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

I assume you meant that posts like:

"What do you believe and why do you believe it?"

Or

"This claim you made is demonstrably false."

...are spam and stifling.

Yet posts that are just empty link dumps and tactics such as lying and ignoring are totally fine.

You have a very backwards idea there.

Lol again your are whinging in a very hypocritical way.

How does asking you to explain your beliefs make threads unpleasent?

How does pointing out where you guys say things that aren't true make the thread unwieldy?

How does constantly ignoring these things do the opposite?

If you and your fellow conspiracy theorists just addressed points directly and honestly you'd probably be having a better time. Though you probably start thinking about your conspiracy theories a bit too much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's my sleep ruined for tonight.

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

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

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

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

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

So you want a forum where conspiracy theories are not allowed to be questioned or doubted.

That's the thing though, it's not even that. Conspiracy theorists have shown that they aren't actually interested in discussing conspiracy theories at all.

They aren't interested indiscussing conspiracy theories beyond the ones they personally buy into, and all others are dismissed as obviously silly and idiotic. We see it all the time when conspiracy theorists whinge about being compared to other conspiracy theorists.

And they aren't at all interested in people asking them anything about their own conspiracy. How many times have we heard "Do your own research" etc etc?

What conspiracy theorists want is a place to dump links they find from the various twitter/bitchute/parler cranks they follow and not have them questioned or doubted.

Marky made an OP and in the first few posts he was provided with detailed and thought out answers to his points. His response? Throw a tantrum and declare he is not going to answer any questions. All he wanted was to have a nice rant about how stupid everyone else is. We ruined that.

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

Sure. But then every other conspiracy theorist can say that about their preferred conspiracy.

But that's not the issue. The issue is that conspiracy theorists don't want to discuss conspiracy theories they don't believe (and often dismiss out of hand). It seems a bit hypocritical to then turn around and moan about skeptics wanting to discuss conspiracy theories they don't believe? Isn't a bit odd to describe that as "killing discussion"?

And then, who decides which conspiracy theories are more likely?

Marky himself has posited that *all* space flight is faked. This is a very ridiculous think to believe. I'm hard pressed to think of something less likely. If someone believes something like this, how could they fairly dismiss any other conspiracy theory as "unlikely."

We've had people here claim that the twin towers were destroyed by secret silent explosives. We've had people claim it was space based energy weapons. We've had people claiming the US can control the weather. We've had people claim that school shootings are all fake. We've had Holocaust denial. All of these are equally ridiculous by all rational measures.

Know what I've never seen? One conspiracy theorist ask another why they believe something.

Sure but again, we never see any conspiracy theorists here actually post about the reasonable version of 9/11 conspiracies. It's all stuff like silent explosives and faked passports and extra planes.

The reason is that these claims are attention getting and exciting. The reasonable version is too dry and boring.

And ironically, the unsexy version of the 9/11 conspiracy would require a very small amount of people being involved.

It's a public discussion forum and you are throwing a tantrum because people aren't blindly validating your views.

As for your conspiracy belief (that the space program isn't real), it's been pointed out it would require literally millions to keep that a perfect secret over many decades. You haven't addressed that, plus the multitude of many other glaring holes on it.

I have argued that I don't believe that a paper passport can escape a fireball and be found intact yet the jacket/wallet/body of the owner has been incinerated.

The argument was...."just because I don't believe it happened doesn't mean that it didn't"

The passport, after all is there for all to see, hence it must have happened the way that is reported. And this is the logic. If a result is proffered than it must have happened according to a narrative.

There is a bicycle at the end of the stairs. The narrative is that Santa came down a chimney and put it there. One questions the chimney story but the counter argument is "The bicycle is there! How can you doubt the means by which it happened to be there? How else could the bicycle have gotten there?"

So then there is the "passport" found and stuck in a glass case. Again the argument is that it survived and was found and handed to a cop. Not only was this passport picked up by a nonchalant pedestrian but after it fluttered to Earth amongst the crashing debris it was again picked up and calmly handed over to a cop. Meanwhile everyone was running for their lives.

Even the BBC laughed at the report and Christ knows they like to cover things up.

The thing is, when people don't believe something as it is reported, there are those who pillory them demanding an alternative explanation. When one isn't forthcoming, that doubt is cast into further doubt.

The "argument via incredulity" comes into play. I believe that the term is "just because you don't believe something happened, that doesn't mean that it didn't".

I don't believe that a fat man in a red costume came down the chimney and deposited a train-set in the living room. Despite the fact that the train-set is there for all to see.

I don't believe that a woman wrapped a man in a cloth and his face was bonded onto that cloth. Despite the fact that that shroud exists for all to see.

I don't believe that a paper document could survive a fireball and be found by a person just strolling around an effective bombsite Despite that passport being there for all to see.

It's true that aircraft that have come to pieces in mid-air and luggage was found all over the place with dolls or shoes or seats or all manner of other detritus found on the ground or in the sea.

So a passport was found, handed over to a cop, that cop then reported the finding. It didn't take long for this passport to be attributed to a hijacker. Cool-headed cop. Even cooler-headed passerby as the buildings were crumbling.

Forgive me for not believing this or a WORD of the narrative.