Debunked: Article: "Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School"

Leifer

Senior Member.
Another post above i said it is obviously bias, but the only thing to go off of. Therefore yout cannot debunk it without all the information. The 'debunker' made tons of assumptions to get to his point.
But her posts point to other reasons for loss of custody, which she fails to address in detail. I'm (personally) suggesting the well known fact, that one parent's opinion, can contain a wide swath of bias, and therefore can be discounted until other evidence shows-up.
Based on vast previous custody situations, there are always two sides to a story.
With only one side explained, (plus her paranoia) we (I) can logically say that her story has little-to no merit, without evidence from the other side or court documents.
Just because I may claim something is true, does not make it fact, or that alt media "makes" my claim true simply by re-posting my personal opinions.
The debunk is from lack of gathered evidence, paranoia, plus her light mentions of important custody info not fully explained, but still is claimed "as true" on alt. media.
Adding those up, is this: "not regarded as believable" when posted on alt media "as true".

The alt media is claiming this story is true.
Mick (OP) is debunking the alt media story (article), because the writers have insufficient evidence.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
He couldn't have debunked her claims using her own words cause she claims it started with the chemtrail comment.
who cares how it started. The article states that according to court documents she was removed from her mother's custody [solely] because her mother believes in chemtrails.

The mother claims some kind of altercation at the school that concerned another parent enough to report her to the office and escalated to the point of the school banning her from the premises.

There are no court documents made public.
The mother herself states the judge 'wasnt happy' about all her 'conspiracy facts'. Not just chemtrails.
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I have worked out who "Becca Vandb" and the father are. I won't identify them here but I will point out that Becca has been in trouble with the law on more than one occasion, most recently just a couple of months ago. (Obviously this particular arrest won't have been able to influence the decision back in 2014/15, but there are others.)

image.jpeg

The father is now married and states on social media that he lives with his daughter (ie Becca's daughter) and stepdaughter (his wife's daughter).
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
He couldn't have debunked her claims using her own words cause she claims it started with the chemtrail comment.

He claims by his first comment is clear the chemtrail comment is not the reason, yet that's all she mentions. Assumption right there.
I was debunking the article, which claimed "Court takes child from mother after she mentions chemtrails at school", and specifically claims this was backed up by court documents. There is simply no evidence this is true, all we have is the account of the mother where she says the Judge considered MANY things, including "words like ‘kundalini’ and ‘chakras’ and ‘twin souls,’ and ideas like a new monetary system and new currency for the U.S.", and she also mentioned several other factors that the judge would not view favorably in a custody dispute (her lack of money, her blacklist from state employment).

Clearly the father wanted sole custody. Multiple factors would have been weighed.

And where are these "court documents".
 

narcosys

New Member
who cares how it started. The article states that according to court documents she was removed from her mother's custody [solely] because her mother believes in chemtrails.

The mother claims some kind of altercation at the school that concerned another parent enough to report her to the office and escalated to the point of the school banning her from the premises.

There are no court documents made public.
The mother herself states the judge 'wasnt happy' about all her 'conspiracy facts'. Not just chemtrails.
Therefore it is NOT debunked until it is proven otherwise. I understand that we can't fully believe her, but you CAN NOT, debunk something without proof otherwise. We can neither prove nor disprove her claims and come to the conclusion without a lot of assumptions.
 

narcosys

New Member
But her posts point to other reasons for loss of custody, which she fails to address in detail. I'm (personally) suggesting the well known fact, that one parent's opinion, can contain a wide swath of bias, and therefore can be discounted until other evidence shows-up.
Based on vast previous custody situations, there are always two sides to a story.
With only one side explained, (plus her paranoia) we (I) can logically say that her story has little-to no merit, without evidence from the other side or court documents.
Just because I may claim something is true, does not make it fact, or that alt media "makes" my claim true simply by re-posting my personal opinions.
The debunk is from lack of gathered evidence, paranoia, plus her light mentions of important custody info not fully explained, but still is claimed "as true" on alt. media.
Adding those up, is this: "not regarded as believable" when posted on alt media "as true".

