian’ or a society at large under despotism.

        Those who have discovered structural conspiracy to be the case, do not feel nor believe that they have been chosen personally for torment and mistreatment, they think that the authorities are out to rule everyone with an iron fist, and crush free will and destroy dissidence.

      • Cool story.

        Doesn’t reflect the paranoid crap you post on here though.

    • Not divulging your age is perfectly fine….


      Do you believe in the existence of propaganda, killer? Do you believe that governments, institutions, churches lie to the people? Do you believe scientists lie to the people? Do you believe people lie to people?


      Would you give me a few examples (or at least one) of stuff that you used to believe in, but no longer do due to your scientific education?


      • “Do you believe in the existence of propaganda, killer?”

        I know it exists, and I also certain people use it.

        ” Do you believe that governments, institutions, churches lie to the people?”
        I am an atheist so of course I consider religious institutions as fraudulent, however not all religious people are, governments can lie, and specific government members do so more than others World wide.

        ” Do you believe scientists lie to the people?”

        Some may well do, most do not.

        “Do you believe people lie to people?”

        Yes, everyone lies in some form at some time, some more than others, some more serious than others.

        All this said, it’s meaningless unless there is specific evidence for lies for specific events and people. Without evidence of the deceit there is only speculation and anecdote.

      • Ok… I’ll agree to disagree on your quantifiers, but in principle, we seem to agree that lies are common place, or at least “some” definitely do it…

        So, if you were, just for the argument’s sake, to discover, through scientific, forensic and undeniable evidence, that what you were told is a lie… You did not discover the truth, but just the fact that the lie is a lie…. Even if you were certain that you shall never get beyond “speculation and anecdote” in knowing the elusive “truth”… You are telling me that you feel no need, no desire, no curiosity, no human interest, no survival instinct to at least attempt to discover the truth???

        As a self-proclaimed atheist, you must at least agree that those popes and saints and rabbis and caliphs and kings and bishops and priests have been pretty darn cheeky throughout the ages about what they told people… No???

      • If all one can manage to uncover is speculation about deceit for a specific nefarious claim then quite honestly there’s no case to make. One could keep digging and digging for dirt and still turn nothing up, show innocence, or conversely come up with a great news story. However, until someone actually did that then there’s nothing anyone can say to show intent of harm. Speculation does not prove intent, it’s simply defamation without evidence when accusing a person or an agency of intentional harm.

        Of course I think that religious institutions are shady for all the stories they tell people. However, here’s the problem, they actually believe their delusional stories so there is a commonality there with Conspiracy theorists who believe their own stories to be true without evidence. Thankfully Conspiracy theorists seem to be a small minority of the population who hold little power or sway unlike the church, therefore their actual level of impact on society with their stories are small.relatively speaking. However, if conspiratorial thinking on the level displayed on this blog was the majority, I think we would see behaviour by them no different to the war mongers conspiracy theorists detest. Warring on people who disagreed with their beliefs, and hurting or killing anyone they speculated as a threat or causing harm with intent.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “However, if conspiratorial thinking on the level displayed on this blog was the majority, I think we would see behaviour by them no different to the war mongers conspiracy theorists detest. Warring on people who disagreed with their beliefs, and hurting or killing anyone they speculated as a threat or causing harm with intent.”~killer guy

        This is a weird speculative statement. What about ‘conspiracy theorists’ gives you the impression that they are violent and warlike? There are none more warlike than the status quo that the typical ‘conspiracy theorist’ see as the perpetrators of the conspiracy.

        Also, it is pure speculation on your part that ‘conspiracy theorists’ are a small minority of the population. It is more likely that those who hold the view that the government has conspired to disparage their rights and make war for profit and power are twice the number of true believers in the ‘good intent’ of the government.

        “US & UK studies: those who “buy’ mainstream ‘lies’ are the ‘crazies’ – conspiracy theorists are ‘saner’, reflect ‘conventional wisdom”
        Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

        The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

        The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to (believe) so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.
        Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
        Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true.”

