"Step 1: Characterize the 'official theory' of some event or phenomenon, often in an overly simplistic manner"
...
" the moon landing denialists ... point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH"
Ironically you are exemplifying the "overly simplistic" characterization of theories. E.g., the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists don't rely exclusively on the "path of the bullet" thing, they also talk about many other aspects that cast doubt on the Warren Commission's explanation.
Part of the problem with the "conspiracy theory" label is that those who use it in a pejorative way tend to lump together different views, as if to imply that they're all equally irrational. E.g., the idea that the Queen of England is a lizard-creature in a human-like disguise is commonly dumped in the same category with criticisms of the "911 Report" - and the "911 truth" people are treated as if they all held to a common set of claims.
Of course no one would have time to address all the myriad ideas out there. But that's no excuse for dismissing any whole subset of them. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is to address specific propositions, and always give fair consideration to the strongest, most plausible version of any claims.
...
" the moon landing denialists ... point out that the shadows look unusual in Apollo footage. THEREFORE THE WHOLE THING WAS FAKED ON A SOUND STAGE ON EARTH"
Ironically you are exemplifying the "overly simplistic" characterization of theories. E.g., the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists don't rely exclusively on the "path of the bullet" thing, they also talk about many other aspects that cast doubt on the Warren Commission's explanation.
Part of the problem with the "conspiracy theory" label is that those who use it in a pejorative way tend to lump together different views, as if to imply that they're all equally irrational. E.g., the idea that the Queen of England is a lizard-creature in a human-like disguise is commonly dumped in the same category with criticisms of the "911 Report" - and the "911 truth" people are treated as if they all held to a common set of claims.
Of course no one would have time to address all the myriad ideas out there. But that's no excuse for dismissing any whole subset of them. The only intellectually honest way to proceed is to address specific propositions, and always give fair consideration to the strongest, most plausible version of any claims.