I am going to demonstrate how you can prove a valid point without sufficent evidence using tactics that are very common here at Above Top Secret. I'm
going to use an example arguement where Joe's arguement is true, but he has little evidence to back it up. The arguement is that the sky is, in fact,
red. (This is true, it's just much, much more blue than red.)
1. Sound authoritative. Make your statements as though you were stating a simple fact, something that cannot be disputed. "The sky is red." Don't
emphesise "is" or anything like that. That makes it sound like you're making a new claim. State it plain and simply. Make it look like you've read
it in a Rand McNally Atlas 500,000,000 times and are simply quoting a basic fact. This works for some, however, sometimes you have to go a little
2. Quote figures; don't quote sources. If you want to take it one radical step further, you can quote sources, and just reword the context. For
example, Joe finds a figure by color blind scientists who study light. They were all asked if they could tell the same shade of blue from red. 8 out
of 10 said, "no." Joe says in his post, "In a study conducted by the New York Times, 80% of spectral diffraction analysists (just made that up
studied agreed the sky is as red as an apple."
Eventually, you will have someone argue against you. This is inevitable, there are some fools out there who just don't understand that you can be
completely trusted and the information that cockroach under your pillow gave you is completely and obviously true. Now is when you have to go on the
attack. ATS has a great resource for this, the search engine. I'll explain more shortly.
3. Mock the fool poster's credibility. So you're argueing against someone now. Chances are, if you are debunking a long held lie (example: The sky
is blue), several people are going to have made arguements against you before you've had a chance to respond to any of them. This is a good thing.
Some people can be pretty persuasive. If you're reading this, you're still at the rookie level. If you have plenty of responses, you can ignore
those hard ones. Just go after the person who doesn't speak english too well, has a short fuse, or the early teen who doesn't have a strong grasp on
grammer. Each has their own strategy which will draw away completely from the point your post was making. This, too, is a good thing. People will
remember they read something about that ("I thought I read something about the sky being red, and it being a government conspiracy to keep us from
believing that Mars has any life on it that is causing us to see it as blue...") Because you distract completely from the point with each of these
people, they'll walk away thinking, ("You know, no one could give a good arguement against it. It must be true. I'll have to tell my friends")
Thus, your information is out.
a) Non-english speaking poster: This is the easiest and most dangerous person to take advantage of. You can attack misspellings, poor grammer, misuse
of punctuation, etc. You'll make the person look like a complete idiot. I know I would if I were trying to talk to y'all in english! This can
backfire, however. You want to make sure to only use the non-english speaking poster as a side conversation, so it doesn't look like you're ignoring
those hard to respond to posts. This one goes away as soon as they make it known that english isn't their first language. Then you look like a jerk,
unless you can convince everyone they're lying about english not being their first language. Though tricky, this can give you a lot of credibility if
you see through your Indian friend's lie about speaking Indian before speaking english.
b) Short Fuse Poster: This guy should be your main focus. Every time they post, respond, and do so in a sarcastic, snide manner. Treat them as though
they just got hit with the stupid stick 54,854 times beyond the legal limit. ((To a post by Mr. Mad asking why the sky looks blue to him):
"Oooookkaaaaayyyy, Mr. Mad. Fine. I'll explain refraction...Again. I didn't realize the people discussing this subject hadn't finished high school
physics. Light hits the molecules of the atmosphere at a specific, absloute, quantum (the more, bigger words, the more it sounds like you know what
you're talking about and that you're smart) angle (going to webster's for another word for "split"...ooo) which hits the molecule and fractures
in such a way as to appear red. The government has a bilateral imaging array enhancement aligner (this is the fun part, throw a bunch of words
together, and just make stuff up. You don't need to prove it or back it up; it's the government, of course it's true!) which fires a gamma pulse
beam through our ocular nerve reversing the ratiocination (it does work) in the grey matter causing epileptic flashes of blue perception which
outweigh the red perception so we never suspect Mars has a superior alien race bent on human destruction.") Whew! That was fun! Most all people, at
this point, will believe what you're saying unless they're completely insane. However, the insane can sometimes pull people away from your brilliant
concept. You must prevent them from corrupting the minds of the others. That's where step 4 comes in. Mr. Mad will be very upset. You treated him
like an idiot, and if he knows anything about physics, he knows you just rammed his bottom with a whole bunch of sugar and spice and everything nice.
