A typical reply to fakeology

Be the 1st to vote.

An email reader sent me an interesting email forwarded to someone in the Moncton area regarding the Moncton media event/police triad shooting.

I highlight it as a typical response by a lucid, intelligent individual who is otherwise aware of his surroundings. I have received this type of response over and over again myself.

So how do deal with it? Interestingly, Carole started a thread that touches on this subject. fakeologist.com/forums/topic/a…

Hi V,

I forwarded the link you sent me to my friend, B, in Moncton who’s up on conspiracy posts, crap and all.  I figured he would be the best person to assess this. A is his wife.

Here’s his reply…



—– Forwarded message from B —–

This is all total bull shit … as are all the 0;false flag” conspiracy theories put out by these conspiracy nuts. The Moncton shooter was actually one of them himself ( conspiracy nut ). These people are getting themselves all worked up at the “evils” of the governments as they perceive them and it is no wonder that every once in a while one of them gets worked up enough to actually do something like this. Practically everyone in Moncton knows someone who was family or friends with one of the police officers killed. My daughter and at least three of A’s friends have connections to at least one of these officers each, how can you hoax something like that?

I have read many discussions of these types of conspiracies on the internet and I am convinced that none of them are worth the time spent to read about them. 911 was a hoax? The planes were holograms? The was a government set up? school shooting never happened and they were all government paid actors? These people are all sick and demented and don’t ever deserve any of your or my attention. They should all be ignored and left to fade away with no consideration or attention of any kind.


No tags for this post.

1 thought on “A typical reply to fakeology

  1. Carole Thomas

    The writing style is contrived and employs platitudes, generalities and vague/imprecise denotations – practically everyone, at least three, at least one, the Moncton shooter, actually, something like this, someone who was family or friends with, something like that, of these types, of any kind
    He only uses first person pronouns three times. What does that mean? James Pennebaker, author of The Secret Life of Pronouns will explain:


    This doesn’t feel like a genuine communication.

    What I would do:
    Ask for names, specifics, telephone numbers.
    if you’re feeling generous, supply links to deconstructions of similar situations as evidence of your need for more substantial evidence here.

    additional links:


    “The use of first person singular (I, me, and my) is a subtle proclamation of one’s ownership of a statement. Knapp et al (1974) hypothesized that deceivers may avoid statements of ownership either in attempt to “dissociate” themselves from their words or due to the lack of personal experience (see also Vrij, 2000). Other studies have found that when individuals are made to be self-aware (presumably a state of honesty about oneself), references to the self increase (e.g., Davis & Brock, 1975)
    Deception is a cognitively complex undertaking. Based on previous emotional writing studies, one would assume that deceivers would have more difficulty making distinctions in their stories. From a cognitive perspective, truth-tellers are more likely to tell about what they did and what they did not do. That is, they are making a distinction between what is in the category of their story and what is not. Indeed, individuals who use a higher number of exclusive words (e.g., except, but, without) are generally healthier than those who do not use these words (Pennebaker & King, 1999). Similarly, deceivers might also want to be as imprecise as possible. Statements that are more general are easier to remember, and the deceiver is less likely to be caught in a contradiction by keeping his or her story as simple as possible. Finally, deceivers may feel guilty either about lying or about the topic they are discussing (e.g. Ekman, 1992; Vrij, 2000). As a result, deceptive communications may be characterized by more emotions that are negative. In everyday interactions, little or no attention is paid to these linguistic dimensions, but if the appropriate elements of linguistic style could be identified, they might serve as a reliable marker of deception.”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.