I have a question

TemplarJLS

Member
I'm new here, and no I'm not accusing Mick of anything.


I've heard stories from some Conspiracy Theorists that have been banned because of posting stuff here that you guys couldn't debunk. Whether this is true or not I don't know since claims like this are easy to make (Yeah, I'm an ex-Illuminatti member, and our base in on Jupiter by the way), I am just kinda worried I'll be banned if i post something too hard for you guys to debunk.

Would that happen?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
I'm just a random dude who signed up one day, just like you.

But I've also been here for a while now, and I have never seen anything removed or people banned because something couldn't be "debunked". It has never been (at least in my experience) about who is right or who is wrong when it comes to debating topics. To respect debunking at it's finest, it's about the examination of evidence. That's it. There is no boogeyman here.

Of the people I have seen banned on this forum, it's usually because they breach the politeness policy, and if you take the time to read through some old threads, you'll discover this as well. Politeness is important on these forums (and for good reason), and so, if you want to state a claim, do so as objectively as possible. When discussing a topic, stick to the facts. Avoid personal confrontations. If you don't agree with what someone says, then say so and your reasons, and be polite about it. Treat others like how you would like to be treated.

The guys here (generally) are not here to prove something is false. They are here to scrutinize the evidence. Some conspiracy theorists don't like that, and they get hostile, and then they try to expound how horrible this site is. Yeah, some people might be a little stern sometimes, but don't take anything personal.

All anyone here can ask from you is to be civil. If you can do that, I can almost guarantee you that you won't be banned. People on this forum are from all walks of life. I doubt anyone would proclaim themselves as some sort of professional debunker. There are people here who are engineers, meteorologists, pilots, computer scientists, and so on.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
No you'd be banned for being antagonistic, or constantly going off-topic, or not conceding a relevant established fact that needs to be if the topic is to be properly debated.
Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
and our base in on Jupiter by the way

May I ask, "where" on Jupiter?

Because, Jupiter is a gaseous planet. The only place where one would find an actual solid "surface" or "core" (on Jupiter) would be where the atmospheric pressures above would be incredibly high....possibly....well CERTAINLY higher than those experienced by submersibles at the deepest depths of Earth's oceans.

url=http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/]Does Jupiter Have A Solid Core?[/url]





(edit).....somewhere I messed up the BB code.....sorry.

ORIGINAL website, I screwed up the 'url' BB phrasing: http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/
 

TemplarJLS

Member
No you'd be banned for being antagonistic, or constantly going off-topic, or not conceding a relevant established fact that needs to be if the topic is to be properly debated.
Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those.

By "Can't be debunked" do you mean evidence if someone posts evidence for something like the Illuminati to debunk (NOT saying they're real), and you can't then you're not interested? What do you mean by ""Can't be debunked".

The reason I'm asking is because Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret that.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
By "Can't be debunked" do you mean evidence if someone posts evidence for something like the Illuminati to debunk (NOT saying they're real), and you can't then you're not interested? What do you mean by ""Can't be debunked".

The reason I'm asking is because Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret that.
What you'll find here, Templar, is people who are more interested in getting to the truth of something
than advancing an agenda.

I think that sometimes new people come here after seeing something on 'Before It's News' or
'Godlike Productions' etc.; they believe that thing, and then are disappointed that folks here will ask
for a higher level of proof to accept the claim. Sometimes folks will just repeat the claim
or call people here "shills" or such, for not reinforcing what the new member believes.

But no, never once have I seen a person tossed for something "too hard...to debunk."
Actually, the phrase gave me a hearty laugh. :)


p.s. "Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret" virtually anything...sometimes willfully...but we still try to help...
 
Last edited:

trevor

Active Member
I'm new here, and no I'm not accusing Mick of anything.


I've heard stories from some Conspiracy Theorists that have been banned because of posting stuff here that you guys couldn't debunk. Whether this is true or not I don't know since claims like this are easy to make (Yeah, I'm an ex-Illuminatti member, and our base in on Jupiter by the way), I am just kinda worried I'll be banned if i post something too hard for you guys to debunk.

Would that happen?

