Comment: Are we talking about a

(See in situ)

Are we talking about a

Are we talking about a specific case scenario? I was not aware of one. The topic is rather broad.

The burden of proof is generally on the government, to prove that what they say happened happened, since they generally control the evidence, and the media. What I see most frequently is that people will provide evidence that debunks the government theory. This is by far the most common "conspiracy theory" I see and it is generally spot on, the government is clearly hiding evidence, itself a crime.

However, in the process, many people are going to go beyond just disproving, and post alternative theories. Some of them will be crazy.

But say for example someone explains their thought process and posts some photos and/or videos as evidence to support their claims. They fulfilled their "burden of proof," maybe not good enough for a court of law, but insofar as the purposes of a discussion forum. If you want to appear credible, you can't just call them crazy and group everyone who says anything contrary to what the government says into the same group. You have to specifically say why the theory you're attacking is not sound.

In many cases you will be right, I've seen some crazy accusations. But even if it's totally bogus, if they've gone to any effort to explain their theory, and you want to talk bad about it, the burden shifts to you when you are in a discussion forum.