The alt media is claiming this story is true.
Mick (OP) is debunking the alt media story (article), because the writers have insufficient evidence.
And the writer had insufficient evidence to debunk the story. As I mentioned to deirdre, you cannot debunk without evidence.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Therefore it is NOT debunked until it is proven otherwise. I understand that we can't fully believe her, but you CAN NOT, debunk something without proof otherwise. We can neither prove nor disprove her claims and come to the conclusion without a lot of assumptions.
What is not debunked? Can you quote what is not debunked?
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
And the writer had insufficient evidence to debunk the story. As I mentioned to deirdre, you cannot debunk without evidence.
I don't think you understand....
You can't say it's true, without evidence.
The articles say it's true, without evidence.

....so the debunk is..."it has no evidence".
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
I would have to agree that "Debunked" is a bit of a strong tag although I can see where Mick is coming from.

What IS debunked in the article is this claim:

"Court documents reveal". No court documents have been made public, so how can they reveal anything?

What has not been debunked is that there is a link between the court decision and the mother's views on chemtrails. There may be, there may not be. We don't know.

Even so, the news story is false as it stands, because it doesn't back up its claims with actual court documents.
 

narcosys

New Member
I don't think you understand....
You can't say it's true, without evidence.
The articles say it's true, without evidence.

....so the debunk is..."it has no evidence".
And you can't say its not true without evidence. Just because a short snippet of an article doesn't provide court documents that are most likely locked, does not mean it's not true. I can claim a lot of things but because of classification level, I cannot provide the documents go prove me correct, but it does not necessarily make my statements untrue.
 

narcosys

New Member
I don't think you understand....
You can't say it's true, without evidence.
The articles say it's true, without evidence.

....so the debunk is..."it has no evidence".
And you can't say its not true without evidence. Just because a short snippet of an article doesn't provide court documents that are most likely locked, does not mean it's not true. I can claim a lot of things but because of classification level, I cannot provide the documents go prove me correct, but it does not necessarily make my statements untrue.
What is not debunked? Can you quote what is not debunked?
Any of it. You assume too much, even with your first statement. If you are going to claim that it is not true, you need to provide evidence. Just like the woman or article needs to provide evidence that it's true. You don't seem to understand the word debunk.

You need evidence to support your claim. You have none. Her story is consistent with it starting about chemtrails.
 

Leifer

Senior Member.
And you can't say its not true without evidence. Just because a short snippet of an article doesn't provide court documents that are most likely locked, does not mean it's not true. I can claim a lot of things but because of classification level, I cannot provide the documents go prove me correct, but it does not necessarily make my statements untrue.
Example:
Make-up anything you want....I will, here:

"I own a double horned unicorn, and I have no evidence."
So, is this true, until somebody proves me wrong ? Shouldn't I provide the evidence ?
After all, I made the claim.....

I think you are just trying to be argumentative.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
No, the school can call the other parent directly when no proof of actual abuse had occurred but there are concerns.
Sorry, by "direct action" I meant legal action. Above you stated that "no investigation should have been started solely on this woman's belief", yet there's no evidence of any investigation, or any kind of legal action being initiated by anyone but the father. I'm not familiar with US law, so could a school even initiate any kind of investigation or legal action without involving the CPS? Here (UK) they would need to inform Social Services (equivalent of CPS) and/or the police.

Given what you've said, the school was quite correct in contacting the father to express their concerns about her behaviour.

Ray Von
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And you can't say its not true without evidence. Just because a short snippet of an article doesn't provide court documents that are most likely locked, does not mean it's not true. I can claim a lot of things but because of classification level, I cannot provide the documents go prove me correct, but it does not necessarily make my statements untrue.
The problem is that the article claimed court documents revealed certain things (and strongly implied "just now")

These claims are bunk because they are not backed by evidence, and because there's contradictory evidence.