I'll paypal you 20$ if im wrong on this..Im going to guess that they accused everyone on here of being a "Shill" and most likely got banned for harrassing people, and lied to you saying that "because they couldn't debunk it"...20 dollars...paypal...am i right?
 

TemplarJLS

Member
What you'll find here, Templar, is people who are more interested in getting to the truth of something
than advancing an agenda.

I think that sometimes new people come here after seeing something on 'Before It's News' or
'Godlike Productions' etc.; they believe that thing, and then are disappointed that folks here will ask
for a higher level of proof to accept the claim. Sometimes folks will just repeat the claim
or call people here "shills" or such, for not reinforcing what the new member believes.

But no, never once have I seen a person tossed for something "too hard...to debunk."
Actually, the phrase gave me a hearty laugh. :)


p.s. "Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret" virtually anything...sometimes willfully...but we still try to help...

I know that, I'm just wondering about this part:

"Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those."
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
By "Can't be debunked" do you mean evidence if someone posts evidence for something like the Illuminati to debunk (NOT saying they're real), and you can't then you're not interested? What do you mean by ""Can't be debunked".

The reason I'm asking is because Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret that.

A debunk is to clear up a misunderstanding with factual information or proper context. If something is true, then there's nothing to debunk.

Some conspiracy theories rely on factual information that then makes conclusions that aren't warranted - where a claim is 'this is true, therefore so is this', that may be debunked on grounds of logical fallacies, which is more a 'soft' debunk. However that won't change anyone's belief until a 'hard' debunk, based on a claim that be proven either true or false, comes up.
Some subjects are too vague and they can't be proven true or false, so we can't debunk them either.
The general existence of secret conspiracies guiding world events that are indistinguishable from natural events or coincidences is one of those.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I'm just wondering about this part:

"Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those."
We're not interested in those in the sense that it's futile, we try to emphasise focus on specific claims.
It doesn't mean they're not interesting or worth talking or thinking about, just not here as the stated purpose of this site is to focus on what can be proven true. There's a universe of things that may or may not be.
(though we do get some general rambling discussion happening of course, we just don't want that to take over.)
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I know that, I'm just wondering about this part:

"Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those."
Ummm...okay...not sure why you were asking if you knew...but alright. o_O

The "Some things can't be debunked though, but we're not interested in those" remark was Pete's
and I won't presume to speak for him...he'll probably tell you exactly what he meant...

But I agree that "some things can't be debunked," like "Obama secretly hates America" or "Secret global forces
(Illuminati, Bilderbergs, Jews, NWO, Freemasons, FEMA, Trilateralists, United Nations, Monsanto, etc. fill-in the blank)
are secretly conspiring to enslave and/or eat all humans..." and so on.

No data exists or could exist that would ever disprove or debunk such allegations of secret intentions,
so there will always be numerous things that absolutely "can't be debunked,"
but that doesn't mean that they are in any way true...in fact they usually are ridiculous...
though some folks will believe anything they see in a YouTube video...




p.s. D'oh! Curse my slow typing! Pete answered as I was leisurely typing this... :confused:
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member.
Also, just because the site doesn't deal with the undebunkable claims, doesn't mean we don't debunk their supporting evidence, ancillary claims, or specific examples.

For example, the whole general martial law thing. It would be very nearly impossible to debunk that the government or people within it desire to institute martial law on a large and persistent scale, and most threads on that specific subject just end up getting buried down in the Rambles forum at best. If a mod doesn't move them early enough, they're pretty much guaranteed to devolve to the point that the whole thread is just nuked - come CTs have been banned over those threads, but I also could name at least one debunker who, since I joined, went also too far during a trainwreck thread and got himself banned.


However, we do debunk, among other things:
-False flags
-FEMA camps
-FEMA coffins
-Mystery convoys (I don't think we covered that one that CTs latched onto a few days ago, but Snopes and a few other debunking sites did)
-Mystery planes
-"Suspicious" military exercises
-Staged disasters
-Misinterpreted laws or executive orders
-Misinterpreted Quotes
-Misinterpreted documents
-etc
-etc
-etc

So, while the overall platform that "The government is preparing to institute martial law" is outside of the scope of the site, we will gladly knock the pillars out from under it, leaving it with no supporting evidence.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Moderator
Staff member
By "Can't be debunked" do you mean evidence if someone posts evidence for something like the Illuminati to debunk (NOT saying they're real), and you can't then you're not interested? What do you mean by ""Can't be debunked".