      • Wow you even used the misinterpreted Barrett comments he made about a paper originally posted here. That was addressed last year.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Wow you even used the misinterpreted Barrett comments he made about a paper originally posted here. That was addressed last year.”~killer guy

        Yea read that complaining about Barrett by Wood. Mike is obviously upset that his information can be interpreted to mean something other than he hoped to convey. This is what is happening here. You are trying to convey something, but it false flat as to your intent – that is, it doesn’t add up. Mike continues to use the term “conspiracy theory” as an insult and slur while not addressing any of the actual facts about building 7. Barrett used verbatum quotes from Mike’s article, Mike wants to say they are out of context with what he was trying to say – but it doesn’t matter what the context of what he was trying to say, what matters is what the facts are that he used to come to his bogus conclusions.

        You continue on the same route here. You call your ‘interpretation’ of the facts the facts themselves. No the facts are the facts themselves, your interpretation is your opinion as to what the facts are. But your interpretations are biased at the beginning of your thought processes, just like Mike’s are; because anyone who can parse a conspiracy from whatever facts are available is pro forma, “crazy” so their interpretation is wrong regardless if there interpretation accounts for those facts in a more reasonable fashion.

        And this is the classical circular argument: if one is deemed insane, then whatever they say must be insane, then regardless of the reasonableness of their argument the argument still is insane.

        Now, have you ever heard an argument from Mr Wood on the technical issues of engineering and construction, or the techniques of explosive demolition? No these are not his fields of expertise, his expertise is “mental health” and his specialty is in charging anyone who “believes in” conspiracy theory is pro forma nuts. This is automatic and “self evident” according to his programming. But the fact IS that he approaches the issue of the destruction of Bldg 7 from a position of technical ignorance, relying on the official pronouncements of NIST. This is another logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.

        So we have a circular argument supported by an appeal to authority, presented by a “authority” tripling down the whole absurdity that this website represents.

  19. hybridrogue1 says:

    By the way I thought ‘Waiting for Godot’ and ‘Endgame’ were brilliant in their transcendental absurdity.
    These plays seem to sum up the sociopolitical nature of the late 20th – early 21st century quite well.

    If you people want to put all your eggs in the psychology basket, and give short shrift to study of the actual events that have taken place through deep state conspiracies, that is your own undoing. But do not expect to go unopposed by those of us who have looked behind the veil of the national security state now bloomed into a panoptic maximum security state intent on full spectrum dominance.
    If you think a culture that is predicated on war, aggression, rape, institutionalized violence, and police state oppression is not a pathological society, then there is no coming to terms with your brainwashed automatons.

  20. hybridrogue1 says:

    “Noone has ever proven a conspiracy theory I used to believe in, and I believed in loads of them.” ~conspiracykiller

    Well maybe you believed in some seriously stupid conspiracies. That does not mean that all conspiracies are simply based on anecdotes and unproven claims that aren’t substantiated.

    You aren’t even willing to disclose what field of “science” you were educated in? What are you afraid such a disclosure might reveal?

    I am having a private discussion with Anthony Lantain at this time that has been very congenial and productive. But he did not begin our conversation with insults and badgering slurs. When I am shown the modicum of respect I return in kind. If you do not see your own tendency towards belligerence, perhaps you should pause for some self introspection.

    • I believed in the stuff you still believe, really stupid.

      What I do is of no concern to you, and to be fair the last person on Earth I would disclose information to is you.

      • I am making an effort to understand your point of view by asking you what you used to believe in and no longer believe… But, you seem to be already convinced that you know what we, the “conspiracists”, believe in.

        Was there a study made (by GoldsmithsU or another U) that concluded that all people who fit the “conspiracist” profile believe in the same things? Are “us guys” all categorized as nut jobs, tinfoil hats, crackpots???

        On a side note, I categorically object to the word “conspiracist” and I would suggest people would stop using it as it is nothing but utter newspeak.

        The -ist suffix is defined as follows:

        denoting an adherent of a system of beliefs, principles, etc., expressed by nouns ending in – ism.
        denoting a member of a profession or business activity.

        In regards to definition 1, even the same Oxford Dictionary cited above (which flaunts the tag line “Language Matters” under its logo) does not have the word CONSPIRACISM…. No -ism, ergo no -ist.

        As for the second meaning… It requires one to “practice” conspiracy and not “think about or investigate conspiracies”. And, there is already very appropriate, commonly used word for hat which is in EVERY dictionary known to mankind: CONSPIRATOR!!!

      • conspiracist, n. and adj.

