Debunked: Google photos show Ottawa Parliament bullet holes are fake

Surrealiste

New Member
BombDr.
I have no claim about Mr Vickers. I don't have a crystal ball and can't see the future in reference to any investigations that may or may not happen, but I do know that these things take a very long time and elections, legislation, etc will not be put on hold until their results are in (if, in fact, any investigation does take place.)

I am trying to insist on seeing evidence. Names. Unedited Video. First Hand Accounts. Photos from verifiable sources. The bullet hole story was full of holes. There *might* be one new hole/scuff near the bottom of that wall. That's not good enough for me. Sorry.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
BombDr.
I have no claim about Mr Vickers. I don't have a crystal ball and can't see the future in reference to any investigations that may or may not happen, but I do know that these things take a very long time and elections, legislation, etc will not be put on hold until their results are in (if, in fact, any investigation does take place.)

I am trying to insist on seeing evidence. Names. Unedited Video. First Hand Accounts. Photos from verifiable sources. The bullet hole story was full of holes. There *might* be one new hole/scuff near the bottom of that wall. That's not good enough for me. Sorry.

The claim here was that the mislabeled bullet holes were evidence of a faked scene. Since CBC retracted that part of the story, and two separate photos show what look like new bullet holes, I really don't see what you are getting at. If you've got some specific claim of evidence you want to investigate then please start a new thread. This thread is about the supposedly fake bullet holes, which have been fully explained as pre-existing marks that was mistakenly identified in a story that was later corrected.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I don't have a crystal ball and can't see the future in reference to any investigations that may or may not happen
Do you think it is likely that any element of this incident will not be investigated? Do you have a precedent of murder, attempted murder and security breech of a centre of government going uninvestigated?
I am trying to insist on seeing evidence. Names. Unedited Video. First Hand Accounts. Photos from verifiable sources. The bullet hole story was full of holes. There *might* be one new hole/scuff near the bottom of that wall. That's not good enough for me. Sorry.
How do you think your personal access to a live investigation should occur?
 

Surrealiste

New Member
This is good - we've debunked the claim of CBC news that those holes were bullet holes made on Oct 22, 2014. I think that's important. It actually *is* evidence that the story was a fake, intentional or not.

As for the investigation that may or may not occur, I believe that might be an issue for a separate thread. Don't want to derail or get off topic.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is good - we've debunked the claim of CBC news that those holes were bullet holes made on Oct 22, 2014. I think that's important. It actually *is* evidence that the story was a fake, intentional or not.

"Fake" is deliberate. You can't have an accidental fake. The story was not fake, it was simply incorrect. It had a mistake in it, and they corrected it the next day.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
This is good - we've debunked the claim of CBC news that those holes were bullet holes made on Oct 22, 2014. I think that's important. It actually *is* evidence that the story was a fake, intentional or not.

I don't know that I'd go as far as Mick: I'm not sure that "fake" is actually always deliberate...

but the point is valid...there is zero evidence--at this point--that anyone was trying to fool anyone
re. these holes...and words like "fake" come off as an attempt--despite an absence of proof--to imply otherwise.
No good reason to go there.


p.s. I also don't want to credit us as debunking in November a story CBC corrected in October :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know that I'd go as far as Mick: I'm not sure that "fake" is actually always deliberate...

Well, you are getting into personal semantics there. I always say if there's a dispute over a word, then just don't use it. Say what actually happened.

But to me, and I think most people, "fake" means it was "faked" - the very use of the word strongly implies that someone deliberately faked it. I don't think you can get away from that, so I think the use of the word is disingenuous here, when there is no evidence it was faked.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
BombDr.
I have no claim about Mr Vickers. I don't have a crystal ball and can't see the future in reference to any investigations that may or may not happen, but I do know that these things take a very long time and elections, legislation, etc will not be put on hold until their results are in (if, in fact, any investigation does take place.)

I am trying to insist on seeing evidence. Names. Unedited Video. First Hand Accounts. Photos from verifiable sources. The bullet hole story was full of holes. There *might* be one new hole/scuff near the bottom of that wall. That's not good enough for me. Sorry.
i don;t see what;s good enough or not from what there is out there so far that clearly won;t be released until after a proper enquiry. the original story said here's some bullet holes. and they turned out not to be. I suspect the press just kind of assumed, if that was the alcove, these marks were repaired bullet holes.
As Vickers was a well trained officer and he was shooting from close range, how many bullet holes are you actually expecting? I know other officers came in firing too, but I would expect a reasonable number to have gone into the attacker.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As Vickers was a well trained officer and he was shooting from close range, how many bullet holes are you actually expecting? I know other officers came in firing too, but I would expect a reasonable number to have gone into the attacker.