The reason I'm asking is because Conspiracy Theorists can really misinterpret that.
That quote did give me pause too, at first, but I can see exactly what he meant.

This site isn't about disproving all conspiracy theories. That would be impossible.

If somebody says to you "Alien spaceships could be visiting our planet on a daily basis" - well, it's unlikely, but without a specific testable claim, you can't disprove that.

However, if somebody says "Here is a video that shows an alien spaceship visiting our planet", then that is a claim that can be debunked, like if it turns out to be from a commercial for pizza box advertising, for instance.

So, what he means is "we are not interested in vague claims that cannot be debunked". What we are interested in are specific claims that can be proven true or false.

And no, you won't get banned for posting something that can't be debunked - either because it is too vague, or because it turns out to be true. You [general "you" here, not aimed at the OP or anyone else] might get banned for being impolite, acting like a jerk, or flooding the site with off-topic posts. But those rules apply to everybody - several "debunkers" have also been banned from this site, I believe.
 

TemplarJLS

Member
May I ask, "where" on Jupiter?

Because, Jupiter is a gaseous planet. The only place where one would find an actual solid "surface" or "core" (on Jupiter) would be where the atmospheric pressures above would be incredibly high....possibly....well CERTAINLY higher than those experienced by submersibles at the deepest depths of Earth's oceans.

url=http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/]Does Jupiter Have A Solid Core?[/url]





(edit).....somewhere I messed up the BB code.....sorry.

ORIGINAL website, I screwed up the 'url' BB phrasing: http://www.universetoday.com/14470/does-jupiter-have-a-solid-core/


Obviously, The Illuminati is using the librul Media to hid that fact that Jupiter is solid so we can never locate the headquarters. (Oh, and Pluto is actually a space station to the other side of the Milky way. Cookie to whoever gets the reference)

Anyways, here's my PROOF they're COVERING the TRUTH about JUPITER.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.

It's interesting to note that whenever people claim this site is "full of shit" or "run by the government", etc, I usually challenge them to point out something specific posted or claimed here, which they can show to be wrong. Not one of those accusers has ever gone on to do that. Not one.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
It's interesting to note that whenever people claim this site is "full of shit" or "run by the government", etc, I usually challenge them to point out something specific posted or claimed here, which they can show to be wrong. not one of those accusers has ever gone on to do that. Not one.
Many simply reply with the oft declared, with various phrasing, " all you have is facts, we have the truth!".:)
 

TemplarJLS

Member
I've actually seen people attack Mick just because he doesn't have experience in this field or something:

http://beforeitsnews.com/chemtrails...es-run-by-just-one-guy-mick-west-2430014.html

And this one Youtuber can't handle making a video without MICK WEST and SHILL in the same headline.

A simple search:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mick west&tbm=vid

(I didn't use youtube search because I dont need my recommendations filed with it)

I guess that's to be expected when you run sites like this...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit


Anyways when someone calls me a shill/disinfo agent, I kind of wear it as a badge of honor since it shows you debunked the arguments they had (assuming they gave any)
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
He has just as much expertise in the field as the people making the videos. Playing with the same deck, the difference between debunkers and bunkers* is that one side makes up for any lack of expertise with research, education, and self-improvement, while the other makes up for it by what can generously be called "playing connect the dots on an anthill."


*ignore that bunker means something else, this sounded clever in my head so I'm leaving it
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
I've actually seen people attack Mick just because he doesn't have experience in this field or something:

http://beforeitsnews.com/chemtrails...es-run-by-just-one-guy-mick-west-2430014.html

And this one Youtuber can't handle making a video without MICK WEST and SHILL in the same headline.

A simple search:

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=mick west&tbm=vid

(I didn't use youtube search because I dont need my recommendations filed with it)

I guess that's to be expected when you run sites like this...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit


Anyways when someone calls me a shill/disinfo agent, I kind of wear it as a badge of honor since it shows you debunked the arguments they had (assuming they gave any)
Mick may refer to himself humbly as "just some guy" but
--after years of focused attention on contrails--I'd really like to know
who knows as much about contrails in 2014 as Mick? Seriously. Candidates?

