>>1218
>They are
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. What a plot twist

>For anything beyond normal politics that I am remotely believe it goes into back into what I said earlier, don't believe in a jew lizard man conspiracy to take over the world and that X was a paranormal event.
If something is paranormal,expect some kind of yellow journalism surrounding it.

>it is still a little creepy how the official explanation actually omits info. In fact that's how I'd say that it's easier then you'd think to be a conspiracy nut.
These days,you can be considered a conspirator
just because you ask or despise what they say on the news. What standards of conspiracy. I thought being a conspirator was about aliens,Area 51 and stuff but goddamn,we are asking about our actions and info that arrives into our senses.

>Because you will find official/commonly pushed explanations by supposed experts that don't align with all the facts (Pop skeptic Benjamin Radford insistence that the Dyatlov Pass incident must have been caused by an avalanche despite there being no evidence of one and completely ignoring the presence of radiation being a rather stupid example that had a backfire effect.) .
Even when they lie,they fit into the stupid zone easily. It never fails. The way they explain the facts is almost an alternate reality. Almost like putting the news as a show or something. They repeat their scripts like parrots and profit.

>Usually though it's as you said, for political reasons.
Yep,think it as a game of strategy. Even though I am not the biggest fan of map games nor I have played them(Hearts of Iron or Universalis), it's mostly strategy. Always ask yourself if X thing happens,then who wins? What interests does this bring? Are the players playing well their cards? Things like that.
Instead of being triggered nor putting the tinfoil hat,just wait before putting any opinion into the table. They are better seen when the events are no longer fresh.