The Debunked Persons Forum

AluminumTheory

Senior Member.
The problem that I mainly see with that forum is that we are trying to focus on individual claims of evidence. This makes it easier to stay on topic in many other instances, but when dealing with a primary figure in the conspiracy world we often get sidetracked by things like "well sure he was wrong about this, this and that, but how does that debunk him as in individual when he was right about these things?". These kinds of rebuttals are inevitable because we aren't focusing individual claims that a certain person has made, instead we are focusing on a person, and so the many things that person has said and done will come up which leads to speculation of character, personal agendas, mental illness, etc..

But the fact of the matter is that bunk comes from people, and most certainly some more than others. People like Alex Jones, are responsible for generating alot of it, and it needs to be addressed.

I've aslo been thinking about how alot of conspiracies that are purveyed by a single person don't always seem to make it to the Debunked Persons Forum. Threads like "Glenn Beck and the Saudi National" and "Boston: Navy Seals" (which very clearly have origins from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones respectively) would have been great additions to the forum.

For more central figures in the conspiracy world like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura, Glenn Beck etc., perhaps we could start threads discussing individual claims made by these people, and have them indexed somewhere else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My original intent with the People Debunked Forum was to have a place to expose people who basically seem to be misrepresenting their own credentials. People like Nick Begich. But see the guidelines here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-people-guidelines.236/

However there are not many threads in there, and a normal pattern of usage never emerged.

Long lists of "bunk a person said" are probably not the say to go, unless the list links to individual debunk threads for each item. It's fine to demonstrate that a person has a pattern of deception or ignorance, or whatever, but attempting to get into everything in one thread is going to be a waste of time.

Many short threads make for more focussed debunking.
 
Last edited:
"Do you have any evidence for that claim?", something Landru says often.

Starting to think that be useful to have as a banner/motto for the site, it might get the people who come here more focused in their posts, and it does neatly summarise our 'angle'.
 
Maybe something more simple like "got proof?
My original intent with the People Debunked Forum was to have a place to expose people who basically seem to be misrepresenting their own credentials. People like Nick Begich. But see the guidelines here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunking-people-guidelines.236/

However there are not many threads in there, and a normal pattern of usage never emerged.

Long lists of "bunk a person said" are probably not the say to go, unless the list links to individual debunk threads for each item. It's fine to demonstrate that a person has a pattern of deception or ignorance, or whatever, but attempting to get into everything in one thread is going to be a waste of time.

Many short threads make for more focussed debunking.

It would be difficult to keep up with the task of linking to debunked threads. But then it could turn into a hodge podge really fast when one person conjures a conspiracy theory which later gets expanded by someone else, and so on.

The thing is that most prominent members in the conspiracy world don't seem to purport any credentials other than self declared ones like "journalist" or "intelligence analyst".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top