All the "quotes" in the article are quotes from Becca Vandb's block posts from a year and a half ago. In that blog post she also lists other things that the judge brought up.

Perhaps most telling as counter-evidence is the fact that millions of people have mentioned chemtrails. The vast majority of them still have their children.

The actual court documents might tell the real story. Presumably Becca Vanb has them, so why not publish them?
 

narcosys

New Member
Sorry, by "direct action" I meant legal action. Above you stated that "no investigation should have been started solely on this woman's belief", yet there's no evidence of any investigation, or any kind of legal action being initiated by anyone but the father. I'm not familiar with US law, so could a school even initiate any kind of investigation or legal action without involving the CPS? Here (UK) they would need to inform Social Services (equivalent of CPS) and/or the police.

Given what you've said, the school was quite correct in contacting the father to express their concerns about her behaviour.

Ray Von
No, the school has no authority to do that. But they do have a responsibility to notify parents or authorities.
 

Spectrar Ghost

Senior Member.
I think we can conclude that there is no (available) evidence in support of or against the article's assertions. While the veracity of the claims is still uncertain, there are surrounding circumstances (employment, income, housing) that make Becca's conspiratorial beliefs basically incidental in a custody case. It certainly sounds as if the custody battle was ongoing to me, but there's no way to be sure.

Regardless of veracity, without supporting evidence the article is just hearsay. Bunk or not, it's not responsible journalism.
 

narcosys

New Member
Example:
Make-up anything you want....I will, here:

"I own a double horned unicorn, and I have no evidence."
So, is this true, until somebody proves me wrong ? Shouldn't I provide the evidence ?
After all, I made the claim.....

I think you are just trying to be argumentative.

Not at all. But I am trying to make you understand that you also cannot say it is untrue without evidence to show otherwise.

For your example, there is a difference between something completely fanciful and something that might have merit.

A better example that coincides with everyone's claims to provide the court documents is this:

I can say a certain mission in a foreign country occurred and the results of that mission are 1, 2 and 3.

But if the documents are classified and locked, I cannot prove it. It DOES NOT mean that it is not true.

Plus scientifically speaking in terms of evidence, nothing is true or false until there is enough substantial evidence to show one way it another.

The writer does not provide evidence that the article is false. Therefore yout cannot claim one way or the other.

This is not a debunk article, this is an, 'I disagree therefore you're wrong,' article.
 

narcosys

New Member
I think we can conclude that there is no (available) evidence in support of or against the article's assertions. While the veracity of the claims is still uncertain, there are surrounding circumstances (employment, income, housing) that make Becca's conspiratorial beliefs basically incidental in a custody case. It certainly sounds as if the custody battle was ongoing to me, but there's no way to be sure.

Regardless of veracity, without supporting evidence the article is just hearsay. Bunk or not, it's not responsible journalism.
Thank you!!
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
And given the other evidence that a bit of digging uncovers:

Mother has been in trouble with the law
Mother has many other fringe/paranoid beliefs
Mother has a home that burned down without adequate insurance and was in danger of foreclosure
Mother is out of work and on low income

Father married in 2013 and has a stable home life
Father and his wife both have decent jobs
Daughter appears to have been living with father and his wife for some time, ie long before this case was first mentioned online

It is clear that this is not a case of "a child has been taken from her mother because the mother talked about chemtrails", which is how it is being spun.
 

MikeG

Senior Member.
Not at all. But I am trying to make you understand that you also cannot say it is untrue without evidence to show otherwise.

For your example, there is a difference between something completely fanciful and something that might have merit.

A better example that coincides with everyone's claims to provide the court documents is this:

I can say a certain mission in a foreign country occurred and the results of that mission are 1, 2 and 3.

But if the documents are classified and locked, I cannot prove it. It DOES NOT mean that it is not true.

Plus scientifically speaking in terms of evidence, nothing is true or false until there is enough substantial evidence to show one way it another.

