Disinformation Directory

JDubyah

Member
So Dane/GeoengineeringWatch has put out a site that looks to be a directory of all items believed by believers to be 'disinformation'.

http://disinformationdirectory.com/

There's a section for 'Debunkers' that doesn't (yet) include this site or Mick, but I have a feeling it will be inevitable.

There's no way to sign up as a user, as far as I can tell.
 
If I wanted to expose a massive government coverup, I'd want to be open to skeptics and doubters because I'd want to help myself bring a strong case out in the open. Skeptics play a huge role in that. I completely believe in being open to being proven wrong, even if it is difficult to hear that you could be wrong.

CTers do themselves a huge disservice by labeling anything they don't agree with as disinfo. In their minds they don't have to listen to criticism whatsoever because they are so sure they are right. I feel that is not a good place to be, especially if you think you're exposing a gigantic crime against humanity.

After all, what debunkers do is just what the court system would do if they ever tried to take legal action against the government for these "issues". Evidence needs to be very convincing and hold up to scrutiny, and if they ignore that criticism, when they get out into the real world and have to speak to various professionals on this issue, they are not going to make any progress whatsoever.
 

JDubyah

Member
I agree.. a CT believer should look at honest debunking as an aid. Because most believers are amateurs in the fields they are 'researching', you'd think they'd want to listen to more informed feedback on some details of their theories or beliefs. It's like proofreading your paper before you submit it. However, a lot of the more staunch believers seem to consider the internet searches they perform enough 'research' for them to be considered an expert or professor now, and they don't need proofreading. They're the ones to correct anyone's 'misinformation'. It'll be interesting days if this site takes off, and becomes looked at as a legitimate source to 'prove' some people or information is actually 'disinformation'.
 
Another thing, if the NWO is so powerful and covers their tracks so well such that every scientist that works for any government organization or otherwise that has data that don't support a CTers belief, how is it that they forget to cover their tracks on google? Why is anything that can be found through google convincing evidence for a CT? So they paid off every scientist in the world but forgot to alter search results on google? Why would any of these patents be available for viewing if they were such incriminating evidence?
 
Last edited:

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Another thing, if the NWO is so powerful and covers their tracks so well such that every scientists that works for any government organization or otherwise that has data that don't support a CTers belief, how is it that they forget to cover their tracks on google? Why is anything that can be found through google convincing evidence for a CT? So they paid off every scientist in the world but forgot to alter search results on google? Why would any of these patents be available for viewing if they were such incriminating evidence?

Why would the patents even exist?
 
Very good point.

I also took a look at the disinfo directory and it's interesting to see how there is no real substantial reasoning on there as to why these things are listed as disinfo. Just bright, colorful words that are bolded and enlarged, a dictionary definition of propaganda repeated a few times, and general statements as to how "disinformation agents" would act (which lines up pretty well with how regular skeptical people would also react to such information).
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
....general statements as to how "disinformation agents" would act (which lines up pretty well with how regular skeptical people would also react to such information).

This made my brain pop...let's say the people claiming that those who are skeptical about "chem"trail patents (for example) are 'Government shills' or 'fakers' were somehow brought together for a large survey as to other so-called 'conspiracy' beliefs that they might each (individually) possess (or more importantly, REJECT!):

  • Such as "ghosts" (and related, "spirits" and "hauntings").
  • "Psychokinesis" (such as 'demonstrated' by charlatans such as Uri Geller, for instance).
  • "Bigfoot".
  • A "holographic Moon".
  • The so-called "NASA conspiracy".
  • Aliens building the Egyptian pyramids.
  • The "lost continent" of Atlantis.

(The list can grow to be extensive, with a little thought).

What I am getting at is, how would some of these peoples' opinions on these "conspiracies" fare? Would suggesting to them that, if they were skeptical about ANY of them personally, that they might consider using the same sort of skepticism that they used when drawing their conclusions RE: them, and apply that technique to "chem"trails? Isn't that the "skeptical method"?