The account from CBC says:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ott...that-ended-the-attack-on-parliament-1.2812802
With the correction:

Sound like most of the shots were fired while Bibeau was on the ground, only a few of Vicker's initial shots might have hit the wall.
 

Surrealiste

New Member
quite the crack team of crime scene analysts if the number of bullet holes in a wall is unclear. And that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. We know more about Jian Ghomeshi than we do about this attack.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
quite the crack team of crime scene analysts if the number of bullet holes in a wall is unclear. And that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. We know more about Jian Ghomeshi than we do about this attack.
Why is the number of holes important? What difference would it makes if there were 3 or 7?

It's not like there's any great mystery here. Guy runs int building, shoots at people, gets shot. Arguing over third hand reports is pointless.
 

Surrealiste

New Member
well it seems pretty clear that you guys are more faith based than science based.
if it was said by a policeman or politician you believe it.
I am disappointed. I think perhaps the definition of skepticism has changed.

and this web site is s-l-o-w. I feel like it's 1993.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
well it seems pretty clear that you guys are more faith based than science based.
if it was said by a policeman or politician you believe it.
I am disappointed. I think perhaps the definition of skepticism has changed.

and this web site is s-l-o-w. I feel like it's 1993.
you sound like a politician and I don't believe you.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
That's not good enough for me. Sorry.

You have no evidence of fake bullet holes and claim it would be impossible for you to ever get any. You doubt the Reddit images are legit and if they are, the damage could be from something other than gun fire. You don't believe the accounts of politicians or the police, just because. Will you trust the media as a source, because clearly they make mistakes.

If images, first hand accounts and official reports aren't acceptable, then what is?

I believe the official account because at this point, there is no reason to doubt it. The inconsistencies regarding the bullet holes was explained on the first page of this thread.
 
Last edited:

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
quite the crack team of crime scene analysts if the number of bullet holes in a wall is unclear. And that's exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. We know more about Jian Ghomeshi than we do about this attack.
Who are the team of analysts you refer to here? It's highly unlikely that you will obtain any forensic analysis details until well after the coronial. Furthermore, why are you entitled to them?
well it seems pretty clear that you guys are more faith based than science based.
Please outline the science based evidence that you are making your claims upon. If you are claiming something different than the version of events put forward, the burden of proof is on you.
And so far, there is no proof of anything outlined by a published (and since corrected) mistake about holes in a wall.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
well it seems pretty clear that you guys are more faith based than science based.
if it was said by a policeman or politician you believe it.
I am disappointed. I think perhaps the definition of skepticism has changed.

You have picked hairs and searched for faults or anomalies of an event that you are also complaining that you do not have enough information about....?

You appear to reasonably expect instant and unfettered access to a live investigation, for no other purpose than to satisfy your curiosity. You seem unsatisfied with the rate at which multiple Canadian departments are releasing information for your personal examination.

However, you present nothing to the discussion, not even a single claim, except you perceive something fishy, and then a baseless assertion that we are somehow at fault for not agreeing with your non-claim, devoid of any evidence at all.

Can you, for the sake of clarity, explain what exactly you think happened and why please?
 

Surrealiste

New Member
Who are the team of analysts you refer to here? It's highly unlikely that you will obtain any forensic analysis details until well after the coronial. Furthermore, why are you entitled to them?

I was responding to the CBC correction which states "The exact number of bullet holes isn't clear." At first, they reported a story, as fact, and claimed 9 bullet holes. This was not presented in the heat of the moment. This was a pre-written and choreographed piece by Evan Solomon, who had time and resources with which to verify the story he was presenting. That presentation which was watched by many & absorbed as truth is what lingers in people's memories and will be what our government relies on when selling us new legislation. The correction was quiet as far as i can tell, and did not go far enough.

They should have named the source of their original claim that there were 9 bullet holes.

Please outline the science based evidence that you are making your claims upon.

Please tell me the science based evidence that you are using. You and I are getting the same info from the same sources and it seems that neither one of us can tell where Evan Solomon got his incorrect information. Where we differ, it seems, is that you are willing to trust (put your faith in) some unnamed person or a reporter who has been proven to have been wrong. I am not. I would like real, named witnesses that saw this shooting. There were apparently a lot of them.

And so far, there is no proof of anything outlined by a published (and since corrected) mistake about holes in a wall.

That's right. So far there is no proof of anything.
 

Surrealiste

New Member
You have picked hairs and searched for faults or anomalies of an event that you are also complaining that you do not have enough information about....?