The writer does not provide evidence that the article is false. Therefore yout cannot claim one way or the other.

This is not a debunk article, this is an, 'I disagree therefore you're wrong,' article.
Your choice of words is interesting. The idea that chemtrails are "fanciful" has been discussed at length on this website.

But whether or not the original claim about the judge's decision was Becca Vandb's responsibility, not Mick's. Requiring him to provide evidence that something did not happen is impossible.

We are not talking about a disagreement. We are talking about an original claim with no evidence. To use your phrase, there is no "substantial evidence" to back up Becca Vandb's claim.

Other people have offered counter claims regarding the possible nature of the custody issue. None of them are being portrayed as definitive, but they do provide an alternate theory with a greater degree of "substantial evidence" than Becca Vandb.
 

narcosys

New Member
Your choice of words is interesting. The idea that chemtrails are "fanciful" has been discussed at length on this website.

But whether or not the original claim about the judge's decision was Becca Vandb's responsibility, not Mick's. Requiring him to provide evidence that something did not happen is impossible.

We are not talking about a disagreement. We are talking about an original claim with no evidence. To use your phrase, there is no "substantial evidence" to back up Becca Vandb's claim.

Other people have offered counter claims regarding the possible nature of the custody issue. None of them are being portrayed as definitive, but they do provide an alternate theory with a greater degree of "substantial evidence" than Becca Vandb.
It is not impossible. He could submit a FOIA for the court documents. Instead he does lazy journalism, makes assumptions, and then passes those assumptions off as fact.

Other people have provided counter CLAIMS. That's it, claims and no proof. Noone has provided any substantial evidence to provev the article wrong. If they did, then there would be no argument to be made against the writer.

I have no problems with assuming certain things. I have a problem with passing assumptions off as facts.

As a caveat, I'm not arguing that the article is true, only that you cannot definitively say it's false.
 

narcosys

New Member
And given the other evidence that a bit of digging uncovers:

Mother has been in trouble with the law
Mother has many other fringe/paranoid beliefs
Mother has a home that burned down without adequate insurance and was in danger of foreclosure
Mother is out of work and on low income

Father married in 2013 and has a stable home life
Father and his wife both have decent jobs
Daughter appears to have been living with father and his wife for some time, ie long before this case was first mentioned online

It is clear that this is not a case of "a child has been taken from her mother because the mother talked about chemtrails", which is how it is being spun.
You're definition of clear, is still only an assumption.
 

narcosys

New Member
However, I would say that given the evidence available, the story is more likely false than true.
That's fine, that's a perfect wording that I can agree with.

The writer however makes this assumption and brazenly says it is false. That distinction cannot be made without evidence, as we discussed already.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
No, the school has no authority to do that. But they do have a responsibility to notify parents or authorities.
Ok, so I think we're in agreement that the school were within their rights, even obliged, to inform the father that there'd been an independent complaint made about the mother's behaviour, and that they'd had to ban her from school premises? Initially you seemed to be saying that the school had acted unreasonably, started some kind of investigation even, which had led to the court acting independently. That's also the impression the original article seems to strain to make.

Clearly that's not the case, the father won custody from the mother and there's no evidence that the school initiated the case (or any likely legal basis that they could without CPS involvement). Becca says that the school's evidence was construed as proving she was paranoid, which doesn't really seem too unreasonable given that she's claiming a parent, the school, her ex-husband and the court were all conspiring against her.

Ray Von
 

narcosys

New Member
So would you disagree that this is a fact:
Yes because the only evidence provided is the comment about what the judge said.

Knowing how the proceedings began will clear a lot of things up.

You are making an educated guess, but it is still just a guess and not fact.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
Knowing how the proceedings began will clear a lot of things up.
For that we need to find out if there's any other way for proceedings to have begun, other than by the father initiating them.

If CPS weren't involved, and the father was contesting custody from the mother, rather than the state, what other options are there?

