fattym4,

I actually think you're totally right.  I guess that andreusan just rubs me the wrong way.  I know he's harmless, but some of his posts just bug me - as do his claims about being in the militay that he refuses to substantiate.  

Is there no point when someone makes an outragoues claim that you would feel the need to mock it or attack it?  What if I posted a claim that said that US servicemen in Bosnia had been ordered by their superiors to rape and kill 10-14-year old girls - and that so far over 10,000 girls had been killed in "rape camps" - but it was all being covered up by the Pantagon for their own mysterious reasons.  Would you not want to attack or mock that "theory"?

Not to nitpick (please don't take this as an attack), but I find the Gallileo example slightly off-topic.  Gallileo made TESTABLE claims - and that is a requirement for theory.  If conspiracy theorists would point out WHAT would satisfy them that there is no conspiracy, then we'd be going somewhere.

Most conspiracy theories are in fact not theories at all, because they cannot be disproven.  Here's the easy example ...

"Yesterday, aliens landed in huge battlecrusisers and went shopping on Michigan avenue.  When they left, they erased everyone's memory with their funky alien technology, and they also made all radar and recordings of their visit disappear - because they have cool and mysterious technology that we don't understand.  However, their memory erasure ray didn't work on me because I was wearing my tinfoil hat at the time - so I rememeber, but none of you do"

Okay - now how do you disprove that?  You cannot - and most conspiracy theories are designed the same way.

Boy - I am spending way too much time on this - maybe that's andreusan's real goal.  Ouch - he got me!  [:D]