Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Off topic for this thread but it is possible to hold conflicting ideals, I certainly do. As a generalisation I myself am anti capitalist but I am a realist and pragmatic about my views. I don't like the philosophy of the corporations (i.e. making money) but I accept it as a fact and move on.

Anyway, I think you are simplifying the sides in the GM debate. To be anti GM does not mean you are organic although it seems most of the arguments come from organic farmers. I do have a general anti-GM stance (yeah it may not seem it) but I am far from being totally pro-organic as I believe chemicals do have a place in agriculture.

Sorry, reading that back it all sounds like total pants.
Major choices with seeds are, GMO, hybrid and heirloom. It is about market share between those seed types. Most, not all but most, everything I've read so far on the anti-GMO/Mansanto is hype to gain market share. Doesn't matter if someone says GMOs are bad or patents on seeds will be bad or Mansanto will have a monopoly. It is all about market share! Getting rid of GMOs or keeping them but not patenting them or getting rid of Mansanto will not stop corporations from making money.

I just need more than, they make you sign a contract to be worried. Farmers are smart, they have lawyers, they talk to other farmers. If these contracts will end up hurting farmers they will know and not sign them.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I think that what might be seen as holding "conflicting ideals" is really just admitting the complexity of the situation - and as you say the practical reality that comes with that complexity. I'm anti-abortion, but I'm pro-choice. Seems like a conflict yet these are just simple labels that can't encompass the entire picture. I think it would be ideal if there were no abortions, but I don't think that making it illegal is a good thing.

Labels like anti-capitalist, pro-organic, and anti-GMO often serve to hide the complexity of a situation. One should always try to avoid applying a label to someone, especially if they have not used that label themselves.

I am glad you mentioned about abortion. It was the exactly what I was thinking as an example (and probably hold similar views to you) but I avoid any discussion of the subject. I agree that labels should be avoided, unless the person labels themselves, but unfortunately one can be drawn into using them for simplification, especially on the internet.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Major choices with seeds are, GMO, hybrid and heirloom. It is about market share between those seed types. Most, not all but most, everything I've read so far on the anti-GMO/Mansanto is hype to gain market share. Doesn't matter if someone says GMOs are bad or patents on seeds will be bad or Mansanto will have a monopoly. It is all about market share! Getting rid of GMOs or keeping them but not patenting them or getting rid of Mansanto will not stop corporations from making money.

I just need more than, they make you sign a contract to be worried. Farmers are smart, they have lawyers, they talk to other farmers. If these contracts will end up hurting farmers they will know and not sign them.

Excellent point about the farmers. May I ask where you are? I know in the UK it looks like there is going to be a move over the next few years to promote GM crops. Now there are many vectors to look at but namely the supermarkets and they look at the consumers. From what I see the supermarkets strangle the price of a harvest. If they shift for GN to be acceptable the farmer will feel the pressure. But with GM labelling is the consumer going to buy the goods?

A good thing about these forums is that the debate does become global rather than local :)
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Labels like anti-capitalist, pro-organic, and anti-GMO often serve to hide the complexity of a situation. One should always try to avoid applying a label to someone, especially if they have not used that label themselves.
I agree and need to learn to better explain what I'm trying to get across without labeling. But the underlying fight, whether you invest your fight against GMOs, Mansanto or patents on seeds, just to give a few examples, is market share. All natural vs unnatural and which industry can earn more money.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I agree and need to learn to better explain what I'm trying to get across without labeling. But the underlying fight, whether you invest your fight against GMOs, Mansanto or patents on seeds, just to give a few examples, is market share. All natural vs unnatural and which industry can earn more money.

I tend to agree although I will accept that altruism is a wonderful concept but most people have the need or money. There is a great deal of public funded research going on here for open source seeds. Once released someone will make money from it as at the end of the day few farmers are subsistence farmers and produce cash crops. A farmer producing for seeds needs to be rewarded in some way. But does it come down to money or the longevity and sustainability of his farm

Just for clarity. I have an issue with GM food crops. However I have no issue with patents on genes in seeds etc as I understand the costs of R&D to bring that forward.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Excellent point about the farmers. May I ask where you are? I know in the UK it looks like there is going to be a move over the next few years to promote GM crops. Now there are many vectors to look at but namely the supermarkets and they look at the consumers. From what I see the supermarkets strangle the price of a harvest. If they shift for GN to be acceptable the farmer will feel the pressure. But with GM labelling is the consumer going to buy the goods?