You appear to reasonably expect instant and unfettered access to a live investigation, for no other purpose than to satisfy your curiosity. You seem unsatisfied with the rate at which multiple Canadian departments are releasing information for your personal examination.

I am a citizen in a country that is heading down a path of war, increased surveillance and new, draconian legislation which will restrict personal freedoms. The government will rely on this event to justify those actions. My insistence on evidence of how exactly this event unfolded is based on that and not on mere curiosity. This is more than personal, this is about democracy.

However, you present nothing to the discussion, not even a single claim, except you perceive something fishy,

In my very first post I presented many questions and perhaps even a claim ... it was much longer than it currently appears. Mick West deleted that part, as evidenced in the post. I am following the rules by sticking tightly to the bullet hole problem.

and then a baseless assertion that we are somehow at fault for not agreeing with your non-claim, devoid of any evidence at all.

I've been unclear. What I'm trying to say is that I believe you are not being skeptical if you stick to believing the story as presented devoid of any evidence at all.

Can you, for the sake of clarity, explain what exactly you think happened and why please?

I think gunshots were fired and that lots of people saw what happened. I think that Evan Solomon put together a story based on accounts that he pieced together from sources. I think his editor approved that story, and that assistants to him put the piece together. Then they ran it. It was dramatic and moving. And also it was largely untrue. I think they then retracted a large portion of the story without offering an alternative version which leaves us all to ask, "Well then, what really happened?"
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
I am a citizen in a country that is heading down a path of war, increased surveillance and new, draconian legislation which will restrict personal freedoms.
Which war?
My insistence on evidence of how exactly this event unfolded is based on that and not on mere curiosity.
What would you consider the right amount of evidential release? How long after the event should they release all the information. Can you name anywhere in the world that conducts investigations in this manner?
What I'm trying to say is that I believe you are not being skeptical if you stick to believing the story as presented devoid of any evidence at all.
Being skeptical also requires a reason to be so. I see no reason to be suspicious about what happened in this case, and even after all of your assertions, I still see no reason get to so out of shape about the photos.
And also it was largely untrue. I think they then retracted a large portion of the story without offering an alternative version which leaves us all to ask, "Well then, what really happened?"
Is untrue the same as erroneous? I ask as your tone still suggests that you suspect something.

What would an alternative version look like? Other than "We looked at some marks on a wall, some of which were bullets holes, some of which looked like bullet holes, and we mixed up the two types of marks" because that is the totality of the mystery I see here.

You have taken a labelling error from a news story (they make mistakes occasionally) and added war, personal freedoms, surveillance, draconian legislation (which you do not present) and use emotive terms like 'what really happened', 'fake', 'untrue', and take the fact that you have not been personally informed about the status of the investigation as a contributing factor in your suspicion. You will have noticed that no-one here seems to agree with your line of reasoning, so instead you imply that we would all accept what the government says, or that we are unduly unscientific, when even the most cursory glance over the forums is demonstrably incorrect.

I utterly fail to see your concerns here at all.
 

Surrealiste

New Member
I am seeing strange formatting and the quote function doesn't seem to have worked this time. I'm getting Java error messages, just FYI.

Suffice to say, at this point, that I have nothing further to add. I will just leave you with my thoughts about something BombDr said above:

"Being skeptical also requires a reason to be so. I see no reason to be suspicious about what happened in this case...,"

I would agree. My reasons for being skeptical are well laid out already. I have reason not to blindly trust the government, and I feel the same about much of the media now that it is run by a only a very, very small handful of people who have come to be in their near monopolistic positions tanks to policy changes by the very government they are now the mouthpieces for. And you know, I assume, that the CBC (Evan Solomon) is their employee.

The government lies and covers up facts all the time. To try and argue otherwise would make you look extremely foolish and naive. Still, I realize how powerful that belief system is, and feel that this argument would be like me trying to argue to a Born Again Christian that perhaps there was no literal boat built by Noah at the behest of God.

It's okay. No harm no foul. I didn't come here to convert anyone. I mistakenly thought perhaps this was a community that liked evidence. But I see that it is just another community who only debunks non-official stories.

I have my pick of 10,000, 000 of those sites, so if I feel like doing that sort of thing I'll go to one of them that works a little faster.

cheers.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I am seeing strange formatting and the quote function doesn't seem to have worked this time. I'm getting Java error messages, just FYI.

