Comment: Martha Mitchell

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am not a conspiracy theorist. (see in situ)

Martha Mitchell

That's a fascinating story, but how do you know you're right if your arguments aren't based on solid evidence and sound argument? You're only a Martha Mitchell if you're right, and that's all the OP is saying: if you don't have good evidence and good arguments then you're on shaky ground.

Plus, Martha Mitchell was an insider who knew a lot of the key players and their associates. From that first link: "She did have some inside information, but nothing more than what others had told her .... and they were already talking to otrhers, too." So doesn't it seem clear that she had some good solid reasons to believe that there was a coverup?

I think that's the point of the OP. There's a crowd of conspiracy believers here who don't seem to have any standards at all for which conspiracies to believe and which to reject. Free-floating suspicions aren't differentiated from solid cases, evidence is cherry picked because some of the evidence is too inconvenient for the theory, skeptical responses are ignored or misrepresented, etc.

I saw one reply that seemed to be suggesting that having a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, even those that without evidence that are almost certainly false, serves a good purpose of getting people to question the government's official explanations. Maybe some conspiracy theorists think that's true, which would explain the support for some of the kookiest theories. (Although I haven't seen any Reptilian believers for a while.) But I think that what gets people questioning isn't just a lot of questions floating around in a fog of bad arguments, but rather good evidence and solid arguments for the clearest cases.

Isn't it interesting that any time someone calls for better evidence and stronger arguments, the responses don't address that point? Almost as if there's some conspiracy out there to push the kooky conspiracy theories to the front so that the true ones, the ones for which there actually are some good arguments, are discredited by association. But see, I suspect that to be true (really, I do) but I can't prove it, so I don't go around talking about it as if I know it's true and making youtube videos with ominous music and cheesy title effects.