Bias and ethics in Debunking. Presenting data that can be used by CTs.

David Fraser

Senior Member.
As I have mentioned a number of times in some threads I have become quite obsessed with chemtrails. I have learnt a great deal but more specifically I am interested in the whole aluminium scenario. I am lucky in that when bumming around universities I worked on a number of projects involving water quality/recycling and at the time aluminium came up (I did install a rainwater harvesting system into a food factory that produced potable water) it caught my eye. Since then I have been doing a mass of study. I only work a few hours a week after having a stroke and was studying prior and still have access to academic resources, just in case anyone wants to claim I am a paid shill or wants to employ me as a paid shill. However I have been gathering info on aluminium all with the goal of putting it on a webpage for anyone to access. This includes official documents and research papers and cross continent standards. A little like contrail science but really boring. Now I have found some really fascinating stuff (to me) like the amount of Al in breastmilk http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/tox201221.pdf and the whole food issue is interesting. I have even been looking at writing a paper ffs

But I will cut to the chase. I will not discuss the actual reports or data but would you be willing to openly publish stuff that could be interpreted in support of chemtrails (or any CT in general). I have reports that I have not been able to validate or to get the actual raw data or study enough to disclaim chemtrails, yet I feel disingenuous at the least about not including it. However if I do include it I will have to make a statement that this is the data make of what you will. At the end of the day I do go out of my way to avoid bias, but we do seem to be in a "us and them" scenario.

A good example is today someone posted the patent for Patent 7413145 82 http://www.google.com/patents/US834...n&sa=X&ei=wFalUdEd5uHKAYvcgTg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA I then pointed out it was 7413145 B2 http://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

Now the guy, quite rightfully, said at least it proved a dispersal system. I was going to argue that is was used out of patent but could not be arsed. But to get to my point. Are you happy publishing info that could be used to support a CT? Do you think it should be withheld or edited? All that I will put out have references that are openly available although probably for some it may mean a visit to a library
 

Mr2Styx

New Member
Greeting from sunny California, BiggerDave (is there a "LesserDave" about?), I just stumbled across this website and your post. I've been studying/observing CTs since 1998 and have become alarmed (not enough to disturb my sleep yet) by the aluminum showing up. One Sky Watch group in N. CA. http://www.chicoskywatch.org/ has done some testing of soil and water. The results should be alarming to many more people. I look forward to reading more of your data and studies and will happily forward them on to various other groups I'm in contact with. Feel free to post directly on my Facebook page, look for "TwoSticks" and it should pop up. Good luck to you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Greeting from sunny California, BiggerDave (is there a "LesserDave" about?), I just stumbled across this website and your post. I've been studying/observing CTs since 1998 and have become alarmed (not enough to disturb my sleep yet) by the aluminum showing up. One Sky Watch group in N. CA. http://www.chicoskywatch.org/ has done some testing of soil and water. The results should be alarming to many more people. I look forward to reading more of your data and studies and will happily forward them on to various other groups I'm in contact with. Feel free to post directly on my Facebook page, look for "TwoSticks" and it should pop up. Good luck to you.

Do you have a particular test that alarms you? Many such test have been addressed here.

Examples:
http://contrailscience.com/chemtrail-non-science/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/31...ounty-Florida-Test-Positive-for-Aluminum-quot
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/712-Factual-Errors-in-quot-Why-In-The-World-Are-They-Spraying-quot
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But I will cut to the chase. I will not discuss the actual reports or data but would you be willing to openly publish stuff that could be interpreted in support of chemtrails (or any CT in general). I have reports that I have not been able to validate or to get the actual raw data or study enough to disclaim chemtrails, yet I feel disingenuous at the least about not including it. However if I do include it I will have to make a statement that this is the data make of what you will. At the end of the day I do go out of my way to avoid bias, but we do seem to be in a "us and them" scenario.

