Conducting an act of conspiracy, cover-up. a hidden-agenda or an act of ill-intent implies removing proof and evidence of it entirely.

A criminal who murders someone and wants to go undetected, will do his best to get rid of any evidence for the act.

A control-freak who monitors his employees will do his best to keep this hidden from them.

A government official who sees a leak of knowledge to the public as hazardous, will do everything in his power to conceal and never reveal.

And so, in case of cover-ups, we are left with very scant evidence...if any.
We have to do real detective work...speculate...extrapolate...connect dots... dismiss preconceptions...consider every angle...consider and re-consider...collect and discard information...

The work of the conspiracy-researcher is inhibited by what I´d here like to call The moronic tyranny of the "there´s no proof" crowd. This tyranny prevails in society, and on a smaller scale on this website.

Someone will engage in speculative conspiracy theory, and someone will come in and say

"There´s no evidence. None whatsoever"
or

"There´s no proof"

and even

"There´s no point in making a thread about this, because there´s no proof"

and

"You´re crazy because there´s no proof for this"

This type of pointless comment can be seen here by the minute. While you are reading these words, some moron somewhere is telling a conspiracy-theorist: "There´s no proof of this".





How have hoards of people having been brainwashed into the idea that we should only talk about whats already known?

In predominantly focussing on whats already known we can never hope to find out that which is unknown.

Of course there´s a difference in the quality of various pieces of speculation. But the moronic tyrant who walks around calling himself a "skeptic" or "rational" will make no difference and simply go from place to place and thread to thread spouting nothing other than "There´s no evidence".

He will even do so when there is evidence, not grasping the difference between evidence (indicators of something) and proof (hard facts).

Most people here are smart enough to know there´s not much evidence for conspiracy-speculation. And most are smart enough to know that evidence is not forthcoming because its either a) non-existent or b) covered-up.

So the mantra "there´s no proof" becomes somewhat pointless on a Forum like this.

Next time someone visits your thread with nothing other than the comment "Where´s the evidence?", why not give him this metaphor:

The murderer just threw the body into the river. He turns around and grins: "There´s no evidence"


Disclaimer: This is only my personal opinion


[edit on 31-10-2008 by Skyfloating]

If people accept the truth of your observation long held and fiercely guarded belief systems may be put in jeopardy.

Some of these belief systems are considered to be counter-culture and the requirement of proof lets them feel safe. Its a security blanket.

I agree with you, no one should ask for proof or be skeptical at all and we should all blindly accept things and not think critically.

The moon is made out of blue cheese and no one can disagree with me so i just think everything is so much better without thought or testing or truth.

No one should ever ask for proof or point out there is no proof.

That'd be silly.

Well, i would agree with such approach if a person presenting the theory really did investigate, connected the dots, found body in the river or whatever. This is proof, by the way.
But when "dots" are person's view/opinion on the subject - by openly posting it he should expect to be questioned about it. Like "proof?".
There were, are and will be conspiracies. On all levels. But to start randomly throwing ideas in all directions does not help. Actually it creates noise that does drown all the serious or even semi-serious investigations. Look at all the different 9/11 conspiracy versions that contradict each other. It creates so much noise that the official version only gains in credibility.
Of course i can understand the idea that combination of tens of thousands of no-proof-needed conspiracy theorists and tens of thousands keyboards might generate something that will be similar to real conspiracy, but it is hardly the best way. However i have no proof of that.

Originally posted by whiskeyswiller
I agree with you, no one should ask for proof or be skeptical at all and we should all blindly accept things and not think critically.

The moon is made out of blue cheese and no one can disagree with me so i just think everything is so much better without thought or testing or truth.

No one should ever ask for proof or point out there is no proof.

That'd be silly.

Now you're just being ridiculous. There still exist other ways to arrive at sensible conclusions outside the existence of Proof.

Logic is a good tool. It unreasonable to think the moon is made of Blue cheese. We've been to the Moon and all that was brought back were rocks. We've also went to Mars, more rocks. Earth, lots of rocks.

So, you assertion is quite clearly most likely not true. Which can be deduced in the absence of hard evidence or proof.

