Ok, I'll bite
I googled it, and the first result is '33 conspiracies that happen to be true' on a site called New World Order Report, which is a great start - that website sounds level-headed... Anyway, glancing at the first page, it seems like, yes some of it's plausible and a few definitely did happen (Tunguskee being a prime example).

However, the rest looks like the usual nutjob collection of assorted testimonies and facts shaken and stirred until it resembles a story. The fact that they've got this crap mixed in with stuff that has been proved real just suggests to me that they're using the confirmed stuff to lend credence to the giant lizards stuff.

Also, there's a reason that all conspiracy websites look like they've been designed by people with a limited grasp on their mental picnic basket...... the government has taken over their minds, and everyone knows that civil servants have no sense of graphic balance.
(SimianKid internet faffer, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 13:10, 1 reply)

I'll bite back
"on a site called New World Order Report"

It's not terribly surprising that an NWO site should top the google results hosting this particular article now, is it? That's entirely what one might expect given that conspiracy theorists like to read about conspiracies, true or otherwise.

Again, this is just a shorthand used by people who wish to not have to spend their time actually dealing with content and want to swiftly move on, the clear inference being "oh it's on a conspiracy theory website therefore it's almost certainly bogus". This is attempting to dismiss what someone is saying purely on the grounds that, hey, they're saying it.

However, nice of you to pay it the privilege of "glancing at it" and admitting "yes some of it's plausible".

"However, the rest looks like the usual nutjob collection of assorted testimonies and facts shaken and stirred until it resembles a story"

Am I supposed to take your word for this? It may well "look like" that but is it in fact that? You offer no examples. You are given a list of examples and respond with none of your own. This is why I often have some sympathy with conspiracists, they are often blithely dismissed.

To me it matters not that often 90% of what they come up with is shoddily constructed bilge, because 10% of the time they've gotten their hands on interesting stuff that has entirely flown under the public radar and illuminates just how shitty our democratically elected governments and their agencies can often be.

If you're going to take them to task, do a better job is what I'm saying.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 13:27, closed)

Fair enough
I was a bit swift on my reply, and yes, you're right – I should take the time to read all the evidence presented before coming to any conclusions.

Didn't mean to sound high-handed, mister, you have my apologies.

/polite bow
(SimianKid internet faffer, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 14:23, closed)

No offense taken
and hopefully none given.
(Dildo Bugger destroyed a ring on, Fri 2 Dec 2011, 15:05, closed)