A good example is today someone posted the patent for Patent 7413145 82 http://www.google.com/patents/US834...n&sa=X&ei=wFalUdEd5uHKAYvcgTg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA I then pointed out it was 7413145 B2 http://www.google.com/patents/US7413145

Now the guy, quite rightfully, said at least it proved a dispersal system. I was going to argue that is was used out of patent but could not be arsed. But to get to my point. Are you happy publishing info that could be used to support a CT? Do you think it should be withheld or edited? All that I will put out have references that are openly available although probably for some it may mean a visit to a library

It depends on how relevant it is, and if it's really directly supporting the theory. . Why bring up a fire retardant spray system if all it is going to do is confuse people?

I'd not be comfortable witholding information though. It's a tricky line to walk. Being absolutely honest and open is going to be better than being overly careful with what you say.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
It depends on how relevant it is, and if it's really directly supporting the theory. . Why bring up a fire retardant spray system if all it is going to do is confuse people?

I'd not be comfortable witholding information though. It's a tricky line to walk. Being absolutely honest and open is going to be better than being overly careful with what you say.

The page I am looking at is just a general page amount Al Mick. For example we have the argument of excess Al in the soil, I have geographic specific data that could back that up. However I know there is further research as the "theory" is due to erosion. There is a great deal I could put out but it open to interpretation, ie until a causal link is found. (I am not in a position to make a statement)

I did write a great deal after this but "How do you remove Bias??"
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Leifer Mike Adams' "good gopher" search engine General Discussion 19
George B Chemtrail discussion: ethics, psyops, and stuff Contrails and Chemtrails 140
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 10
gtoffo Needs Debunking: "UFO crash" near Rio de Janeiro UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Code-Beta Needs Debunking: CE-5, humans initiating UFO sightings UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
Mick West TFTRH #34 - Stian Arnesen: Debunking, Censorship, 9/11, and UFOs Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
H Need Debunking: Hernando County platforms from more than 10 miles Flat Earth 9
Bill Statler Needs debunking: "Magnetic water" for treating diabetes Health and Quackery 8
Mick West TFTRH #14: Rory – Flat Earth Debunking and Spiritual Journeys Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Qulaey Two problems need help debunking and debating tips? please. Flat Earth 9
Scaramanga The Easy And Logical Debunking Of UFO 'Size' UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mendel MediaWise #IsThisLegit program Practical Debunking 1
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
vooke Need debunking: Writings in the sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Debunking 9/11 Microsphere Myths 9/11 0
Starman Debunking Bob Lazar's drawing of S-4 hangers UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Mick West Debunking Guidelines for: "Convex Earth - The Documentary" Flat Earth 0
T Debunking needed – anomalous mp3 recording distortion UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 12
Mick West Here's to the "Debunker"! Practical Debunking 1
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
Mick West NY Times: In Italian Schools, Reading, Writing and Recognizing Fake News Practical Debunking 60
Mick West Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation Practical Debunking 5
Rory Where online is debunking most effective? Practical Debunking 14
Whitebeard Martymer 81 Practical Debunking 4
N Neeson's anti-debunking thoughts Site Feedback & News 15
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Mick West Burying the Debunk: How Fake News about "Pyramids" in Antarctica Creates False Balance UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunking911.com offline - How to Preserve Good Debunking Sites? 9/11 3
Sam Hill Debunking "That's not a Space Station, it's an airplane" Flat Earth 1
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Rogerpenna Debunking Flat Earth with the Southern Hemisphere Flat Earth 11
Leifer Polite video interviewing/debunking Practical Debunking 8
Veronica! Any resources for debunking a 'cold case' UFO sighting? Practical Debunking 7
M Flat Earth theory simple debunking by the moon's appearance Flat Earth 48
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
deirdre study on how to 'sway people' Practical Debunking 0
Leifer Pseudo debunking, trickery, product promos Health and Quackery 10
MikeG College Course on Conspiracies Practical Debunking 89
Leifer Harriet Hall, on debunking methods Practical Debunking 2
keefe Debunking guide Practical Debunking 3
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
G Needs debunking: Video of a solar eclipse is fake because we cannot see the moon covering the sun Flat Earth 5
Trigger Hippie Russian Troll Houses Practical Debunking 24
Mick West Finding the Original Source in a World of Aggregators, Shares, and Reposts Practical Debunking 32
David Ridlen Earth curvature refraction experiments - debunking flat/concave Earth Flat Earth 344
Mackdog Google to start debunking General Discussion 21
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top