[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

well mainstream gets updated each and every day with new information and people evolve. Women were at one time not allowed to vote (still don't in many parts of the world), there was segregation. The world was once considered flat. Saying people are proven wrong over time is hardly a great way to defend fringe beliefs in conspiracy theories.

Yes Bingo, and if this was the 1400's you would be the one arguing that the world was flat and I would be saying the world was round. I would be pointing to things that support the theory, and you would be saying that the church tells us the world is flat and that is that.

However if you must you can also likely point back to 100 or so conspiracies that have been proven to be nothing of the sort, but I don't suspect you'd take that as proof as every current conspiracy theory is wrnog either.

WTF does that have to do with anything?

My point stands though ... modern conspiracy theories always put the simple and logical answer on the stand and make them proof that two probable unrelated events are indeed unrelated. Pretty backwards if you ask me.

There's the problem Bingo, you THINK the simple and logical answer (the one in your own mind anyways) is the simple and logical answer. You have swallowed the information given to you in a series of talking points and think that is reality. There is no discussion with you because you believe what ever comes across the wire as being factual.

Like I said yesterday ... I took the bus to work today and the WTI oil price has fallen almost a buck. Can you prove those two events have no link?

Stupid example. A more relevant example would be if you took out a huge insurance policy on your house and car. You car gets boosted and ends up being driven into the side of your house, rupturing a gas line and burning both to nothing cinders. Your story is that you were out to dinner with your wife and kids (you actually were and there were witnesses) and that it was obviously a freak accident of some sort. That's the accepted story, because one of the investigators from the police department is a long time reader of CalgaryPuck and he thinks you're a righteous dude (which you are btw). The insurance company cuts you a cheque and you go on your merry way, with a fat payout.

Now, a guy in the fire department is skeptical. He keeps looking into this and finds that you had just taken out this big insurance policy. He also finds out that you've been thinking of moving and have had the house on and off the market for a while, unable to find a buyer. He also discovers that you had just been offered a sweetheart deal on some property elsewhere, but with a small window of opportunity. He also discovers that a friend of yours has some dealings with some pretty shady characters that have made similar jobs like this happen. That's a lot of circumstantial evidence that could really sink you if presented in court. All he needs is the link between you and the shady dudes, and he's got you by the nuts. To you, he's got a conspiracy theory. To him, and other investigators, he's got a pretty good case forming that could implicate you pretty well with the right piece of evidence. That's what we are talking about here. What looks to be a series of coincidences are the things that provide motive. They provide the evidence to convict. All you have to do is continue digging. If it were so cut and dried there would not be all of these questions hanging out there. There would be no incentive to continue an investigation.