        Pronunciation: Brit. /kənˈspɪrəsɪst/ , U.S. /kənˈspɪrəsəst/
        Etymology: < conspiracy n. + -ist suffix. Compare later conspiracism n.
        A. n.

        A conspiracy theorist; a believer in or advocate of conspiracism.

        1975 Washington Post 17 Sept. a27/1 Second-order conspiracists might contend that American intelligence authorities deliberately withheld information.
        1991 Sunday Tel. 1 Sept. 17/1 The conspiracists..are never satisfied with an established and uncontroversial explanation. For them nothing can be what it seems.
        2001 U.S. News & World Rep. 19 Feb. 67/3 Marvel as conspiracists discern dark links between the World Bank, the United Nations, and figures as diverse as Clinton, Bush, and Prince Charles.
        (Hide quotations)

        B. adj. (attrib.).

        Of, designating, or characteristic of a conspiracist; that believes in or advocates conspiracism.

        1975 Fond du Lac (Wisconsin) Reporter 20 Sept. 4/3 Conspiracist lecturers continue to draw crowds on college campuses.
        1985 F. P. Mintz Liberty Lobby & Amer. Right i. 23 The demise of this once widely read periodical signified the discrediting of conspiracist anti-Semitic nativism.
        1999 Observer (Nexis) 11 July 28 What..of the favourite conspiracist explanation of the British gold sales, that it is a plot to shore up the euro?

      • jenn says:

        My Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary of the English language – from 1907 – does not have the words ‘conspiracist’ or ‘conspiracy theorist’ in it. It’s a new term of the 20th century.

      • jenn says:

        My Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary of the English language – from 1907 – doesn’t have conspiracism either (which by the way, this site’s spellcheck doesn’t acknowledge either).

      • conspiracism, n.

        Pronunciation: Brit. /kənˈspɪrəsɪz(ə)m/ , U.S. /kənˈspɪrəˌsɪz(ə)m/
        Etymology: < conspiracy n. + -ism suffix. Compare earlier conspiracist n.

        The belief that major historical and political events are brought about as the result of a conspiracy between interested parties, or are manipulated by or on behalf of an unknown group of influential people; belief in or advocacy of conspiracy theories.

        1985 F. P. Mintz Liberty Lobby & Amer. Right Introd. 5 Liberty Lobby voiced racist and anti-Semitic beliefs in addition to conspiracism.
        1991 Sunday Tel. 1 Sept. 17/2 At the heart of the belief that modern history is not a chapter of accidents; are unfolding according to the plans of the people who secretly rule the world.
        2001 Reason (Nexis) Dec. 63 Occidentalist notions of power in the West..are dominated by an obsessive conspiracism that sees hidden plots..everywhere.

      • I couldn’t find a definition for “douchebagism” in Oxford Dictionary… But, I am sure it’s a word…. Hmmmm…

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        And “conspiratard” … this is now a word because it has been coined and used right here in 2014 – perhaps earlier by the great and renowned scholar of scrotumism ‘conspiracy theorist’. The Scrotumist Society began as a subsidiary of Penologists United Church in Botswana Antarctica in 1310 when a Japanese whaling boat full of Penologist missionaries was blown off coarse by a typhoon and the survivors were stranded on a frozen UFO landing strip imported from ancient Peru by the Lingum worshiping troglodites banned by Pope Numbskulius V, a time traveler from Neptune.
        How the Scrotumist Society came to Britain is a mystery often only explained as a “conspiratard miracle”.

        However this etymology is disputed in several dialects of Semitic languages such as Arabic, and Vespuci; Hebrew scholars remain divided themselves, and wonder if it has something to do with sunstroke, also known as “dickshining” as translated from ancient Khazarian.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        There is certainly a flare for belligerent nomenclature on this blog.
        Here we have our intellectual giant ‘conspiracykiller’ giving us lessons on the etymology of Newspeak lexicon, with words such as “conspiratard” and “conspiratist”.
        And on another thread here I encountered a creature calling itself, AntiFuckWit, which uses the term “fucktard” – which is I suppose a variant of “conspiratard” and a more civilized version of ‘conspiratist’ … [?]