Suffice to say, at this point, that I have nothing further to add. I will just leave you with my thoughts about something BombDr said above:

"Being skeptical also requires a reason to be so. I see no reason to be suspicious about what happened in this case...,"

I would agree. My reasons for being skeptical are well laid out already. I have reason not to blindly trust the government, and I feel the same about much of the media now that it is run by a only a very, very small handful of people who have come to be in their near monopolistic positions tanks to policy changes by the very government they are now the mouthpieces for. And you know, I assume, that the CBC (Evan Solomon) is their employee.

The government lies and covers up facts all the time. To try and argue otherwise would make you look extremely foolish and naive. Still, I realize how powerful that belief system is, and feel that this argument would be like me trying to argue to a Born Again Christian that perhaps there was no literal boat built by Noah at the behest of God.

It's okay. No harm no foul. I didn't come here to convert anyone. I mistakenly thought perhaps this was a community that liked evidence. But I see that it is just another community who only debunks non-official stories.

I have my pick of 10,000, 000 of those sites, so if I feel like doing that sort of thing I'll go to one of them that works a little faster.

cheers.


Virtually everyone here is naturally quite skeptical...that's not the same as jumping to the conclusion that many things aren't--mundanely--pretty much what they appear to be most of the time.

No one here "blindly trusts the government" but your comment could be taken as
trying to imply otherwise. Your remarks about the media likewise. Perhaps you have
inside information (?) about the media that we lack...

Are you a citizen of Canada? The U.S.? How is "I am a citizen in a country that is heading down a path of war" to be interpreted? I'm an American and have no idea what you're thinking of that leads to imminent war, never mind using that non-evidence as proof of something else. Comments like "The government lies and covers up facts all the time" only make sense in this context if you show a few examples (that have some similarity with this Ottawa situation) where the
"the government" (Canadian? U.S.?) is known to have been caught being intentionally dishonest on a significant fact.
And again, so long as your pronouncements are essential fact-free, suggesting that
others look "...extremely foolish and naive" for not sharing your alarm, probably
is not a great way to make new friends.
You are right though, that there are a great many lesser sites out there in which one can
declare most things fishy--without the slightest whiff of evidence--and be embraced by
dozens of others who likewise won't point out that there's no "there" there.
Best of luck.
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
The government lies and covers up facts all the time. To try and argue otherwise would make you look extremely foolish and naive. Still, I realize how powerful that belief system is, and feel that this argument would be like ...

Metabunk is often accused of "blindly trusting the government". I've been posting here for a while and your accusation of the people here is simply not true, assuming that's what you were insinuating.

Accepting the retraction of a news story that mistakenly reported 7 bullet holes instead of a possible 3 is not evidence of blind trust, nor is it a portent of the erosion of Canadian democracy. Farewell.
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
The government lies and covers up facts all the time. To try and argue otherwise would make you look extremely foolish and naive. Still, I realize how powerful that belief system is, and feel that this argument would be like me trying to argue to a Born Again Christian that perhaps there was no literal boat built by Noah at the behest of God.

Where have they done so here?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
At first, they reported a story, as fact, and claimed 9 bullet holes. This was not presented in the heat of the moment. This was a pre-written and choreographed piece by Evan Solomon, who had time and resources with which to verify the story he was presenting. That presentation which was watched by many & absorbed as truth is what lingers in people's memories and will be what our government relies on when selling us new legislation. The correction was quiet as far as i can tell, and did not go far enough.

They should have named the source of their original claim that there were 9 bullet holes.

It was obviously the photo that they showed. They had a photo which showed the bullet holes, they just misidentified them, and COUNTED them.

The actual bullet holes were lower down.


They corrected the story the day after. That's all there is here. You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
That presentation which was watched by many & absorbed as truth is what lingers in people's memories and will be what our government relies on when selling us new legislation. The correction was quiet as far as i can tell, and did not go far enough.
So there being 'nine bullet holes' in that wall instead of two is going to be the corner-stone of some new legislation that is going to do... what? What is the legislation they are going to pass that relies on exaggerating the number and arrangement of those bullet holes?
 

Faithless

New Member
To me this is another example of a CT being fed by lazy journalism. The paradox is that we're constantly told by supporters of the theories that the media can't be trusted.. The only exception seems to be when it supports the CT's particular theory.

It's important to remember the pressure to break an 'exclusive' report, corners are cut, rash decisions made and it's all in the pursuit of ratings. If history has proved anything it is that the earlier the report the more likely it is to be wrong.

In this case the journalists added 2 and 2 and came up with 5... They were simply wrong. They realised, they corrected it.

To me it feels like the end of it.
 

Redwood

Active Member
We need to understand conspiracist logic here.

Misreporting the bullet holes = the shooting never happened.

Misreporting that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at Sandy Hook Elementary = the murders never took place.