Hope this made sense...might need to be re-written for better clarity.
 
Last edited:

JDubyah

Member
In the 'Debunkers' section, one of the first items is the plagiarized video of a pilot 'forgetting to turn off his chemtrails' during a landing, followed by a note saying the original source was impossible to verify. Except the original source is readily available, and is from a plane-spotter's personal page, and has nothing to do with chemtrails. It's like they're trying to make a version of Metabunk for disonfo, but instead are making MegaBunk, a larger collection of bunk that's already been debunked, but can't be debunked on their site because they don't allow anyone to sign up.

And right.. patents are to protect your ideas and products so other people can't capitalize on something you came up with. A lot of the patents that CT talk about would be foolish to file for.. who cares if someone rips off your patent to depopulate the world? Or whatever the theory is. Even if someone filed for that patent themselves in order to sue the government, the gvt would be foolish to admit they infringed on anyone's patent for, say, an earthquake generator.
 
This made my brain pop...let's say the people claiming that those who are skeptical about "chem"trail patents (for example) are 'Government shills' or 'fakers' were somehow brought together for a large survey as to other so-called 'conspiracy' beliefs that they might each (individually) possess (or more importantly, REJECT!):
If I'm interpreting your post correctly, you mean to ask "What if chemtrail believers were faced with their own skepticism about other topics?" I think that would be an interesting mental exercise, it might get some people to think that anyone being skeptical about things can be skeptical without being a government agent.

I used a similar sort of logic in one of vindog's recent threads on chemtrails. He was asking why people were not taking the idea that contrails could be chemtrails seriously, and automatically assuming the contrail is just a contrail. I replied by saying that chemtrails could theoretically exist just like unicorns could theoretically exist, because you can't ever prove they're not there other than through lack of evidence, and that since there was no evidence for chemtrails, there is no point in believing they could possibly exist, just like there is no reason for thinking unicorns could possibly exist.

He stopped responding after that, and while I really doubt it was my post that caused him to stop responding, I think the logic behind my reasoning is sound and hard to ignore. If you take something that a chemtrail believer is likely not to believe exists, and apply the same sort of logic to something they probably don't believe exists, they might make the connection to chemtrails. Or they could start trying to believe that unicorns could exist...

In the 'Debunkers' section, one of the first items is the plagiarized video of a pilot 'forgetting to turn off his chemtrails' during a landing, followed by a note saying the original source was impossible to verify. Except the original source is readily available, and is from a plane-spotter's personal page, and has nothing to do with chemtrails. It's like they're trying to make a version of Metabunk for disonfo, but instead are making MegaBunk, a larger collection of bunk that's already been debunked, but can't be debunked on their site because they don't allow anyone to sign up.

I think I saw that page, weren't they trying to debunk that video by calling it a wake vortex and saying that the attempt to label it as being a chemtrail was part of a disinfo campaign?
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
There's a section for 'Debunkers' that doesn't (yet) include this site or Mick, but I have a feeling it will be inevitable.

Well, we did get an honorable mention...sort of...in the Hook Line and Stinker post under Debunkers. I like being part of something that's notorious!

 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
"What if chemtrail believers were faced with their own skepticism about other topics?" I think that would be an interesting mental exercise, it might get some people to think that anyone being skeptical about things can be skeptical without being a government agent.

YES!! Thank you for re-writing it to display my thoughts more succinctly.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Well, we did get an honorable mention...sort of...in the Hook Line and Stinker post under Debunkers. I like being part of something that's notorious!


And the grammar is still wrong.....(of course, unless you envision Mick as he "ran" past us, shouting 'disinfo' at us??).