        AntiFuckWit’s comments can be found here:



        “A paranoid shut in that believes in almost all of the conspiracy theories on the internet. Usually Alex Jones junkies even though they claim they are not. Cannot be spotted in the wild, instead seen roaming message boards and blogs attempting to spread their disease of paranoia. Should be treated with massive anxiolytics as that would end their belief in crazy stuff but that would require them to trust doctors which of course they don’t (they are Illuminati mind control shills).
        Sane dude: Wow that earthquake in Japan was devastating

        Conspiratard: Yeah makes you wonder who was behind it (hmm HAARP, wink wink)

        Sane dude #2: WTF are you talking about? It was an earthquake idiot.

        Conspiratard: Yeah and the twin towers were brought down by a couple of guys with box cutters. You sheep! Do your own research!! Don’t drink fluorinated water either!! Ahhh!!!”

        And before you start crying that website is a page that describes slang words, you’ve heard of slang before yes ?

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      I never “cry” about anything killer guy, but I will say that the abyss between the Oxford Dictionary and the Urban is a leap best attempted by an Olympic long jumper; which was once call the broad-jump until the days of Feminism.
      My best leap in HS was 23′ 8″ … I still prefer more standard nomenclature however.
      A subjective call to be sure, and matter of taste and sophistication one might argue. If one were to argue about such trivia and be serious about it that is.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        I would still note that the term “conspiratard” and “fucktard” are clearly belligerent language used by overly emotional juvenile individuals that have little substance to draw on.

        “Presenting a passionate argument is not a mistake. It is having nothing else that is the mistake.”~Anthony Weston, author of ‘A RULEBOOK FOR ARGUMENTS’

        Presenting page after page of proofs of definitions is pretense as far as argumentum is concerned. It is an admission that there is no substance to your arguments, and an overcompensation of a frail ego.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        You know killer guy, I didn’t come here to this blog with the intent to trade barbs, match wits, play games of one-upmanship, or insult anybody. I don’t have an aggressive personality, nor am I passive aggressive. I can be assertive when pushed and tugged on, and when faced with bullying belligerence I can indeed give back equally what is given.

        The whole tenor of this blog The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories, is insulting to not only honest research and the attempt to ascertain what is really happening in this world, to this planet and all it’s inhabitants, not only the human race, but every living thing that has been put in peril.

        The ‘Coincidence Theorists’ here submit that everything that happens sociopolitically is just happenstance, as that one little blurb on “conspirisists” says “happening by accident”, yes the ‘muddling view of history’, as if planning is nonexistent. As if covert planning is some sort of delusion. It’s like asserting that the Golden Gate Bridge just fell out of the sky, or assembled itself by ‘happenstance’. Human beings plan things. This idea seems to shock and upset some naive participants of this forum.

        Are the “anti-conspiracists” seriously going to deny that the Intelligence agencies of the US do not in fact carry out covert operations? Is it not a proven historical fact that such operations are standard procedures government? Even the nomenclature of such operations are well known; “modified limited hangout”, “revetments” “plausible deniability”, “executive action”, “wet work”, “enhanced interrogation”…etc.

        These anti-conspiracist “psychologists” are playing Orwellian patty-cake with a naive and jejune public, feeding them rhetorical pablum.

        These are not empty metaphors to the thinking displayed here by the people providing this forum, the advocates of ‘anti-conspiratism’. It is an absurd belief system and a false paradigm. Not only is it false but it is manic and aggressive. It disabuses free thinking and the individual’s right to do that thinking for themselves. The point of view here is that any self defense against this aggression by a pathological obsession to control our thinking and actions even in our own personal lives is an attack. It is Orwellian in turning black-to-white, war-to-peace, love-to-hate, attack-to-defense, and wrong-to-right.

        Continuing to demonize ‘conspiracy theory’ as a preternatural, perpetual bête noire is a form of hysteria, or a glaze of disingenuous agitprop. The “therapy” offered here to accept and love Big Brother cannot be accepted by sane human beings who wish to remain sane.

  21. hybridrogue1 says:

    “Cool story. Doesn’t reflect the paranoid crap you post on here though.”~conspiracykiller

    It is not a “story”, and using the term ‘paranoid improperly again is no sign of intelligence.

  22. hybridrogue1 says:

    So your “scientific education” lead you to believe in authoritarianism. Aye Conspiracykiller?
    That must have been one Hell of an educational program. Did you do dissection on living human beings to graduate?

