Tags:
  1. Sine metu

    Sine metu New Member

    in a good way. So much misleading information leading to bad deductions, so little time :)

    Brevity is important, so here goes:

    - Background in theology and philosophy. Conspiracy theory realm was/still is the burgeoning police state.
    - 2010, moved to California - you can see already where this is going?
    - Talk of chemtrails came into my sphere. Until then, I was completely unaware of the term.
    - In exploring this issue and other conspiracies, I instinctively rejected most websites and much of youtube. Too overly dramatic. But I did discover Michael Murphy at that time, who has a calm and seemingly well reasoned demeanor and makes a compelling argument (for those of us unfamiliar with the topic). From there - a link perhaps? or a forum discussion? no lo recuerdo - I found A&E for 911 Truth. I'm married to an engineer and also worked with engineers. I like process thinking that leads to logical deductions. This site spooked me due to it's convincing arguments by so many educated people, so I added 'truther' to my repetoire. Oye vey.

    I'm a 'big picture' person and always, always look for that in explanation and theory; however, scientific terminology (outside of paleontological discussions, a great passion) is often lost to me. So someone like a Dane Wigington can throw around scientific sounding words and it sounds authentic to my untrained ears. In other words, you can't get much past me if we're discussing metaphysics, but you got me if it's physics. lol

    How did I get here? About 2 months ago max, I heard Dane Wigington being interviewed on a GCN or RBN radio show. Then he was on another show, then another, then another, all within days. I'd never heard of him before. With each subsequent interview, I started to notice a pattern of vagueness combined with exaggerations. For example, I looked up his reference to Arctic methane leaks and found a sound refutation to his claims. I sent it to him, asking for his feedback. No response. He has an interesting style of calm hysteria and psychological techniques, so I got more suspicious (I always trust my instincts), and found this site in a search just last week. Voila. All my questions about chemtrails answered in one handy dandy site, with excellent citations for further exploration.

    Bonus: other fear mongering gossip addressed here.

    In the welcome thread, I believe it was Deirdre who had an excellent comment re: the mountain effect; that is, with some people, once one conspiracy is debunked, they all topple. This is true for me.
    However, like any dysfunction, whether it is a way of thinking, an addiction, etc, one has to
    1) acknowledge something is wrong 2) have correct information to understand what is wrong 3) be in the right psychological place to change.
    In my case, little things kept nagging at me that didn't quite make sense, even though the particular conspiracies I mentioned were argued very welll at the sources I referenced.

    Thank you to all who contribute on both sides of each issue. While I am not qualified to contribute to this site, it's on my daily go-to list to stay up to date, and I'll be sharing it with many. I appreciate the mature style of debate and Mr. West's fair moderation to ensure that all stay on point without insult and/or sidetracks. (I have a particular fondness for the 'curmudgeons' - it's an efficient, but often misunderstood style.)

    Respectfully,
     
    • Like Like x 22
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Rico

    Rico Active Member

    Welcome!

    Michael Murphy and his documentaries almost bought me in when I first encountered them. This was because of, as you say, his calm demeanor. He does sell the chemtrail theory very well, and his film making skills are rather good. I've never been big into conspiracy theories or debunking them until then. I think the only reason why I didn't believe in chemtrails was because I worked in the aviation industry long enough to know better, and that major parts of his WITWATS documentary doesn't make any logical sense, and over exaggerates certain topics.

    By the way, you can feel free to contribute as much as you like here. No one here has a degree or some such in debunking. A lot of it is really just boils down to a little bit of common sense, some skepticism, a bit of careful research and critical thinking. There are a lot of professionals here from various fields who do give a lot of interesting insight to various topics, but don't feel as though you need to be qualified to chime in on some discussions.
     