Personally, I see people "run" websites. Present tense.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
If you take something that a chemtrail believer is likely not to believe exists, and apply the same sort of logic to something they probably don't believe exists, they might make the connection to chemtrails. Or they could start trying to believe that unicorns could exist...
I think you'd have to stick just to government and big business NWO type examples. unicorn and ghosts aren't conspiracies or government induced
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Well, add the Rothschilds and HAARP to my list in the above post (#8), then. And Bilderberg, and L. H. Oswald.....as I said, the list can get quite long, and would require an extensive survey questionnaire (if any of those folks would even agree to it?).

(ETA....HAARP added in, I can guess the outcome there....still, would be illuminating. Yeah...humor. Mild).
 
I think you'd have to stick just to government and big business NWO type examples. unicorn and ghosts aren't conspiracies or government induced
It was more about the logical example. He was wondering why no one was considering chemtrails as a possible explanation for what was being seen in the sky, and that no one could say they weren't chemtrails.

I said that theoretically, no one can prove chemtrails don't exist, just like no one can prove unicorns don't exist. There is no convincing evidence whatsoever for the existence of either, so basically believing in chemtrails as a possible explanation for anything is just as reasonable as believing in unicorns.

I personally think it is effective because the person likely doesn't believe in unicorns, and that reasoning can be logically extended to why chemtrails shouldn't really be believed in either. My 2 cents.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
He was wondering why no one was considering chemtrails as a possible explanation for what was being seen in the sky, and that no one could say they weren't chemtrails.


This is AKA the "proving a negative" fallacy. Leads to this, "evidence of absence".

Is used often in discussions about religion. The "unicorn" example. "Fairies" in the garden...one biggie is the "Russell's teapot" example. (Among others).

Many in the "chem"trail belief system are employing very similar fallacious arguments to support their positions.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
so basically believing in chemtrails as a possible explanation for anything is just as reasonable as believing in unicorns
I disagree. The gov. COULD theoretically start a spraying program if the need arose. the gov. COULD theoretically blow up a bunch of people at a Marathon and set up 2 patsies.

Man being capable of 'evil', 'sneaky' stuff is a much different phobia or belief set then ghosts, angels or unicorns. I understand your comparison but if you tried that line on me it wouldn't work.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The gov. COULD theoretically start a spraying program if the need arose.

Which "government"? As we see all too often in the "chem"trail belief system, the many who believe tend to be insular in that they forget that there is an "international" aspect (of people saying similar things, from multiple countries on Earth, as they misinterpret ordinary contrails) and somehow blaming....some nefarious "what"? (it's never been properly defined, actually).

It requires people to realize beyond the borders of their own nation, wherever it may be, and THEN conjure up some sort of "Top Secret" international cabal?

Beggars logic, it does.
 

JDubyah

Member
I think I saw that page, weren't they trying to debunk that video by calling it a wake vortex and saying that the attempt to label it as being a chemtrail was part of a disinfo campaign?

Kind-of. The poster was hedging his bets, saying it was like a mix of obvious phenomenon that of course they knew about before (except they didn't before the debunking), and maybe, possibly still have spray nozzles with chemicals in the mix:

So it seems more like they're willing to take successfully debunked conspiracy 'evidence', and retroactively say it was a setup by disinformation agents in the first place. It's like an Orwellian re-editing of history that makes the CTers look like the hapless dupes instead of just being the ones spreading some ignorance in the first place.

Take Dane's video of 'spray nozzles' that was just some fuel dump footage edited and strung together as 'proof of spraying'. Many people pointed out the error, yet he deleted the contrary comments and left the original video up.

The next logical step is to take the video down, and then post it on this 'Disinformation Directory' as having been provided as a set-up by disinfo agents in the first place to make him look bad.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Take Dane's video of 'spray nozzles' that was just some fuel dump footage edited and strung together as 'proof of spraying'. Many people pointed out the error, yet he deleted the contrary comments and left the original video up.

Yup/

Pure disinformation. (Sorry, is it alright to call a lie "disinformation" when it is proven to BE a lie?)

It is not "impolite" to speak the truth, when obvious...is it?
 