    • No, but I doubt explaining it to you would serve any purpose.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        We finally agree on something killer guy, nothing you can say to me would serve any purpose. You have already said enough.
        As I previously explained my inquiry here is not meant to change your mind or influence you in any way. You have already been programmed and, as Huxley said, “enjoy your servitude.
        This conversation has been for the elucidation of the sane readership that might happen upon this page.

      • jenn says:

        CK – I have thoroughly enjoyed every single one of Hybridrogue’s comments. It’s ironic you wrote: ” The only thing you have elucidated thus far is fear, paranoia and distrust of everything that doesn’t conform to your worldview”, because that was exactly the point of my very initial comment in March. That this blog did just that, create fear to think for themselves, paranoia of what others might say if they think against the ‘norm’ and distrust in anyone who speaks of the inconsistencies of the history that we’ve all been programmed to believe.

      • I can’t imagine anyone being interested in anything you had to say other than yourself. The only thing you have elucidated thus far is fear, paranoia and distrust of everything that doesn’t conform to your worldview. I shouldn’t imagine many would gain anything positive or useful from your words.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        The killer guy’s failure of imagination is entirely his own problem.

      • No point in even communicating with you guys, you’re a lost cause.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        That’s right burgermasher, you’ll ne’er catch us in your snare of voodoo bambaloo.

        The Conspiracy to Defame Conspiracy Theory

        The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people. We know from declassified documents that the CIA undertook a massive secret campaign to smear critics of the Warren Commission with the label “conspiracy theorist.”
        [CIA Dispatch 1035-960]


  23. hybridrogue1 says:

    “People who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.
    DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.
    Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published inAmerican Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.”~ from the book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith


  24. hybridrogue1 says:

    All our models of “reality” are epistemic metaphor.

  25. hybridrogue1 says:

    Should conspiracy theory research inform public policy?

    This is the question as a title of this essay, and ensuing debate in the comments section here.
    The sane and rational answer is a resounding NO. The paradigm this “research” represents is pathological nonsense that should play no part in public policy, which should be founded on facts, reason and historical memory, not jejune theoretical specious bullshit.

  26. Mr. Jolley,

    As someone trained in the field of psychology of social behavior, I would be extremely curious to hear your thoughts about a person, Mr. ConspiracyKiller, who seems to have assumed the job of being the guard dog for your blog. And, he seems to be a very well trained one at that.

    Since you seem to be operating in the academic and scientific realms, I can only assume that he has not been given his “job” by any of the four contributors of this site. But his knee-jerk comments trying to swat every fly that flies by seem to get zero attention or reaction on your part, which, in turn, gives the reader the impression that his function on these pages is approved by you to a certain extent.

    If he is indeed assigned such a mission, I think it’d be fair to expect that it is declared as such in some shape or form. But, if he is not, I feel he is doing a great disservice to your level headed (biased, but level headed nonetheless) academic blog which could easily be a place for some serious and multi faceted discussions that could be educational both for you and the readers.

    Kind regards.

    • And your million post a week friend Rogue is level headed and academic in behaviour ?

      The bias runs both ways dearest.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Aw you exaggerate Killerguy, I am lucky if I make a thousand comments a week.

        But then my commentary takes place on quite a few more venues than just one standing guard duty like a junkyard dog. And it is indeed junk you guard little pooch.

      • Yeah you copy and paste your own dumb comments back onto other blogs, because you think they’re of some egotistical value. You’re a fucking embarrassment.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        conspiracykiller says:
        August 13, 2014 at 11:32 am
        “No point in even communicating with you guys, you’re a lost cause.”
        The killerguy seems to have forgotten the futility of his continuing on his own accord to waste his and everyone else’s time – just for the ‘sport’ of it.

        “Bow wow wow” says the killer pooch.

      • Likewise you appear to have forgotten weeks ago when you flounced and said you were done wit this blog and were about to leave. Yet here you still persist with your monotonous glum commentary.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Because every time I throw the stick the pooch fetches it, and says, “bow wow wow”.

      • You’re not that smart, the one being manipulated here is you. You freely give up your name, your email, your job roles, your friends names, and then you talk about your government in dissident ways. Think about who is the real pooch here little doggie.

