> Then why use it? You're saying it's more likely they hadn't heard of it, but used it anyway? Yes, right. They used it as a way of naming the thing they were

> Then why use it? You're saying it's more likely they hadn't heard of it, but used it anyway? Yes, right. They used it as a way of naming the thing they were seeing, not using it like someone familiar with it. > What about the additional part about a shadowy cabal that you ignored? I just rechecked the article. What shadowy cabal part? > If I offer a reward for proof that aliens abducted Elvis, you don't consider that lending credence to a conspiracy theory? I think a reward initially signals interest in the area, and then longer term acts as a disproof of the theory. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_... for a famous example of this effect. > Why is Wikileaks in the business of "fact checking a conspiracy theory"? I thought they were about, you know, leaks. Leaks of significance are of course worth more. Soliciting leaks is absolutely something they do (and should do). > No it doesn't. It just requires that if someone else figures out the actual cause they deny it. Zero cost. Well, except that denying hard evidence doesn't usually work (#include those who have been leak subjects). Also people all over the web are having conversations like this one, so the situation degenerating into a head-said/she-said situation would have a cost. Which as I pointed out before was an obvious outcome of their tweet. Happy travels :)