New US/UK Study:“Conspiracy Theorists” Are ‘Sane’; Government Dupes Crazy & Hostile!

So, though I think all of us knew this, It is nice to have an official seal of approval about who is the real skeptic and free thinker, and who zealously believe anything he is told.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites. The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

______beforeitsnews/education/2013/07/new-usuk-study-shocks-world-conspiracy-theorists-are-sane-government-dupes-crazy-hostile-2444530.html

What do you guys think?

you just have to be alive to see it

reply to post by JohnWoodland

All it means is conspiracy theorists post more when they see an opportunity to discuss their pet theories, and few people bother refuting them, which should be a surprise to no one. I don't think measuring a movement's internet comment output is a valid test of sanity.

And your source ... www.abovetopsecret.com...
Not that BIN's source in this matter, PressTV, is entirely on the up-and-up, either.

I would just like to take the time to remind everyone that before its news is not a valid source.
We were all asked to not like to them anymore, unless something has changed.
Maybe a mod can validate this for me?

I could be mistaken.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see we had the same thought process going on.

Originally posted by JohnWoodland
What do you guys think?

I think this was posted yesterday...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And that other thread doesnt cite BIN as a source.
And in any case, since BIN just steals material like this from other websites, why would ANYONE (apart from lazy people) even need to cite BIN as a source when they can look up the original source and get closer to the real story?