      • jenn says:

        We already know this blog is rhetoric but doesn’t work to manipulate us because we know. Why would we be afraid to dissent government actions ck? Sounds like a statement from a paranoid person…

      • jenn says:

        “The pejorative “conspiracy theorist” is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.

        Most so-called “conspiracy theorists” are really skeptics, by definition. They’re skeptical of what the government tells them. They’re skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They’re skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what’s in their food. And they’re also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.

        People who are not skeptics of “official stories” tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.”

      • Conspiracy theorists who believe things without evidence, and have fanciful whims about how scenarios occurred are neither skeptics or critical thinkers, they are gullible and lack thinking abilities.

        If you think skeptics don’t question governments and corporations then you’re more retarded than you come across.

      • PS that article was written by Mike Adams, the health ranger, the lunatic who runs Natural news. That guy has made hundreds of false claims and predictions that have all been categorically shown to never happen and be false. That is probably one of the least credible people on the internet.

      • jenn says:

        The conspiracy theorists are the skeptics. Not people like you ck. The anti-conspiracy theorists follow the herd. They are gullible and lack thinking abilities. 🙂

      • You’ve probably never read an academic book about critical thinking or completed a critical thinking course in your life Jenn. In fact going on all your statements over the blogs it’s clear you haven’t the faintest idea about fallacies or logic whatsoever.

      • jenn says:

        You know nothing about me ck. Nothing. Why are you attacking my character again? Ad homenium attacks as usual…shocking.

      • You do like to throw the ad hominem card about a lot, seems you don’t quite understand it properly hence why I said, you “probably” have never studied critical thinking. If you have by all means say so. However , I think in all fairness you haven’t, and by the way that’s not an ad hominem. It’s actually a fair statement since you’re the one claiming to have critical thinking skills, and that conspiracy theorists not skeptics are critical thinkers.

        If you correctly understood what critical thinking was you would probably accept what I was saying, and either admit you hadn’t studied it fully or explain to me which academic books and studying you had taken part in related to critical thinking. Instead you misuse ad hominem at the first chance you get.

      • jenn says:

        An ad homenium argument is an attack on the person’s character, not the argument. An example of an ad homenium argument is: “Using someone’s educational level as a means to exploit and degrade the opposer’s argument, such as, “You didn’t even finish high school – how could you possibly know about this?” This is the same as “You’ve probably never read an academic book about critical thinking or completed a critical thinking course in your life Jenn.”

        I work in law. Through my education I have studied critical thinking skills and my mind is strongly disposed to critical thinking. It comes naturally to me and my studies have refined my natural abilities even further. 🙂

        I also studied rhetorical writing/communications. I can read through the manipulation of others work, just like this blog. 🙂

        Once again, don’t assume you know anything about me cuz you’re wrong. 😉

      • Then you should probably start using ad hominem correctly, because no one attacked your educational level. The actual terms used were questioning whether you understood critical thinking, by asking if you had actually read critical thinking skills. This is a direct question to a specific skill set, questioning if you understood the skillset. In no way was you character assassinated in order to negate an argument you made which had nothing to do with the question.

        Me saying your ability to correctly carry out law because you don’t understand the use of ad hominem means you are not to be taken seriously. <— That would be an ad hominem.

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      You do like to throw the ad hominem card about a lot, seems you don’t quite understand it properly hence why I said, you “probably” have never studied critical thinking.”~killerguy

      Hahahahaha…the splendid idiot…no calling someone a “cockroach” isn’t ad hominem…of course not, it’s the mating call of a anti-conspiracist pooch. A whimpering little puppy that reads the bullshit of someone like Shermer and thinks he is learning “critical thinking skills” – Shermer is one of the most blatant toadyboy shills propagating Newspeak today.

      Anyone who thinks that the WTC towers could fall through themselves is an obvious idiot.

      • Calling someone a cockroach is not an ad hominem, seems you don’t understand the terminology correctly either. That’s me simply calling someone a name and being directly abusive to the actions of people crawling out of the woodwork to engage in discussions that were not addressing them.

        Mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy

      • “A whimpering little puppy that reads the bullshit of someone like Shermer and thinks he is learning “critical thinking skills” – Shermer is one of the most blatant toadyboy shills propagating Newspeak today.”