Misreporting that WTC 7 had collapsed = "inside jobby".
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
"they are clearly just old patches that the reported mistakenly identified as bullet holes..."

Seriously? Clearly? The news didn't think it was clear. The OP thought the picture was from bullet holes from the other day not April 2013 as I'm sure you also believed.

I don't know how anyone would think they were bullet holes. THey're not holes. Unless they already filled them in. And the bullets hit the wall in a symmetrical pattern!


well it seems pretty clear that you guys are more faith based than science based.
if it was said by a policeman or politician you believe it.
I am disappointed. I think perhaps the definition of skepticism has changed.

and this web site is s-l-o-w. I feel like it's 1993.

I think you might be one of those people who will believe anything is possible unless you see a video of this shooting actually happening. Life isn't a movie.

. I think they then retracted a large portion of the story without offering an alternative version which leaves us all to ask, "Well then, what really happened?"

A large portion? They corrected the bullet hole statement. The circles weren't bullet holes. The bullet holes were lower. How does that change "what really happened?"
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
This was a pre-written and choreographed piece by Evan Solomon, who had time and resources with which to verify the story he was presenting. That presentation which was watched by many & absorbed as truth is what lingers in people's memories and will be what our government relies on when selling us new legislation.
Yep. It's just a mistake in reporting, whether pre rehearsed or not. It happens all the time and usually because they're trying to be the first to report on it so accuracy suffers. Are you really trying to say government would use an obscure reference to holes in a wall inaccurately reported to draft new legislation?? Since when do governments rely on "facts" from media to push law??
Please tell me the science based evidence that you are using. You and I are getting the same info from the same sources and it seems that neither one of us can tell where Evan Solomon got his incorrect information. Where we differ, it seems, is that you are willing to trust (put your faith in) some unnamed person or a reporter who has been proven to have been wrong. I am not. I would like real, named witnesses that saw this shooting. There were apparently a lot of them.
This is nothing to d with "faith". I am accepting what has happened because there is no real evidence to cast doubt on the account reported. My point is if you wish to rebut the events as reported then it is up to you to provide proof. So far you have provided speculation only regarding holes in a wall which really amounts to no proof on your behalf at all.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
Mick West Debunked: Corbett Report Targeted by Google/Youtube Conspiracy Theories 39
Mick West Debunked: Google shares raw traffic stats with #MPAA about file sharing sites General Discussion 0
JFDee Debunked: Sea Creature in New Zealand (Boat Trail on Google Maps) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 9
Ezswo Debunked: MH17 - 10 Previous Flightpaths Different From 17-7 Flight MH17 27
Hevach Debunked: UFO with alien head sticking out in Google Map [Lensflare & JPEG artifacts] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 12
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Mick West Debunked: 94% of Fulton County Ballots Manually Adjudicated [It's a Process all Batches go Through] Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: "Missile Strike" caused Nashville Explosion General Discussion 3
Mick West Debunked: Nashville Explosion was "Across the Street" from the RV General Discussion 0
Mick West Debunked: "Error rate of 68.5% Allowable is .0008%" [Neither is True] Election 2020 4
Mick West Debunked: Claim that the Electoral College Count On Jan 6 will Change the Election Election 2020 136
Rory Debunked: Einstein wrote "blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth" Quotes Debunked 12
Mick West Debunked: Navid Keshavarz-Nia's Claims of "A Sudden Rise in Slope" as Election Fraud Evidence Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Trump's Claim of "1,126,940 votes created out of thin air" in PA Election 2020 8
Mick West Debunked: Crowder's "Fraud Week" Title Graphic (and Why it Matters) Election 2020 1
JFDee Debunked: Democratic senators complained about 'vote switching' by Dominion voting machines in 2019 Election 2020 2
Mendel Debunked: The Democrats are trying to take away freedom of religion Election 2020 6
H Debunked: Dr. Shiva's Scatterplot Analysis of Michigan Precincts Election 2020 43
Mick West Debunked: Suspicious "Biden Only" Ballots in Georgia Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: "Nancy Pelosi's long time Chief of Staff is a key executive at Dominion Voting" Election 2020 0
Mick West Debunked: Wisconsin Turnout 89% Impossible High [Actually 72%] Election 2020 1
Mick West Debunked: Video of Poll Worker "Filling In" Ballots. Election 2020 3
Mick West Debunked: Pentagon has Evidence of "Off-World Vehicles Not Made on this Earth" UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 14
derrick06 Debunked: United Nations creates a "NWO" website 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 16
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
Related Articles


















































Election 2020

Related Articles

Top