I tend to fall in on the side of the skeptics.

This is not such a bad thing. If you don't have skeptics nothing gets challenged. Challenge is good because it helps to separate the wheat from the chafe when you are theorizing about a possible conspiracy theory.

Now, with that said, it's not enough to just say "There is no proof" You need a better argument to discount an idea. Something along the lines that "If this event occurred as statedthen this type of result would have happened. or this type of evidence would have been left behind.

So, I think that the skeptics need to be encouraged to document their skepticism so that CTs can refine their ideas.

Originally posted by bruxfain
If people accept the truth of your observation long held and fiercely guarded belief systems may be put in jeopardy.

Some of these belief systems are considered to be counter-culture and the requirement of proof lets them feel safe. Its a security blanket.

we hear your types of argument a lot. skeptics are scared, they don't want to believe, they need a security blanket etc, etc ...

where on earth do you draw such incredible conclusions from? tell me exactly how me (or other skeptics) not thinking pictures or videos of a few dots in the sky, for example, is a big deal, to us being afraid for whatever reason? you speak of logic so where is your logic in this type of reasoning?

i know myself and have heard other skeptics express similar sentiments that - i'd be the first to start cheering and throw out the welcome mat should "real" aliens pop in for coffee. so where are you getting this 'fear' thing from dude?

What the "give me proof" trolls don't realise most of the time is that a lot of people are just, generously I may add, putting up opinions for consideration. This is, after all, a discussion forum, not a court of law or a science lab. Sorry for those that see yourselves as scientists or judges. But this is not that venue.

Given that fundamental diference, may I suggest that the burden of proof here, on these forums, falls not on the person making the statement, although I would advise they provide evidence and/or cogent arguments, but said burden should be on the reader, should he consider the statement probable or real. It is up to him, in whichever way he can, to prove it to himself. For his own good:

I have said several times on ATS, it's easy to ignore and discard ideas on the internet, however, once you've done the legwork yourself, it is much harder to ignore reality or confabulate about it. You are forced to take your own personal experiences into account with whichever opinion or belief system you have or espouse. And that, imo, is very positive and would help the truth surface much easier at the group mind level.

So don't ask for proof. Look for it. Chances are the person making the statement has done so already... or is hiding the proof of the statement's opposite

Originally posted by ll__raine__ll

Originally posted by bruxfain
If people accept the truth of your observation long held and fiercely guarded belief systems may be put in jeopardy.

Some of these belief systems are considered to be counter-culture and the requirement of proof lets them feel safe. Its a security blanket.

we hear your types of argument a lot. skeptics are scared, they don't want to believe, they need a security blanket etc, etc ...

where on earth do you draw such incredible conclusions from? tell me exactly how me (or other skeptics) not thinking pictures or videos of a few dots in the sky, for example, is a big deal, to us being afraid for whatever reason? you speak of logic so where is your logic in this type of reasoning?

i know myself and have heard other skeptics express similar sentiments that - i'd be the first to start cheering and throw out the welcome mat should "real" aliens pop in for coffee. so where are you getting this 'fear' thing from dude?

I was refering to belief systems, not UFO's. Nevertheless, surely there's got to be some limit to the usefulness of skepticism. If not, won't you end up believing in nothing at all, with no ability to determine truth from lies or unable make a decision.

At some point you have to expect that 'evidence' can be intentionally destroyed or hidden. Worse yet evidence can be fabricated. Logic is just a technique to arrive at conclusions in the absence of hard evidence.

I was just agreeing with the basic premise of the thread, I didn't mean to point fingers at specific individuals. Please, feel free to carry on with your skepticism.

adrenchrome: Precisely. They sound like squawking parrots and they fly from thread to thread actually thinking they are making a contribution.

I made this thread so that I´d have something to link to for the next one.

chapter29: Good critical thinking and real skepticism is indeed motivational...forcing us to sharpen our argument.

whiskeyswiller: Im referring to the field of conspiracy-speculation, not to discussion in general. Are you implying Im too stupid to comprehend the importance of proof?

