Oh boy! And there we have it: the self-confessed conspiracy theorist has helpfully demonstrated the problem. He says “the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim” — absolutely correct. So why does the previous poster think the burden of proof somehow “shifts” merely because somebody has been fooled before? Evidence doesn't change according to how suspicious you feel. And noatably conspiracy theorists are noted for not producing any solid evidence And the rest rather illustrates the same muddled thinking: God, viruses, moon landings, 9/11, Epstein and the US Liberty are thrown into one enormous intellectual lucky dip, as though saying “there's evidence” is itself an argument. The particularly bizarre bit is the implication that because people vote for governments, somehow “the populous” gets what it deserves. What does that have to do with whether a factual claim is true? If 99% of the population voted that the Earth was flat, it wouldn't suddenly become flat. Reality isn't a referendum. Evidence isn't decided by popular vote. And suspicion isn't evidence. Ironically, his final observation is probably the most accurate part: “our biggest enemy is our own ignorance and apathy.” Indeed. And critical thinking is the antidote to both.