I disagree. The gov. COULD theoretically start a spraying program if the need arose. the gov. COULD theoretically blow up a bunch of people at a Marathon and set up 2 patsies.

Man being capable of 'evil', 'sneaky' stuff is a much different phobia or belief set then ghosts, angels or unicorns. I understand your comparison but if you tried that line on me it wouldn't work.
Well stop being so smart :p
 

KAT

Active Member
It requires people to realize beyond the borders of their own nation, wherever it may be, and THEN conjure up some sort of "Top Secret" international cabal?

The shape shifting reptile alien Illuminati run the world, every1 no dat. You living in a cave?

Seriously, this is a great point. No amount of science will convince them, and being expected to listen to science makes them feel stupid (which is what they're trying to avoid, in the first place, by having this secret knowledge). If they can admit the planes go to other countries, and also spray there, they could start thinking about what arrangements the authorities might have....

Back OT they should allow comments, that way more skeptics might comment, giving them new disinfo agents to check out.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The shape shifting reptile alien Illuminati run the world, every1 no dat. You living in a cave?

This an attempt at sarcasm, I am guessing? I'll go with that thought....

Seriously, this is a great point.

Ah....thank you! Makes sense now.

No amount of science will convince them, and being expected to listen to science makes them feel stupid

Agree somewhat, except not sure who are referred to as "them"...but, I get the gist. Trying to be "neutral" here. The word "stupid" is sort of a 'trigger' to some people, but again...so is the word 'science' (I joke, of course). Sometimes what seems as "impolite" to one person, is not to another, depending on cultural differences, and language translations, of course. I strive to be polite, even if any of my words may "infer" otherwise in other contexts.


If they can admit the planes go to other countries, and also spray there, they could start thinking about what arrangements the authorities might have....

BUT now....this has gone far off the rails, so to speak....I am sorry, I cannot contain my tongue.

There is NO "spraying" going on!! Period. End. Full stop.

The onus is upon THOSE who claim such activity to provide the evidence. Such evidence MUST be 'bullet-proof' (to use a phrase) such that it cannot be "de-bunked" by other evidence to the contrary. This is a reasonable challenge, and is actually part of the scientific discipline of investigation: "Hypothesis", "Experiment", "Theory", MORE "Experiment" and ultimately (if "Proof") then "FACT" (or, in science, "Law").

SO FAR? For the "chem"trail....(not even 'hypothesis'...it doesn't even meet that standard to begin with....so......it should just die a natural death....like Unicorns....and leprechauns......).......
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
I am not sure that Kat was saying they were spraying, but possibly the believers THINK they are spraying. If I think Contrails over Bristol are spraying, I would also assume that contrail photos of LA or Adelaide were ALSO spraying.
I would be wrong, but, it is actually logical to assume all the similar trails are the same. (they are. they are all water)

It is sadly a big part of the CT world though, to not engage in discourse with any possible opposing view. TO try and block it out, and if eventually it is shown far too clearly that you were wrong, then THAT bit of disinfo MUST have been put there by shills out to discredit the rest of your belief.

I actually did believe that Yuri Gagarin was NOT the first man in space based on what my sister in law told me. I just never bothered to check up on what she said. Once I did finally check up, it was obvious that the story was false.
 

KAT

Active Member
Yep. If you start with "this is the science and time you guys woke up" of course they will close their ears. They flunked science. Everyone's put them down their whole lives. All these people make them feel bad,so they don't trust them. So they won't trust you either.

They need to make the discovery for themselves. So if you point out the "spraying" (in quotes, see?) is international, ask them how that works out at the government level. How is it coordinated? does each country make its own chemicals? what planes do the others use, when it's not an international long haul jetliner doing it? GIVE them "chemtrail" photos from all over the world to prove it is universal. Ask them to explain THAT.

And of course we can always admit to that very dangerous chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, being the base component of all of them. It's so bad, even rain is full of it.
 
Top