        However this is a an ad hominem since you are addressing Shermer and all he says by utilising the fallacious reasoning that anything Shermer says can be discounted, because in your own words: “Shermer is one of the most blatant toadyboy shills propagating Newspeak today.” Ignoring all the correctly reasoned arguments and points Shermer has made by claiming him as a propagator of newspeak is an ad hominem.

        Also might I add, Shermer being a single author, does not mean that’s the source I was discussing. But it is very disingenuous of you, intentionally I would suspect, to throw a single author out there as if that was the actual source of my point. It wasn’t. It’s highly likely you haven’t even read the academic source literature on critical skills either based on your use of verbiage and lack of familiarity with the correct source materials.

  27. Calling someone fat doesn’t make you skinny, my friend. The larger question is whether you have ever stepped on a scale to become aware of exactly how you compare.

    You might feel protected wearing the PhD cloak this blog provides for you, but the bright light you are blocking is shining through it, exposing all your folds and handles.

    • This was meant to be a reply to conspiracykiller’s comment from September 3, 2014 at 5:18 pm. My apologies for the out of sequence reply.

    • oh poor lilaleo wants an academic discussion on the internet, whilst providing no academic discourse themselves. Entering into the name calling themselves, hypocrisy runs rampant amongst conspiracy theorists.

      • jenn says:

        Hypocrisy runs rampant with non-conspiracy theorists too, as does ad hominem attacks…you’re not better than anyone.

      • Oh look the cockroaches are crawling out of the woodwork

      • jenn says:

        Ouch, why you hurt my feelings like that ck?? Lmao 😉

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        “Cockroaches” is it? Lol

        Killerguy you need to play the Comedy Club in LA, and get a taste of the rotten tomatoes when you bottom out with dinky doodoo like you just posted.

      • Perhaps you and your cockroach buddies should go back to your own blog and circle jerk some more. You could make an original post, your two or three buddies could make one or two posts each and then like usual you could comment for the other 200 times.

    • “We also found that hostility was higher in persuasive arguments made by conventionalists than in those by conspiracists. As 9/11 conspiracism is by and large a minority viewpoint in the West (, 2008), this makes sense: conventionalists, rather than focusing on presenting novel information, instead attempt to enforce conformity to the majority viewpoint (Latané, 1981). ”

      excerpt from

      “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories
      Michael J. Wood* and Karen M. Douglas*
      School of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

      • Thing is nowhere have I tried to take the holier than thou approach here, I willingly and happily satirise and laugh at conspiracy theorists. I am completely aware and would never deny what I intentionally do, I do this because I have no respect for conspiracy theorists or their ridiculous paranoid belief systems.

        However when conspiracy theorists behave the same and things escalate into utter retardo land, they are quick to take the moral upper stance and claim foul play against those who mock them.

        It’s common knowledge that academics and non academics who think conspiracy theorists are bonkers will openly ridicule them, this article that the guys put together simply clarifies what can be seen all over the internet.

    • Killerman…

      The argument for or against conspiracies are neither a team sport where you have to pick a team and stick with it through thick and thin, nor they are a belief system that requires only faith in one side or another.

      Your past comments and exchanges illustrate quite well that you simply do not have an ounce of critical thinking in you, even when you argue for what you actually believe in.. Your approach is a black and white, up or down, dead or alive approach to the grey and murky waters of human behavior. As a result, exchanging comments with you is no different than playing tennis with a wall.

      So, I’m going to gently put my racket down, go sit down and wait and see if anyone else wants to play.. Hopefully one of the pros will come out eventually…

      As for you… I suspect you will be standing there, waiting for someone to toss you a ball… Just like a wall… Just like a dumb brick wall!!!

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      This whole conversation is an argument. By attacking the character of your opponent in anyway in the course of the argument is ad hominem, because it insinuates that the opponent’s arguments cannot be correct because they are a “fool” or an “ingrate” or a “cockroach”.

      You ask if I have studied ‘critical thinking’ the answer is yes, deeply. I used Shermer as an example because he pretends at critical thinking very much in the same way as you do here – as a rhetorical game of one-upmanship. You use the word “disingenuous”, and I will reply that it is hypocrisy on your part to charge anyone else with what literally defines your character. You are simply an ignorant and arrogant bastard. Consider that a simple insult or ad hominem; the line has already disappeared between the two.

