Have any debunkers created bunk to discredit bunk believers?

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I'm just wondering if there have ever been any attempts by skeptics or debunkers to create a conspiracy or add bunk to an already existing conspiracy to show CTs will believe anything they hear without researching it?
 
Yes that happened, but the goal was not to discredit them but to laugth about the conpiracy.

This one is very common in germany, it shows aerodynamic contrails and silly chemicals are added... A german with very very poor knowledge about chemistry must noticed that these chemicals are fictional. "Spinnonium" for examply should translated into "Crazyonium"

800px-Chemtrails_Jo_Conrad.jpg

A lot of CT-Believers fall for it, this for example is Jo Conrad, host of the Internet-Streaming-channel bewuSSt.tv, former moderater at secret.tv. Here he added "Is this scientific enougth for you?

There is also a more clearly variant, as english-speaking persons, you should notice "Nickelodeon" on it. "Air Wick" is a common cough-candy.

690px-Chemtrail.jpg

The popular german YouTube-Uploader Conrebbi and many other had used it:

tmFReni_kaubonboniumyo5u.jpg

This one shows a Ram-Air-Turbine (RAT) in action. Just put a circle and "???" on it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_air_turbine

DSC8412.jpg

This was widely spread via the website http://morgellonsinformation.wordpress.com/ wich doesn´t exist anymore.

But please remark:

These fakes where made by satirical blogs/Websites/Forums, not by debunkers...
 
Just curious if anyone had approached it in a more scientific way. By documenting the process of either creating a new conspiracy, a new theory of an existing one or adding bunk to something. Then putting it out there for a short time, documenting the reactions and then releasing the proof that it was all made up. Though I'm sure the CTs will probably just say the proof is bogus.
 
I am sure it has been done, but it is probably counter productive. In my experience, confirmation bias over-rides everything with CT believers and inconvenient facts like the material being a hoax gets lost in the noise.
 
Just curious if anyone had approached it in a more scientific way. By documenting the process of either creating a new conspiracy, a new theory of an existing one or adding bunk to something. Then putting it out there for a short time, documenting the reactions and then releasing the proof that it was all made up. Though I'm sure the CTs will probably just say the proof is bogus.

Not a debunker as far as I know, but I saw one time that someone at a message board claim that he had sent the "Mechanic's Story" to Clifford Carnicom as a joke to see if he would accept it. The person might have been making a false claim, but it certainly was a hoax, and has certainly been adopted into the myth. Dane Wigington has recycled it recently at his site:

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/airline-mechanic-turns-whistleblower/

The follow up story was also accepted. Carnicom knows the email address it was sent from.
 
I am sure it has been done, but it is probably counter productive. In my experience, confirmation bias over-rides everything with CT believers and inconvenient facts like the material being a hoax gets lost in the noise.
Was thinking that as well.
 
Maybe there is a strong kind of bias on this.

A debunker should try to be authentic and credible - it´s in his behave. He proofs information, before it is released to his Followers. He wouldn´t start such a Mimikry-action.

It´s just not the kind of thinking of Debunkers or sceptics...
 
The (in)famous KC10 "spray nozzles" video was one such I think?

Yes, I´ve thougth about this one also. But this video by this Army-Member was clearly a provocation. Not from sceptics or debunkers. It was from an Army-Member directly affected by the Chemtrail-CT.
 
Years ago, a friend said that peoples 'perceptions are more real than reality'. She nailed it and she wasn't even talking about conspiracies, just what happens with rumors
 
Maybe there is a strong kind of bias on this.

A debunker should try to be authentic and credible - it´s in his behave. He proofs information, before it is released to his Followers. He wouldn´t start such a Mimikry-action.

It´s just not the kind of thinking of Debunkers or sceptics...
Perhaps why it wasn't been done?
 
One "hoax of a hoax" I know of is when "Unsecured Coins", (a member of the JREF forum) (and in the military at the time)......claimed he was getting "RFID chipped" by the government for no apparent reason.
He posted this with "proof", on the JREF forum.
He is an active "debunker" on JREF (James Randi forum). Most people on that forum also believed he was subjected to a chip implant. (back in 2008). So he fooled everybody.
The story made it's way to Jason Bermas (Loose Change) and eventually the Alex Jones show.

Unsecured Coins made a video about it.....
 
Back
Top