critics rattled by wacko's information?

[marky 54]

all truthers have been accused of being wacko conspiracy theorists by critics so lets just assume thats the case for one moment, why then is it when giving these so called intellegent people a chance to prove me wrong when linking them to things that contridict the offical version do they ignore,skip past or pick out things that avoid the point you were trying to make leading you to a pointless arguement that dosnt explain the concerns you had in the first place. if we are so wacko why do they run away from anything that challenges what they are trying to push. they cannot/willnot refute my links but in the same breath label you a conspiracy theorists wacko. so please tell me this critics how exactly do i come to the conclusion there was no conspiracy when you fail to attempt to disprove any links i provide that say differant to the offical storey. you avoid, dodge,avoid somemore comment on posts you can then scamper off after calling us ct'ers a few times making sure you avoid the posts/points you carnt answer. this in it's self is proof we are not ct'ers, ct'ers do not have information that cannot be refuted for if we do then we are not ct'ers.

[Dogsmilk]

Don't worry about it, mate.

To invoke Alex Jones style melodrama, "There is a war on for your mind": Once you've nailed your colours to either mast, you have to defend it. While it is true that truthers are far from perfect, once you adopt the critical postion, it is hard to to go on to say you don't know, yes it's weird, no that doesn't make sense, no I don't understand etc. You will even use the age old "Well if you can't explain why or exactly how the 'conspiritors' did that, the official story must be true by default and the anomalies irrelevant as you've failed to provide an overarching narrative". If you express doubt, admit ignorance or agree with weirdness, you 'lose' to the truthers. If you are presented with a point saying x, you'll scour the internet for an authoritative site saying y.

"What the thinker thinks, the prover proves"

Not to say the truth movement doesn't often do the same -

Therefore, use the generally very intelligent and well-informed critics to serve as a bullsh!t detector to squash the demonstrably false, and clock when issues are fudged or when you decide the answers implausible, forced, resting on conjecture-based arguments from conclusion or you just think they're plain wrong. Don't argue ad infinitum trying to get agreement, victory or 'the truth' - it'll go on and on and on - just file that issue under 'not debunked - consider further'.

Then make up your own mind based on how it all turns out.