      • Once again calling someone a cockroach is not an ad hominem when the term is used without a claim or an argument it is used to negate. Go read your books again, you seem to have forgotten or misunderstood the terminology.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        What is your intent in calling Jenn a ‘cockroach’ Killerguy? Obviously it is used to negate her character, hoping that such makes her arguments appear ineffective. It is a form of ad hominem whether you want to admit it or not. You like many, learn the basics of ‘critical thinking’ by rote, but do not grasp the underlying philosophy of the nomenclature, nor the subtlety of the rhetoric involved. You are making an “argument against the man” to defame your opponent in an attempt to dismiss their argument. It is in fact one of your constant tactics of argumentation. It is also a diversionary tactic to draw the argument away from the actual substance of the issues under discussion. You do this on practically every thread here, attacking “conspiracists” themselves as people. That is what this whole “Psychology of Conspiracy Theory” is about in a nutshell, the attempt to defame anyone who actually approaches the official narratives given by so-called authorities in a critical and forensic manner.
        The entire foundation of this so-called “psychology” is based on an agenda of defamation against a whole vaguely defined group using the slur of “conspiracist” – and THAT is WHOLESALE AD HOMINEM.
        Let the echoes of that bounce around in the halls of your empty skull for awhile.

      • the intent of calling her a cockroach was to state the typical use of the slur, when there is one a horde arrive. She popped out of nowhere to talk smack when she wasn’t being addressed, Quite simply it was just a straight up insult.

        One more time for your thick skull, it’s not ad hominem. You really need to understand what one actually is.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        Bullshit killerguy,

        As I said, the entire foundation of this so-called “conspiracy psychology” is based on an agenda of defamation against a whole vaguely defined group using the slur of “conspiracist” – and THAT is WHOLESALE AD HOMINEM. It is argument against the person and their “mindset” and not against any specific arguments or ‘conspiracies’ that they are concerned with, and that is a classical definition of an ad hominem argument.

        And that is why this whole field of ‘psychology’ is fraudulent pseudoscience. And that is why you are nothing but and ignorant shill PR hack.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        The purpose of countering propaganda is not to convince the propagandist and change his mind, it is to lay bare the techniques and agenda of such propaganda to a candid world.

      • “The purpose of countering propaganda is not to convince the propagandist and change his mind, it is to lay bare the techniques and agenda of such propaganda to a candid world.”

        You seem to be having delusions of grandeur.

      • hybridrogue1 says:

        And you obviously have delusions of expertise in psychoanalysis.

  28. hybridrogue1 says:

    But seriously folks, aside from the shitball fight…

    Corbett Report
    Good podcast, good shownote links:


  29. hybridrogue1 says:

    The assertion that 9/11 was a psychological operation carried out by the deep state is not a “conspiracy theory” {as framed by these daft children pretending at “psychology”}, it is analysis of Open Source Intelligence put in historical context.
    As the article above shows, this is an ongoing situational analysis linking the past expositions made of “Islamic Terrorism” as a subsidiary creation of Western Intelligence {a covert “cutout”}.

    “Lest we forget, Al Qaeda was at the outset a creation of the CIA. Who is behind the ISIS terrorists? The mainstream media is mum on the subject, despite mountains of evidence that they are creations of the Western military alliance.”~Prof Michel Chossudovsky


  30. Conspiracy killer repeatedly gets his ass handed to him. Does he think he’s winning?

    • hybridrogue1 says:

      The question is ‘does he think’? (grin)

      He gets his ass handed to him but doesn’t recognize it, thinks it is a fatty slab of ham.

  31. iamallknowing says:


  32. As for Princess Diana’s death, that was fake too. Nobody killed that bitch.

    • I mean, for one thing, we don’t have good photos of her inside the car post-crash. The two we do have are horrible fakes that are in low resolution. Also, it’s obvious that they’ve intentionally damaged the vehicle after the alleged bodies were removed. You see that in photos and videos of the car as it was taken out of the tunnel, which contrasts the earlier photographs of the car’s exterior being in near-perfect condition moments after the “accident”.

      And finally, her children shown no actual pain or sadness at the loss of their beloved mother. They were actually chuckling while receiving gifts and attention from the sychopanthic crowd at Kensington Palace. Nobody inside the church showed any remorse or tears, either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s