A good thing about these forums is that the debate does become global rather than local :)
I live in Georgia, have been for past 8 years. Lived in California for 30. Grew up in the middle of cherry, apricot, and almond orchards. The thing I miss most about California is the fresh produce. Labeling of GM food products is just a way to gain market share. Could the reluctance of the UK and Europe to adopt GMOs be based on those countries (at least the governments) wanting to develop their own products instead of relying on foreign suppliers?
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I live in Georgia, have been for past 8 years. Lived in California for 30. Grew up in the middle of cherry, apricot, and almond orchards. The thing I miss most about California is the fresh produce. Labeling of GM food products is just a way to gain market share. Could the reluctance of the UK and Europe to adopt GMOs be based on those countries (at least the governments) wanting to develop their own products instead of relying on foreign suppliers?

What about GM food crops do you have an issue with?

I have mentioned earlier that when GM crops where introduced I was in Greenpeace and used to go around stomping crops. The EU and our Government was heavily leaning to the pro side and to submit to public pressure. GM crops where banned for a while and then labelling was brought in. Customers refused to buy food labelled as GM so the supermarkets stopped stocking them, problem solved.

My issue is purely with biodiversity and GM food crops. I specify food crops as they are open agriculture even though we have a lot growing under glass. As a generalisation our fields are small compared to some I have seen in the US, and they are bordered by hedgerows. I don't know if you ever read Beatrix Potter but most the animals use hedgerows for something. Many are hundreds of years old and need some protection. We have a lot of species with the potential to be contaminated and that needs to be looked at. Without biodiversity we are shagged.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I have mentioned earlier that when GM crops where introduced I was in Greenpeace and used to go around stomping crops. The EU and our Government was heavily leaning to the pro side and to submit to public pressure. GM crops where banned for a while and then labelling was brought in. Customers refused to buy food labelled as GM so the supermarkets stopped stocking them, problem solved.

My issue is purely with biodiversity and GM food crops. I specify food crops as they are open agriculture even though we have a lot growing under glass. As a generalisation our fields are small compared to some I have seen in the US, and they are bordered by hedgerows. I don't know if you ever read Beatrix Potter but most the animals use hedgerows for something. Many are hundreds of years old and need some protection. We have a lot of species with the potential to be contaminated and that needs to be looked at. Without biodiversity we are shagged.
The development of GM crops that have the potential to reduce pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers thus helping promote biodiversity of surrounding wildlife.

Maybe I'm confusing biodiversity with wildlife conservation though.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
This isn't quite the same thing, but I feel it is related. Many jewelry artists will write up and sell a 'tutorial' on how to make a specific design. It is rare for a tutorial to allow it's use for resale or even in teaching a class. Some of them will limit how many you may make, some will not allow any thing made from it to be sold. You have to AGREE to those rules before you download it. It is your choice. I will not download the ones that do not allow any sales. I rarely make anything exactly like a tutorial, but I don't want to infringe on someone's idea.

If I buy fabric with NFL logos, or Disney images or Coke or many others, I can use that fabric to make something for myself or for a gift, but I am not allowed to sell it, even though I have the RIGHT to use it.

To me that seems a lot like the seed saving issue.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
The development of GM crops that have the potential to reduce pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers thus helping promote biodiversity of surrounding wildlife.

Maybe I'm confusing biodiversity with wildlife conservation though.

It is down to cross contamination [cross wheat and natural grasses] Ours fields are small and rely on hedgerows, especially for pollinators etc. Our hedgerows are developed by man but do we need to remove them???Jazzy said in a different thread that mutation happens naturally and he is right but I want proof.

But and I do say BUT the situation in the UK is totally different to the US never mind the EU
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm anti-abortion, but I'm pro-choice. Seems like a conflict yet these are just simple labels that can't encompass the entire picture.
I don't think its a conflict by any stretch to acknowledge your personal feelings on a subject don't entitle you to demand the consensus of others. I hold the same position; abortion seems to me a highly unfortunate and at times even a repulsive act, but at the same time it's none of my business, and my opinion should have absolutely no bearing on the rights of others in regard to their own bodies/lives/personal choices.