ZeroKnowledge: Imo, Sowing confusion is the diversion tactic used after the "there´s no proof" tactic no longer works...as is the case with 9/11.

bruxfain: I agree its a security-blanket...and its also a sign that the poster in question lacks creativity. We see plenty of people post nothing other than that mantra.

Wildbob: If you think this is a simplicistic "bash the skeptics" thread, look again. There´s more to whats being said.

Zepharian: Yes, I´ve heard and read your pleas. Hoping others will hear them too.

Sorry, but as a skeptic I have no inclination to provide proof this "it isn't".

You have the burden of proving IT IS !

If I wanted to believe without proof then I'd be a clergyman.

Originally posted by venividivici
Sorry, but as a skeptic I have no inclination to provide proof this "it isn't".

You have the burden of proving IT IS !

If I wanted to believe without proof then I'd be a clergyman.

I dont have any burden whatsoever. I have the joy of engaging in speculation with my fellow conspiracy-researchers without being interrupted every 5 seconds by someone requesting proof.

Dont squash the flowers before they´ve even grown.

Furthermore, there are many things people share that never can be proved. And its really pointless to keep repeating the same thing belligerently and then resort to personal attacks on the posters, questioning their sanity. Testimony is an example of evidence, though it doesn't equate proof. For nearly everything here, hard proof will not be forthcoming without a large change in the management of the world and disclosure. Offering alternative suggestions is one thing, but attempting to derail threads by bullying the posters is uncalled for.

Originally posted by bruxfain There still exist other ways to arrive at sensible conclusions outside the existence of Proof.

Logic is a good tool.

Logic said that the sun revolved around the earth. Logic said that you would fall off the ends of the world. Logic says that the moon and the sun are the same size. Logic says we are solid.

A logical deduction is only the same as science when all the facts are in, and it can be reproduced.

If you don't build upon proof, you are building upon sand. By all means, go to the edges, investigate, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Try and repeat, try and repeat...

But don't call opinions and wishes and oughta'-be's facts. It ain't the same.

Above all...don't pee in my face and tell me it's rainin' out.

Self edit to remind folks that every discovery and 'eureka!' moment was brought about be folks that asked 'what if?, and went to the edges of the knowledge base to see what they could see. It all begins in speculation and imagination. But repeatable, provable, observable behaviour is what counts at the end of the day. Lotta skeptics could be better mannered, though.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]

And may I add mystiq, that for a lot of the subjects here, external proof is very hard or near impossible to obtain, yet personal experimentation will be able to overcome this and give enough insight so as to change the worldview of the skeptic and broaden his horizons.

Specifically, telepathic ufo contact experiences, meditation, transcendence, spiritism and OBE's. External proof for any of these is thin on the ground, but going there yourself will make you an actual experiencer, which is really proof for self.

So I repeat, don't ask for proof, go get it yourself folks. There are a few areas where asking for proof is more understandable, especially when political and economical alegations are thrown or regarding hot topics like 911 which have a very materialistic makeup. But even here, opinions can be enlightening.

And, off on a tangent, we as human beings need to function with flexible belief systems, as reality is so complex and fluid. Everytime I see someone yelling for proof I wonder what that individual actually holds as real, if anything. How can they even function in the flux that is life? How can they even think?!

It is a fine line we walk, as seekers of truth.
I understand your frustration but in the business of truth seeking it is like walking a tightrope, if you are honestly seeking TRUTH as opposed to seeking evidence that backs up your already firmly rooted, deeply held, stubborn "beliefs".

The difference between "us" and "them" should be what we do when we ARE confronted with compelling "evidence". Will we dismiss it however compelling it is because it challenges our world view and insults our "intelligence" or will we allow room for the evidence in our tiny brains for contemplation at a later time?

I have room in my head for wild speculation but will not let the "wild speculation file" in my head mix with the "compelling evidence file"
which sits right next to it.

There should be room for both wild speculation and compelling evidence on ats, but, we should be clear about which is which and call it such.

As far as proof, ha!!
You cannot even prove that YOU exist much less that there is an advaced alien race trying to take over our planet or anything else we so freely entertain here on ATS so don't worry. I gave up on the word "PROOF" a long time ago.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by cbass]