Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by muzzleflash
Any Conspiracy Theorist worth their own salt will not trust WikiLeaks with a 100 foot stick.Text
Yeah, I've never had a good feeling about them. It's a little too convenient that they are able to bring forth "leaked" government documents on a whim. Likewise, Wikipedia also seems to have an agenda, especially when it comes to topics where conspiracy theories are involved. There's always a condescending tone to their information that never favors the side of the conspiracy theorists. Who knows if the CIA has anything to do with it. It would hardly be shocking if they did.
That 'condescending tone' you mention is an important element to persuasion. That tone can nip in the bud one's curiosity or suspicions about a subject, leaving them to turn away or dig in. If the tone can convince one, through subtle syntax, and from the opening sentences, if done well, to expect ridicule from carrying on the search, then the material is 'hiding in plain sight'; nobody's 'hiding' it, so you feel like it can be passed over. I don't get a good feeling from wikipedia. I never really look at wikileaks, as others bring it forward at ATS. If wikileaks is considered a cutting edge, very fresh source of 'leaks', then I am somewhat in arrears. There's plenty of hard and fast conspiracy going on, from even 100 years ago.
I am merely considering the OP's opening thought. It is a great thought which I had never even considered or heard of. That's what conspiracies are made of...hid in plain sight, fooling everyone, getting them to buy it and depend on it. Cellulars. TV sets. News. And 'leaks'.