Ray Von
 

narcosys

New Member
Ok, so I think we're in agreement that the school were within their rights, even obliged, to inform the father that there'd been an independent complaint made about the mother's behaviour, and that they'd had to ban her from school premises? Initially you seemed to be saying that the school had acted unreasonably, started some kind of investigation even, which had led to the court acting independently. That's also the impression the original article seems to strain to make.

Clearly that's not the case, the father won custody from the mother and there's no evidence that the school initiated the case (or any likely legal basis that they could without CPS involvement). Becca says that the school's evidence was construed as proving she was paranoid, which doesn't really seem too unreasonable given that she's claiming a parent, the school, her ex-husband and the court were all conspiring against her.

Ray Von
And that is if that is how it all started, with a call to the parent. If it was started because if a call to the police, or any other authority then it is wrong to start a custody proceeding based on someone's belief. If the father started it, then he is well within his rights.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
And that is if that is how it all started, with a call to the parent. If it was started because if a call to the police, or any other authority then it is wrong to start a custody proceeding based on someone's belief. If the father started it, then he is well within his rights.
Given Becca clearly says she and the husband, rather than her and the state, were fighting for custody, how could any other party start custody proceedings?

Ray Von
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Therefore it is NOT debunked until it is proven otherwise. I understand that we can't fully believe her, but you CAN NOT, debunk something without proof otherwise. We can neither prove nor disprove her claims and come to the conclusion without a lot of assumptions.
Wouldn't you agree that if the article claimed there were court documents, it is up to the write to prove the documents exist, and prove what they say is in them?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Wouldn't you agree that if the article claimed there were court documents, it is up to the write to prove the documents exist, and prove what they say is in them?
I think you can cool your heels--waiting on a response--for 168 or so hours, JR... :p
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Yes because the only evidence provided is the comment about what the judge said
no. the evidence provided is what Becca said. in full. ALL her writings. SHE said that there were multiple reasons the judge was unfavorable toward her.

You seem to be misunderstanding the premise of Metabunk. Noone is debunking her claims. What is debunked is THE ARTICLE itself. The statements in the article. she did not write the article. For all we know, she had no idea it was coming out or it was written.

This isnt about whether or not she is lying. Or whether her husband started proceedings, as she stated, because he wanted revenge for her rejecting him.

This is about fact checking the Dmitry article.
Ms. Vandb's statements she had written (and Mick provided) contradict things written in the article.

ps. you cannot do a FOIA request on family court documents. Surely you know that.
 

Ray Von Geezer

Senior Member.
What is debunked is THE ARTICLE itself. The statements in the article. she did not write the article. For all we know, she had no idea it was coming out or it was written.
In fairness to Narcosys, I was a little uneasy about the original version of this, "Debunked" did seem a little strong. While it's reasonable to say that her general behaviour and state of mind would be taken in consideration by the court, rather than specific mentions of "chemtrails", I didn't think that was strong enough evidence to declare it debunked.

However, I completely agree that "Baxter Dmitry" presents no evidence of having access to any court documents, and there's nothing in his article that wasn't available on Becca's blogs. He also appears unaware (or doesn't feel it worth mentioning) that "Becca Vandb" is an on-line pseudonym rather than her real name, as Trailblazer pointed out in post #43.

That being the case, it's reasonable to point out that Becca's own words, taken in their entirety, do indicate there was far more to this than just talking about "chemtrails".

There are also secondary debunks, such as Paul Joseph Watson's story on Infowars which references only the OP article as a source - "Judge Orders Mother’s Child to be Snatched Because She Believes in “Chemtrails”". He ups the ante with:-

There is no evidence whatsoever that the child was "snatched" or "seized", either in the YourNewsWire article, or from Becca's own words. In fact there's nothing to indicate that this was anything but a custody case between two parents, during which her fringe beliefs were brought up as an indication of her general state of paranoia.

