Ominous rhetorical questions can insinuate conspiracy while making no falsifiable claim.

Evidence

In addition to bare assertion, the new conspiracism takes the form of an ominous question—for example, those that followed the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: “How can the Marshal say without a thorough post mortem that he was not injected with an illegal substance that would simulate a heart attack,” William O. Ritchie, a former homicide investigator for the Washington, DC, police, wrote in a Facebook post. “Did the US Marshal check for petechial hemorrhage in his eyes or under his lips that would suggest suffocation? Did the US Marshal smell his breath for any unusual odor that might suggest poisoning?” Ritchie suggested a conspiracy: “My gut tells me there is something fishy going on in Texas.” No specific accusations are made, and no falsifiable assertions are ventured. The “just asking questions tactic” substitutes for argument, evidence, and explanation. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 67

Categorization

• DEFINE: Names and illustrates the ‘just asking questions’ tactic as a defining form of new conspiracism.
• XREF: connects to: Rhetorical questions signal helplessness in conspiracy literature. — Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic…, 450; Bare-assertion conspiracism demands no errant facts to explain — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 63

Broader Connections

• Bare-assertion conspiracism demands no errant facts to explain #exemplifies (0.75) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 63