Right On, OP. I guess that's the nature of a conspiracy site. Calling someone a shill or disinfo agent is the bastion of a weak mind out of arguments.
It's argumentum ad hominem
and illogical, but that doesn't stop people from thinking they are somehow being profound. I particularly like the
language people use to sneak up on the issue without being outright about it.
For example, in the recent Stanton Friedman thread one fellow asked his "question" by proclaiming that UFOs have a paranormal aspect to them (I don't
disagree.) Although Friedman, really a nuts & bolts guy who thinks UFOs are contraptions from space holding aliens, had tackled the issue twice before
in the thread he failed to take the bait for this "question." Friedman did not answer within 90 minutes, so the questioner took offense. The response
was that this "speaks volumes" and that Friedman was declining to say what he actually knew. I love the "speaks volumes!" phrase. Oh, really? What
volumes, precisely, are they?
Another weasel phrase that was used on me recently is the, "I question your motivations [to answer thusly]" when expressing an opinion opposite to the
current conspiracy theory. The idea was that the US had taken over Flight MH380 and had flown it to Diego Garcia, a US Naval Base in the Indian Ocean.
I pointed out that if they flew "under the radar" (one of the claims) they would never make it because they would run out of fuel (a debatable point,
I realize), but the point was not greeted with facts proving otherwise, but instead questioned my "motivation" to suggest it.
We're seeing this in operation in a big way on the Malayasian jet disappearance. It's becoming increasingly obvious that one of the pilots, an ardent
supporter of the opposition in the Malay government, had motive, means, and opportunity to hijack the jet.
Here is a comprehensive account
of the issue. It accounts for the facts as we know them quite well.
But this is rejected by the conspiracy theorists as not enough of a conspiracy. It would be much better of the USA were at fault and hijacked the jet
to Diego Garcia to use for, er, something. It would be much better if Islamic extremists had hijacked the jet to use in a 9/11 repeat, perhaps this
time with a nuclear weapon. It would be much better of somehow the hijacking of this jet were connected to the Ukraine and the "start of WW III." And,
of course, "the UFO angle must be considered!"
So the flights of fancy continue.
edit on 3/16/2014 by schuyler because: (no reason given)