Ray Von
 

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
There is no evidence whatsoever that the child was "snatched" or "seized", either in the YourNewsWire article, or from Becca's own words. In fact there's nothing to indicate that this was anything but a custody case between two parents, during which her fringe beliefs were brought up as an indication of her general state of paranoia.
This is the key point. The article tries to frame it as some kind of social-services intervention with the suggestion (albeit not written in as many words) of a child being taken into care. In fact it is nothing of the sort, just a custody battle between parents.

I would also dispute this part (emphasis added)

Based on the father's Facebook page, the daughter has been living with him and his wife since at least 2013.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
In fairness to Narcosys, I was a little uneasy about the original version of this, "Debunked" did seem a little strong
Perhaps. although i disagree. To me, there were very specific 'quote mining' tactics etc used in the article to paint a picture that wasn't quite accurate. Of course, to be fair, i have read the general comments people are making on social media- so their "take" on the story as written in that article, is wrong IMO.

I do understand where Narco is coming from. I think there are more than enough posts and threads (too many if you ask me) on Metabunk that show members feel these misinformation sites like geoengineeringwatch, infowars, disinfo.com, memory hole, vetrans today etc CAN be harmful to readers in that they can instill deep paranoia and fear, and even adversely effect families in very bad ways and perhaps cause people to display highly irrational behaviors from this fear or due to "defensiveness".
I mean seriously, the moment you start trying to explain "chakras" and the "cabal" to a judge.. you've lost a bit "groundedness". (i wont mention :) the slight probability that Becca was perhaps trying to brainwash her daughter against her evil geoengineering scientist, cabal-boot licking ex-husband)

Seeing as we all know Mick so well, i do not for a moment think he is down playing the damage these bunk beliefs can cause to families and individuals. After all, that is the entire reason for MBs existance.

I do not think, based on Beccas testimony Mick provided, that the article in question (the specific wording and implications it projected) is not accurate at all or true. It is click-bait, designed to fire up peoples emotions and get them to "share" the article on social media. ie. It's bunk.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I think you're right, deride, on the click-bait point in general, but I also think that the "chemtrailers"
have a specific interest in peddling this dubious narrative as a "We're being persecuted!" tale.

Which probably makes sense: they're losing the battle to convince people that their unconventional
science is true, so why not try to shift everyone's attention to something else, like politics?
(Note that narcosys tried to cast it as "the left" being unfair to the right...)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There is no evidence whatsoever that the child was "snatched" or "seized", either in the YourNewsWire article, or from Becca's own words. In fact there's nothing to indicate that this was anything but a custody case between two parents, during which her fringe beliefs were brought up as an indication of her general state of paranoia.
Exactly. The takeaway from the article is clearly "Woman happens to mention chemtrails at school, and so her child was taken away from her".

Now, I'm not claiming that she didn't mention chemtrails at school, nor am I claiming that he child was not taken away (in that she lost, or did not gain, custody - it's unclear what degree of custody she had before that). Nor am I claiming that these two things are utterly unrelated. Given that chemtrails seems to be the conspiracy theory that Becca is most interested in, it seems reasonable that it would be mentioned in the custody hearing.

But what I'm pointing out is basically these facts
  • This happened in 2014
  • There appear to be no court documents available
  • Quotes come from Becca's GeoengineeringWatch posts and her blog
  • It was a custody dispute, not a child being removed from a single parent by CPS or similar.
  • By Becca's own account, there were multiple issues discussed in the custody hearing
I don't think anyone would dispute those facts. So I think the disagreement from @narcosys boils down to my use of the work "debunked". Which I use to mean pointing out the inaccuracies in the article, but which you could interpret from the thread title "Debunked: Court Takes Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School", as meaning "Court did not Take Child From Mother After She Mentions Chemtrails At School" (when arguably that sequence of event happened in a literal sense, in that one event came after the other).

