posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:35 AM
The biggest problem I see here is ego. Proof is something hard to come by, especially when dealing with conspiracies. Evidence on the other hand, is
rampant. The problem is, what some people consider evidence. I have seen some evidence on ATS that even a judge would consider hard evidence(although,
not definite proof), enough for one to look into the situation more. But, for some reason, there are some folks who refuse to consider anything as
evidence at all. This baffles me to some extent, and so...I believe that problem has to do with too much pride, ego and comfort. Evidence and proof
are not the same, but are closely related, for evidence brings about proof.
Also, many do not realize what a true conspiracy theory is. There is conspiracy, then there is conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing. A
theory is strictly an idea, usually based on factual findings. A conspiracy is truth that is covered & smothered with lies. In a sense, one can say, a
conspiracy theory is based on evidence, while a conspiracy is based on proof. However, keep in mind that evidence can also be proof, in that, one may
have evidence indicating of some thing, which cannot be proved, but the evidence is proof of itself.
The FBI may be investigating a serial killer and they are have their facts to go on. They know there is a killer, they know the crimes he has
committed, and they may even know the sex of the killer. With all the evidence they have gathered, they may have a theory about where he may strike
next. They do not know. They do not have proof(proof is unquestionable and is absolute). They have a theory, an idea as to where he may strike
next, because the of facts they have gathered thus far.
The same goes for conspiracists. Many conspiracy theories do not form out of thin air. Surprising to some, they are based on factual findings. A
conspiracist may theorize that the financial crises the world is facing is brought on partly by the Rothschilds. Now, there is no proof for such a
statement, but there is evidence that easily shows why one may make such a statement. We know the Rothschilds exist & we know they have a strong hold
on the banking system throughout the world. It's just an example, but you see my point?
The problem with some folks is, they will hear the claim and completely write it off as another kook babbling. They ask for proof of the claim, but
refuse to study the evidence and maybe draw their own conclusions and form their own theories. The claim is; the Rothschilds are partly responsible
for the financial crisis the world is seeing. They ask for proof of this. This, so far...cannot be proved. However, they dismiss the factual evidence
entirely and reject the entire idea. Maybe the conspiracy theory itself is indeed wrong, but the evidence used to form the theory is
still very much there, but it too is dismissed. Why?
[edit on 2-11-2008 by sdrawkcabII]