Getting rid of GMOs or keeping them but not patenting them or getting rid of Mansanto will not stop corporations from making money.
Stopping corporations from making money isn't the issue to me, it's stopping one/a small group of corporations from gaining an inordinate level of influence over global food markets, something they of course are actively seeking and to an extent already have. The current legal framework surrounding GMOs encourages and facilitates this effort, rather than keeping it in check and keeping things fair for smaller start-ups.
And I apologize to Grieves for implying he is paranoid!
I appreciate that. The 'cook' card gets played far too often, and doesn't have much footing in our discussion on this issue.

I just need more than, they make you sign a contract to be worried.
It's what the contract contains, from the requirement of private arbitration in the event of an issue (meaning that if Monsanto screws you over in some way, which even the most benign corporations can sometimes do to folks, your contract obliges you to deal with them and their arbitrators for a resolution rather than a court of law) to their 'seed saving' policies. I understand the business angle entirely, and it's quite brilliant/would even be acceptable to me if it was in regard to most any other product, but a contractual and legal obligation not to engage in conservation where agriculture is concerned makes no solid sense to me. Cunning business practices like planned obsolescence have no place in the sphere of hunger so far as I'm concerned. New seed may be superior, but if a farmer makes the choice or can only afford to sow the seeds of a crop he's paid for last year and has worked hard to grow, I don't think anyone should have the right to call that a crime.

I found this. Maybe Mansanto has simular reasons for adopting contracts with its buyers?
http://www.kussmaulseeds.com/about/saved-seed.html
They certainly should, given Kaussmaul Seeds is a vendor of Monsanto products. Not exactly an unbiased outlook.

We have a lot of species with the potential to be contaminated and that needs to be looked at. Without biodiversity we are shagged.
Indeed. Unfortunately industrial farming has considerably more clout with governments than those interested in the conservation of biodiversity. The BC wild salmon scandal going on right now is a good example of how industry, with the help of government, is actively suppressing science and data to protect the export-market, while a keystone species suffers as a result.
To me that seems a lot like the seed saving issue.
Excepting that jewelry is an inanimate luxury which serves no vital function, and food-producing plants are a living, vital necessity, of course.

If I buy fabric with NFL logos, or Disney images or Coke or many others, I can use that fabric to make something for myself or for a gift, but I am not allowed to sell it, even though I have the RIGHT to use it.
Then why isn't antiques roadshow out of business for all its patent violation? Patent exhaustion occurs with most products as soon as they're purchased, which is why garage sales/ebay/kijiji are all legal. People trade and re-sell patented products all the time. Patent exhaustion (or the lack thereof) in regard to planting/agriculture is something of an aberration.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
It is down to cross contamination [cross wheat and natural grasses] Ours fields are small and rely on hedgerows, especially for pollinators etc. Our hedgerows are developed by man but do we need to remove them???Jazzy said in a different thread that mutation happens naturally and he is right but I want proof.

But and I do say BUT the situation in the UK is totally different to the US never mind the EU
Here is some info on pollen drift and preventing cross contamination.
http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html
Mutation happens naturally with all types of life.
http://dendrome.ucdavis.edu/ctgn/files/Vol_03_print.pdf
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
On the fabric, it has printed on the selvege, Not to be used for commercial uses. Many patterns are the same way. It is an implied contract.

When you buy a Louis Vuitton bag, there is no implied contract to not resell it. You are prevented from making a copy of it.

It is the same because what is at the base of both, is intellectual property rights.
 

lotek

Active Member


http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion-my-family-farm-isnt-under-corporate-control/?hpt=hp_t2


MAM st louis included my name in a list of people(first and last) on facebook they considered disinfo agents/trolls/people to be targeted and posted it on their info page. a mod then made memes about an debunker being a pedo. real classy guys here. it was deleted and cleaned up eventually, but still..
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
That is typical of the anti business folks. Before the abuse I have suffered at their hands, I was a lot more receptive to what they say.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2013/01/17/opinion-my-family-farm-isnt-under-corporate-control/?hpt=hp_t2[/URL]

I found this on that blog---I find it a powerful comment for GM crops---It is long, but very worth reading

 

Grieves

Senior Member
This guy's been discussed pretty thoroughly in a different thread on this issue. His comments revolve solely around the science surrounding GMO's and the controversy therein, an issue you know my opinion of by now. He is backtracking on his own silly assumptions, rightly so, while not so much as mentioning the issues of restrictive patent-laws and the corporate influence in how those laws are formed. That he even states the only reason foreign nations are resistant to GMO products is unwarranted fear of the science suggests he's clearly missing the full scope of the issue, whether intentionally or not.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I have a question for some here.