He'll come back with every word you can imagine. Don't let it get to you. This just means, in the eyes of the readers, that he doesn't have an
arguement and is running purely on emotion. Keep your responses contained, yet slightly inflammitory. Keep up Mr. Mad's anger while sounding like the
voice of reason yourself.
c) The early teen: The non-english speaker can sometimes turn into this, and vice versa. The early teen is nice because their minds are still putty.
They're just starting to go through that rebelious stage, and anything you tell them that is against "Big Brother", they'll want to believe. If
you have a skeptic, you have a gold mine. If you can, through the course of your thread, manage to convince someone who was completely against your
idea that your idea is sound and makes sense, you just added TONS of credibility to what you were saying. You can recognise the early teen through
their use of insults. Therefore, start dealing with this one the same way you would the non-english speaking poster. If thye start insulting you with
toilate comments and a litany of swears, you have yourself an early teen. Reap the rewards, and be spending time U2Uing them on the side to convince
them of your point. If it's done through a U2U, more stable people who know who they are and what they believe in can't refute your sensable
statements ("The sky is red. Your parents just taught you that the color that is red is actually named "blue" because they're tools of the
government"). That statement would be argued until it turned blue in the face as a narmal post. But as a U2U, someone may understand.
4. After you've taken advantage of Mr. Mad's ignorance and stated an extremely scientific point, people will come after you with science of their
own, and articles. You can go one of two ways here. You can do lots of research, or just make something up. For the most part, every publication has
gotten something wrong. Just check the second page, they usually have a "Oops" section correcting mistakes made the last day/week/month. Exploit
these to show that your opponent's source holds no water. They quote the Chicago Tribune. First, tell them that when they reported that a kid had
been found after 34 hours, it was actually 32 hours! Then mention the Tribune's extreme conservative slant (I know, I know, but for some reason most
people at ATS seem to be liberals and they buy this simple little lie hook line and sinker. It really works like a charm, you just call a liberal
paper conservative and they no longer trust it. Hehe if my plan works, they'll all be watching Fox News in no time! Muh-wha-ha-ha! Anyway, back to
the tutorial.) If the person still backs it, pull race into the mix. ("The Tribune supported slavery and the confederacy, and donated hevily to
Hitler. What, you say they didn't? Well, of course they got rid of all evidence from their books, they're tools of Big Brother! Sheesh!") Finally,
if none of this works, and someone is still harassing you about your obvious truth, go to number 5:
5. U2U the person in a friendly manner and find out what religion they are. Then go on the offensive. They say they're Islamic, you go to town about
them being suicide bombing woman hating ignoramouses. They say they're Christian, throw the Crusades in their face, hit them with the Catholic church
not recognising the earth revolving around the sun until just recently. They say they're Jewish, say, "Of course you are! You're one of THEM!
You're part of what I'm trying to expose, of course you're saying I'm lying!" If they say anything else, explain that their opinion doesn't
matter because they're one of those "wrong" religions. These courses will do one of two things. Either the person will think you're an idiot and
go away (good) or the person will become a Mr. Mad and go nuts (better).
Well, this is all it takes to put together a good conspiracy. You have the clientel who will believe. That's the reason they're here at ATS. You
don't come to a government conspiracy website unless you are hoping to discover something or you're looking for a good laugh. I won't tell y'all
why I come here
If anyone has any questions, you can either post here on this thread, or U2U me. If you post on this thread, I'll respond with
examples. Hehehehe please respond on this thread.