  3. Leifer

    Leifer Senior Member

    Congrats on keeping an open mind in your internet travels.
    I wouldn't call this site a "rabbit hole" though.
    Hopefully it has safety ropes to prevent that.
    If my analogy continues, we would try to be the "safety guide", holding on to the rope, to prevent anyone from going down any hole.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Ellsworth

    Ellsworth Member

    Great that you found it! But look at this http://beforeitsnews.com/chemtrails...es-run-by-just-one-guy-mick-west-2430014.html they say this site is exactly the opposite that you describe.

    Can anyone advise how one deals with people who are already primed to hate this site? Will referring them here make them get worse or better? Or does it depend on the individual?

    EDIT: I am aware of this https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-two-disinfo-sites-run-by-“just-some-guy”-–-mick-west.683/, but I don't know where the people I know got the source of the disinfo. They just think @Mick West is funded by government. That's all they say
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

  6. Ellsworth

    Ellsworth Member

    He's already replied to some of my messages. Maybe I should just leave the people time to think. I know he will say be polite etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    perhaps you can start your own thread on this topic youre interested in, instead of linking and asking questions all over different threads.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I ask them to point out something I got wrong. They generally vanish after that, so I'm not sure how well it actually works.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Jason

    Jason Senior Member

    Well if they are primed to "hate" this site, then it's probably better to avoid using this site as a reference, but you can still use the materials and research from this site to aid you in your discussions. If someone who believes in a CT is riding me to read his CT site so that I can believe him, I will probably just ignore that individual. However, if the individual comes to me with a specific claim from the CT site, I will do my best to answer his/her questions. Like Mick and others have stated, it's not so much about you're wrong and I'm right. It's more about asking them the "right" questions to get them thinking about their theory. Spend less time proving them wrong, and more time listening to them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  10. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Okay, evidently I was napping when all this took place 7 months ago...but...uh, better late than never, eh? :D

    I love your question about whether it will make haters get worse or better...and yeah, I think it does
    depend a lot on the person. For whatever reason, we just aren't all wired the same.
    What seems like super persuasive, incontrovertible evidence to someone else,
    often leaves me slack-jawed that anyone could find it compelling at all...

    Which leads to the next point...I've learned that I'm dealing with people who juggle double standards effortlessly:
    The same guy who will demand that "more investigation!!" of a victim's body (where 3 clear camera angles exist,
    showing every little detail)
    is needed because the shade of red of the blood doesn't quite match what they expect after seeing CSI: Las Vegas, or he'll declare everything a "false flag,"...that same (No amount of evidence will satisfy me!) guy, if someone says "Hey, I got zero proof, but that Mick West guy works for the CIA" will just immediately accept it:
    "No evidence at all? That's good enough for me! I'll believe it, spread it, & fervently & blindly push others to do so too!"
    Somehow the bottomless threshold of YouTube credibility is taken as accurate unless 100% proved otherwise...
    and even then...


    And yes, 49.9999999% of this site is essentially: "Be polite." :)

    Screen Shot 2015-05-04 at 12.39.00 AM.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member


    ...me too, apparently...(MY! How time flies!!) "Frankenstein" ("It's pronounced "franken-STEEN!") drinking tea? Priceless.

    As a "rabbit hole"? I had a new inclination....unless I'm "Harvey", the invisible rabbit? I would need a 'human-sized' hole to "disappear" into.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. While no doubt remains that much of the Alternative Media aswell as the Truthmovement is simply propagating claims with appeals to pathos, insufficient empirical evidence and simplistic theoretical frameworks, one should not entirely discard the essence of their claims. The reason being that, as i find, some of what is claimed may actually be true but merely distorted by fear-mongering and a lack of intellectual rigor.

    Fx. Concerning secret societies and their influence upon politics i find The Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics to be a helpful resource.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2015
  13. JFDee

    JFDee Senior Member

    Hmm, crop circles as indication of something other than human creativity? Really?
    https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/miscellaneous/UFOs/Crop_circles_formations.htm

    I'd take information from that institute with more than a grain of salt. However, if you want to discuss this, please open a new topic, preferably in a forum like "Science and Pseudoscience" or the like.