Also, the assertion that Mick's strategy is "personal attacks" just shows that whoever
wrote that has no familiarity of Mick's two sites: I've never seen any websites with
as meaty a "Politeness Policy" nor such consistent enforcement of same

(and I say this as someone who has been reprimanded for violating the Politeness Policy multiple times, :oops:
though--in my defense--what I had typed would be totally okay on 99.9% of the rest of the internet)



p.s. Minor edit: After typing "...who knows more...?" I decided that that wasn't even strong enough,
and edited it to "...who knows as much...?" because I can't think of any rational person who has devoted anywhere near as much investigation of contrails over the past few years
 
Last edited:

TemplarJLS

Member
Mick may refer to himself humbly as "just some guy"
but--after years of focused attention on contrails--I'd really like to
know who knows more about contrails in 2014 than Mick? Seriously. Candidates?

Also, the assertion that Mick's strategy is "personal attacks" just shows that whoever
wrote that has no familiarity of Mick's two sites: I've never seen any websites with
as meaty a "Politeness Policy" nor such consistent enforcement of same
(and I say this as someone who has been reprimanded for violating the Politeness Policy multiple times,
though--in my defense--what I had said would be totally okay on 99.9% of the rest of the internet)

Yeah, if they think Mick is impolite, they should see Skeptic Project or RationalWiki (I view the former and edit the latter). In fact Rational Wiki encourages snark in its rebuttals, so why they're going after Mick so much for "personal attacks" is beyond me.
 

Rico

Senior Member.
On the topic of Mick, I rarely get the privilege of seeing an online presence such as he who can take so many personal attacks from someone and yet can still remain level headed enough to respond politely. Sometimes I can't even do it.
 

TemplarJLS

Member
I think that's the problem Conspiracy Theorists have with him. They usually rely on Skeptics to blow up on them (Look on Youtube!). If they don't, then they immediately assume that person is a shill, because they think no "normal person"who does this can stay level headed without being paid. I believe there's a Logical Fallacy for that:

"You're only staying level headed because you're being paid to do this"

It's called Bulverism:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bulverism
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
May I ask, "where" on Jupiter?

Because, Jupiter is a gaseous planet. The only place where one would find an actual solid "surface" or "core" (on Jupiter) would be where the atmospheric pressures above would be incredibly high....possibly....well CERTAINLY higher than those experienced by submersibles at the deepest depths of Earth's oceans.
I imagined a floating tethered base, sort of like cloud city in Empire Strikes Back.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I spent a month being banned, and to be honest, it was my own fault. Mick keeps very simple guidelines and a politeness policy that is very fair (that's my opinion, and obviously the opinion of others who stick around).

When people say they've posted something that 'can't be debunked', it's probably something that doesn't need to be debunked because there's no supporting evidence, it's just a claim without evidence. Those kind of things can be ignored because it's up to the person making the claim to present evidence to support that claim.

Sometimes things are debunked, but the person saying it 'can't be debunked' just can't accept it.

There are other reasons as well, and I'm sure others will be happy to list them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I'm new here, and no I'm not accusing Mick of anything.


I've heard stories from some Conspiracy Theorists that have been banned because of posting stuff here that you guys couldn't debunk. Whether this is true or not I don't know since claims like this are easy to make (Yeah, I'm an ex-Illuminatti member, and our base in on Jupiter by the way), I am just kinda worried I'll be banned if i post something too hard for you guys to debunk.

Would that happen?

You will get banned (usually initially a short ban) if you repeatedly disregard the posting guidelines.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

Which you already seem to be going along the road of doing so. Perhaps now would be a good time to review them.

I've been a little busy offline the last few days, so have perhaps let things slide a little.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
. If they don't, then they immediately assume that person is a shill, because they think no "normal person"who does this can stay level headed without being paid.

I get accused of being a "bot", sometimes, because I just calmly repeat the facts. Also, they think I'm just "reading from a script".
 

