[MadHyeNa]

The way that specific conspiracy story is expressed and the message that it conveys. The usage of specific technical terms and pointing our so-called facts that are actually misinterpretations of scientific studies and documents. Emphasizing and focusing on the bugs and extracting quotes by leaving out some of the key parts of a sentence to intensify their meaning, I mean, to convery a different message than the scientist actually aimed to present.

Ultimately, mixing all of these in a decent manner and if the presentation is not sub-par, marketing is well done, then chances are that almost all of the average Joes will buy into. And then the word-of-mouth advertisements continues. That's when Joe will fill up all of his friends with that specific conspiracy theory explaining and using technical terms himself because it boosts his level of confidence because he will look smarter than he really indeed.

Furthemore, that friend will end up amazed by the presentation and personal recommendation that his friend Joe did and, therefore, finds himself actually studying, researching, buying into that conspiracy himself too. It's social conditioning. It's the effect that our friends have upon us. It's the effect of technical terms, and the usage of quotes, high technicality, abstract philosophical language in a certain tone, remembering of scientists that actually have nothing to do with the specific conspiracy but still pointing out some excerpts by their works and, obviously, attaching a long, long list of further reading and references that contain seemingly 'correct and accurate' source for reference.

This is a psychological weakness and phenomenon that human beings usually buy into. If these weaknesses are used up to their full potential than they generate curiosity and have a deep lasting impression. That is, admiration toward the 'intelligence' of the conspiracy theorists. Why? Because they are so familiar with technical terms, accurate details, correct graphs and scientists' documents. Anything that can be brought as to look like a "strong argument" has serious value and effect upon the reader. Especially if the facts are overreacted and bit stretched!

Heck, I've read a study a while ago about how you can make graphs to convery a different meaning by using correct values. I mean, you won't actually cheat because you are applying the graph on the accurate values but still there are specific ways how you present it, the graph will have a different impression, effect and meaning upon the readers or listeners/viewers (in case of a seminar, conference, presentation, etc.). It is mind blowing how our mind actually misinterprets and pays not that much attention to details rather it goes with its 'first impressions' that are far could be far from the reality.

It is similar to social proof and there's nothing you can do about it. You either fall into or use it toward toward the highest good of all.

Oh, and something that I've remembered of, even if a specific negative message must be conveyed, that simply can't be mispresented and nor can it be left out, then still it can be used as to have no actual effect upon the readers/spectators. That is, generating specific moods in the public before hand, acquire some sort of states (similar to multiple "Yes" responses and then asking the ambigous question will result in a "Yes" answer from the victim) and then presenting the harsh fact will have absolutely no negative effect upon the public, or eventually even positive. There's a science behind all of these... it just is. There's nothing you can do about it. You cannot change the world.