Do you object to patent laws? copyright protection?
I don't, either in the context of GM seeds/plants or just in general.
I haven't seen any evidence that the patenting of GM seeds/plants is doing any harm. I just hear, they make you sign a contract so that means it is bad.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
It is just like one of those jewelry tutorials. The tute is MY intellectual property. Some one could buy it, then use it to have a factory in China make hundreds of thousands of that design, that they can then sell at a big box store. That is why most tutes have limits on how you can use them. Most will allow you to make them for sale, as long as you make them yourself.

It costs millions of dollars to GM a useful seed. If they allow folks to save seeds, then they would need to recover all of the costs in the first year and that is not reasonable. Back to the jewelry tute, If the owner allowed it to be used for production, they might have to charge a thousand dollars or more for it, rather than $5.

I don't see the problem with the contract. If you don't like it, you choose a different seed. There are folks doing well, selling heirloom varieties of crops and organic ones.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
they make you sign a contract so that means it is bad.
They make plants intellectual property. The contracts are just facilitators of that asinine concept, as well as several other asinine concepts, such as binding arbitration.

It is just like one of those jewelry tutorials. The tute is MY intellectual property. Some one could buy it, then use it to have a factory in China make hundreds of thousands of that design, that they can then sell at a big box store. That is why most tutes have limits on how you can use them. Most will allow you to make them for sale, as long as you make them yourself.
Those are invented designs on a crafted product more or less unique unto itself. Did Monsanto invent corn? Soy? Wheat? Rice? Did they design any of these things? GMOs are not the invention of new organisms. Not by a long shot. They make tweaks to an existing organism, give it a brand-name, and call the future offspring of that organism their 'intellectual property'. By what right does Monsanto patent a 'product' the 'design' of which is only borrowed? Monsanto could easily turn a considerable profit without the patent-scheme. Just not as massive a profit. And Monsanto literally can't decide to turn less of a profit. An organization with such obligations should not have a dominant influence in the global food market, something they're rapidly acquiring.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
They altered the corn or soybeans, the same way I take a strand of beads and some wire and make a piece of jewelry from it. There is still PLENTY of non altered corn, that a farmer can buy. If he wants the benefit of what Monsanto or another company spent money to do, then they should be willing to follow their rules. Just like the person buying a tutorial should do.

If a company does not make money, they will go out of business. Without profits they can not SPEND money on more research.

Without research, things do not advance. Either businesses or government has to spend money for research.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
They make plants intellectual property. The contracts are just facilitators of that asinine concept, as well as several other asinine concepts, such as binding arbitration.


Those are invented designs on a crafted product more or less unique unto itself. Did Monsanto invent corn? Soy? Wheat? Rice? Did they design any of these things? GMOs are not the invention of new organisms. Not by a long shot. They make tweaks to an existing organism, give it a brand-name, and call the future offspring of that organism their 'intellectual property'. By what right does Monsanto patent a 'product' the 'design' of which is only borrowed? Monsanto could easily turn a considerable profit without the patent-scheme. Just not as massive a profit. And Monsanto literally can't decide to turn less of a profit. An organization with such obligations should not have a dominant influence in the global food market, something they're rapidly acquiring.

Is there a patent on natural corn or rice?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
For those that didn't check the above post out.

 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I get peoples fight against 'big ag' or just corporations in general. I get why some might see them controlling the food supply might lead to bad things. Bad things have happened in the past with all types of corporations. I just don't see why they only fight the 'big ag' or corporations that only deal with GMO. If you hate these corporations so much worry about all of them not just one. With or without GMO and/or Mansanto, big ag and corporations will move in and take over. It isn't like getting rid of GMO or Mansanto is going to end the threat of a corporation controlling the worlds food supply.