But - as I've mentioned many times in the past - arguing about the meaning of words is not something I'm interested in. Maybe the title would be better if I changed it to "Debunked: Court Takes Child From Mother Simply Because She Mentions Chemtrails At School", but then that's not the title of the article being debunked, just essentially what the article is claiming.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
MikeG Debunked: Obamacare Article 54 (Satire FB Page) General Discussion 2
deirdre Debunked: Newtown Bee removing article links related to Sandy Hook citizen investigations Sandy Hook 3
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 2
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mendel Debunked: Radar Waves Affect Clouds General Discussion 0
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 13
M Ufos arrive to the central zone of Chile. (Debunked). Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Jesse3959 FE Debunked with water tube level - 187 foot building 21.2 miles away below eye level Flat Earth 0
H Debunked: Cadillac Mountain from 220 miles Flat Earth 7
Jesse3959 FE Claim Debunked: JTolan Epic Gravity Experiment - Flat earther disproves Perspective! (or his instruments.) Flat Earth 0
Mick West Debunked: DoD prepares for martial law in CONUS: Conspiracy Theories 0
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
A Debunked: NASA tampered with the original television audio of the Apollo 11 moon landing Conspiracy Theories 1
Greylandra Debunked: media headline "Judea declares war on Germany" [boycott] Conspiracy Theories 20
Mick West Discovery Channel's "Contact: Declassified Breakthrough" was debunked 2.5 years ago UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Joe Hill Debunked: "The North Face of Building 7 Was Pulled Inward" 9/11 66
A Debunked : Fake Set Moon Landing with TV Camera and Stairs Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Photo with Sun Rays at Odd Angles Flat Earth 0
Staffan Debunked: Wikileaks releases unused footage of moon landing (Capricorn One movie scenes) Conspiracy Theories 2
Mick West Debunked: Neil deGrasse Tyson : "That Stuff is Flat" Flat Earth 10
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Trees being cut down "because they block 5G" (tree replacement in Belgium) 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 44
deirdre Debunked: Exemption from military service doc proves Jews had foreknowledge of WW2 (fake leaflet) General Discussion 0
Trailblazer Debunked: Obama called Michelle "Michael" in a speech. (Referring to Michael Mullen Jr) Quotes Debunked 0
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
Rory Debunked: The Lunar Cycle affects birth rates Health and Quackery 26
Rory Debunked: Study shows link between menstrual cycle and the moon Health and Quackery 30
novatron Debunked: California Wildfires Match the Exactly Path of the Proposed Rail System Wildfires 3
Rory Debunked: "You must love yourself before you love another" - fake Buddha quote Quotes Debunked 7
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
K Debunked: Audio of David Rockefeller "leaked" speech in 1991 [Audio Simulation] General Discussion 2
tadaaa Debunked: Fake photos-Novichok attack Russian 'agents' (side by side gates) General Discussion 34
Mick West Debunked: XYO Device Replacing GPS, Saving $2 Million a Day General Discussion 23
Mick West Debunked: "Tip Top" as a QAnon Clue from Trump [He's said it before] Conspiracy Theories 3
Whitebeard Debunked: Nibiru FOUND? Mysterious gigantic rogue planet spotted lurking outside our solar system Science and Pseudoscience 1
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
Mick West Debunked: Delta Lambda Compression General Discussion 16
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
JFDee Debunked: Wernher von Braun confirmed that rockets can't leave earth Conspiracy Theories 23
Mick West Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers Conspiracy Theories 33
Mick West Debunked: "Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface:" [Stray Light] Contrails and Chemtrails 30
Astro Debunked: Apollo Lunar Module Hatch Too Small for Spacesuit Science and Pseudoscience 0
Mick West Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling] 9/11 38
Jedo Debunked: WTC7 was the only building not on the WTC block that had a fire on 9/11 9/11 0
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
Mick West Debunked: AE911Truth's Analysis of Slag Residue from WTC Debris 9/11 20
Dan Wilson Debunked: Steven Crowder: The AIDS epidemic was a hoax Health and Quackery 9
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top