Mackdog

Senior Member.
I'm new here, and no I'm not accusing Mick of anything.


I've heard stories from some Conspiracy Theorists that have been banned because of posting stuff here that you guys couldn't debunk. Whether this is true or not I don't know since claims like this are easy to make (Yeah, I'm an ex-Illuminatti member, and our base in on Jupiter by the way), I am just kinda worried I'll be banned if i post something too hard for you guys to debunk.

Would that happen?
Well first of all, Welcome to Metabunk..and I have to say, I really respect the fact that you are willing to be objective about conspiracy theories..I never was that objective back when I was a CT. You are doing the right thing in looking objectively at everything. And one other thing, this is not like any other forum where people just randomly post anything that comes to mind and engage in arguments about trivial things..we here at Metabunk try to keep the threads clear of any pointless conversations and arguments..sticking to just debunking specific claims of evidence. As long as you can do that, you will be fine and I think you will find it to be a great community of very intelligent individuals.
 

E**

Member
I just joined recently but I've been lurking for a long time. What a conspiracy theorists thinks constitutes evidence differs wildly from a debunker and heavily from the guidelines of this site.

What I've noticed is when prodded for more detailed evidence they start getting antagonistic and defensive until they get banned. The old pigeon chess approach.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
Call me suspicious but has the OP actually come here for some interesting discussion and debunking or are they here to post lots of links to the website they edit? ;)

just kidding. Welcome to the forum. Interesting you should bring up that Anna woman. It;s funny how when you type metabunk into google, along with the site itself, the next two top results are videos claiming this is a shill site. One is Anna's and the vid itself seems completely unrelated to the comments about Mick and Metabunk and the other is a video of Kristen Meghan that is about 14 minutes long and has about 2 sentences in the middle where she claims, with no evidence (so much like most other claims either of these two make) that Metabunk is an example of a shill site.
They do seem to be VERY keen to stop people stumbling upon this site or trusting anything they see on it.
 

LouV

Member
Since I read a lot of attacks on the site, I decided to play devil's advocate and wondered "What if MB deleted the posts which present damning proof about them or one of their debunk, and only left the angry persons who only make accusations without proof ?"
I went to look elsewhere if people had evidence that this site a shill site.

Found the two videos Efftup just mentioned, didn't found them credible for the same reasons.

Then I found this : METABUNK.ORG FRAUD! DE-BUNKING SITE CAN'T DEBUNK THIS. CENSORS POST! ... Oh boy, nobody but the poster would be surprised that they got banned for spam...
Then there was this one on the Pilots for 911 truth forum "Why Does Mick West Censor Posts At Metabunk?" Except that I didn't found any mention of censorship (read : erased posts) (It was apparently one of the debates your two forums had ; I don't have any problem on the principle and don't have the expertise and time to determine who had the more "bad faith" arguments. *shrugs*)

I stopped there, assuming that if someone had slam dunk evidence on the supposed corruption of this site it would be much more visible.
 
Except that I didn't found any mention of censorship (read : erased posts)

IMHO it wouldn't make a lot of sense to delete any post as the only goal of this forum is to debunk false evidence. If the evidence is provably false, it will get debunked. If it's not, then it is not of interest. Therefore I would be very surprised if posts will get deleted (other than maybe offensive or off topic messages) at all.
 

Efftup

Senior Member.
there are threads on here where people have looked at company details to see how much Richard Gage earns just from AE9/11T or Alex Jones is worth.
i am sure that with FOI acts in the USA it would not be difficult for someone who really KNEW that Mick was a shill to get some kind of IRS return with a link to payments, or have a private eye take photos of the dodgy man meeting him in the park once a month and handing over a brown envelope full of used notes.

They won;t do that because a) they don;t want to do any REAL work and b) cos they KNOW that Mick is not really a shill. but need to try and discredit him cos he is literally threatening their livelihood which is based on a lie. spreading conspiracy myths is FAR more lucrative than shilling.
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
It is ironic that PFT complains about posts being "deleted" when they mean "moved". If Mick were to post in the UA175 subforum on PFT his post would immediately be moved to the " debate" subforum.
 

Related Articles

Top