Fight people controlling the food not the food.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
They altered the corn or soybeans, the same way I take a strand of beads and some wire and make a piece of jewelry from it.

Seriously....?

I get peoples fight against 'big ag' or just corporations in general. I get why some might see them controlling the food supply might lead to bad things. Bad things have happened in the past with all types of corporations. I just don't see why they only fight the 'big ag' or corporations that only deal with GMO. If you hate these corporations so much worry about all of them not just one. With or without GMO and/or Mansanto, big ag and corporations will move in and take over. It isn't like getting rid of GMO or Mansanto is going to end the threat of a corporation controlling the worlds food supply.
Rest assured, there's a long list of corporations that I feel deserve to be put down like rabid dogs. Monsanto is simply the major corporation most pertinent to this particular discussion, which is on the subject of GMOs.

Fight people controlling the food not the food.
That's... what I've been saying...?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
If you don't want big companies developing new seeds, then you need to work to get government to spend YOUR money to do it.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I'm sure, if I wanted to, I could concoct a conspiracy involving organic farmers plotting to take over the world by ousting Mansanto and GMO, slowly converting the world to organic and then, contaminating the worlds food supply with e coli, in an attempt to reduce the worlds population (I've had an friend who is anti-gmo talk about reducing the demand to meet the supply) so they can live in their new hippie Earth.

But it is a lot more fun debunking, than believing in bunk.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
What some fail to see is, that the fight against Mansanto is based on the fear that GMO will take over and either make everyone sick, dead or some kinda of mindless automaton. If seeds being patented was the real issue, why have the people worried about it not gone after the other companies that have patents on conventional or organic hybrid seeds? There is not fight against the patenting of seeds just GMO seeds.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I'm sure, if I wanted to, I could concoct a conspiracy involving organic farmers plotting to take over the world by ousting Mansanto and GMO, slowly converting the world to organic and then, contaminating the worlds food supply with e coli, in an attempt to reduce the worlds population (I've had an friend who is anti-gmo talk about reducing the demand to meet the supply) so they can live in their new hippie Earth.
Again you imply I've concocted some sensational plot here. Where have I claimed that Monsanto or GMO's were doing anything that isn't observable in reality?

But it is a lot more fun debunking, than believing in bunk.
Have you done any debunking? You seem to more or less acknowledge my points but then state your belief that they're worth no concern.

If seeds being patented was the real issue, why have the people worried about it not gone after the other companies that have patents on conventional or organic hybrid seeds?
They have. Patenting of life has always been controversial. Patent-law just isn't exactly a mainstream issue.
There is not fight against the patenting of seeds
just GMO seeds.
Again, not true.

What some fail to see is, that the fight against Mansanto is based on the fear that GMO will take over and either make everyone sick, dead or some kinda of mindless automaton.
Nonsense.

If you don't want big companies developing new seeds, then you need to work to get government to spend YOUR money to do it.
I have no issue with big companies developing new seed, or selling them. I have an issue with a corporation claiming it has ownership rights to the seed of a plant someone else grew.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I debunked that patents on plants is nothing new. I think that if patents on plants were going to be bad it would have already showed. If you want to claim Mansanto's contracts are somehow going to hurt farmers or whatever else then you still need to provide evidence of this and not just speculation.
First plant patent issued in 1930
http://inventors.about.com/od/weirdmuseums/ig/Inventive-Thinking/First-Plant-Patent.htm

I'm done debating with you, your attempts to bait me into a pointless debate with you is over.

Adding that I might not have debunked it first but I at least investigated and found that on my own.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 9
Mick West Debunked: Cop Car Towed to Media Location then Torched at Million Mask March - BX10 LNV Conspiracy Theories 111
derwoodii Debunked: UFO ATTACKS TALIBAN CAMP !!! March 2014 UFOs and Aliens 6
Oystein Debunked: Gibraltar cancels Christmas Coronavirus COVID-19 3
Mythic Suns [Debunked] Viral internet meme indirectly claiming that Greenland has already fully melted. Science and Pseudoscience 6
T AiG Debunked: Fossils Fail to Find Major Transition From Dinosaurs to Birds Science and Pseudoscience 10
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 7
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 67
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 76
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
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 9
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top