Using the term "debunking"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Panopticon_ISIS

New Member
Hi, new to metabunk here.

What I would like to address is the actual term debunked.

I've never visited the site before, but from my experience with various corners of the interwebs, I can basically take a shot in the dark and guess that at times the discussions here mostly involve something originating from what most would call a "conspiracy theory". These online discussions involve two sides, the "conspiracy theorists" (or vulgar defamatory insult aimed at mental health state) and the "skeptics" (or any number of derogatory terms peppered throughout an angry, profanity laced rant that bubbles to the surface within the 'CT' when having the burden of proof constantly placed on them drives them flippin' nuts, as all the 'skeptic' needs to do is simply accept the status quo, which - if the skeptic happens to be wrong -- it can take generations in the course of history for it to come into public knowledge (ie; CIA involvement in 1953 over of Mossadeq in Iran, the murder of CIA chemist Frank Olson, MKULTRA and other subprograms involving human experimentation with drugs and 'mind control', etc...). I believe that documentation and scientific validity is of the utmost importance, and that UFOs, Nibiru, reptilians are just ludicrous things to even waste time on.

My concern is, that when you claim something like "chemtrails" (a term 'CTs' should not be using...) is debunked, what is being missed is the obvious secrecy such a topic would be cloaked in in terms of documentation. There is no way around this. Secrecy exists. Information to de-bunk a "conspiracy theory" is as easy as just nodding along with any cable news channel, or doing whatever it takes to not hold any belief that casts you aside. It's no amazing effort or feat to be proud of, it's just what everyone else does.

I understand many 'CTs' can be ridiculous and jump to conclusions. I am just stating that there are many, many things out there that would be considered ridiculous "conspiracy theories" by skeptics, and then claimed successfully debunked by this website, purely because the burden of proof IS NOT ON the website, but on those who see things differently.

I could post a bunch of links to so-called "chemtrail" documents (not the 'Owning the Weather by 2025', Club of Rome-styled doc that so many 'CTs' believe is a real agenda laid out for all to see), but I'd rather just say I live in small-town Iowa and grew up interested in meteorology and astronomy from a very young age, so I was constantly looking up. I remember normal contrails. I remember what normal air traffic was like in relatively rural Iowa. In my town, we have a municipal airport that flies south to Des Moines, north to Minneapolis and east to Chicago. Suffice to say, it is not a busy airport. I distinctly remember contrails never persisting long enough to become clouds, I distinctly remember never seeing two contrails intersect each other, let alone leave a grid that diffuses and eventually leaves the sky in a haze.

I know it's still "debunked", but I don't understand why it needs to be. It's still an idea that gets you laughed at outside of the internet...

PS Mick - were you involved in the THPS HD digital game for PS3? Because they screwed up the revert completely! Thank you for making one of my favorite game series of all time.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't claim to debunk the contrail theory in the sense of 100% proving it wrong. I just debunk individual claims of evidence.

FInding the bunk in something and exposing it does not them mean the theory is false. Just that those claims of evidence are false.

Like your memory of contrails never persisting. Clearly there a vast amount of evidence that contrails DID persist, and there's lots of people who do remember them persisting. What is "debunked" here? Not the chemtrail theory, just the claim that contrails normally don't persist.

[THPS: I was not involved with anything after THUG]
 

Panopticon_ISIS

New Member
Fair enough. I misunderstood the concept of the the site.

Debunking the individual claims that are made (which some can simple be outrageous, unfounded and unsupported) is a fair and necessary process in proving a theory to be plausible or even - in a stretch -- true.

But admittedly, you have to say that in the big picture look at this topic, is it even necessary to debunk this sort of thing? While persisting contrails is something I personally believe exist in a manner of less innocence than the official word given by mainstream scientific data would lead us to know - and by that I mean with a dramatic increase in occurence, appearing in close vicinity to 'normal' contrails, etc... -- I think that this forum just looks at the topic as something that simply cannot possibly have a shred of credibilty to it, looking at those that do with a certain degree of ridicule.

With that said, I will state that my belief is that jet fuel additives are the reason for the increase. I do not believe unmarked military planes are spraying nano-death from above on purpose. I have read the USAF testing report on J-8+100 and the reasons for it's use, ie; as a cleaning agent and added heat sink, etc... The secrecy addressed in my initial post is apparent when you research J-8+100, which has two polymer ingredients that remain trade secrets on the MSDS info.

Basically, the secrecy involved, the fact that this whole issue could be a market trend, as in the upholstery industry and others, who must change their entire product line instead of making a special product just because California passes a new Technical Bulletin, I think that the label 'conspiracy theorist' is and some of the other things I've seen said by those some here are inflammatory remarks considering how history has unfolded much differently than we were taught in school, and I don't get that info from Valium-desperate types like Alex Jones, but from former President Bill Clinton's mentor and renowned historian Carroll Quigley.

I have stopped caring so much about "conspiracies" and "waking up", because it's all a futile exercise in not having fun or enjoying anything. What I do still care about is that people who are "seeking truth" or whatever such pretentious nonsense are not being labeled, getting the wrong information and getting ostracized and pissed off. That's something I could see changing, but so far, this is the best forum for discussion, even if it is obviously biased - for these issues. Of course an Alex Jones listener or people who don't research things on their own are never going to survive here, really, but even as a 'CT', a label I dislike immensely, I think I can discuss things here.

[PS]. Thanks for not being involved in 'Project 8'. Ugghhhh... Imo, THPS 4 was the pinnacle, although the Los Angeles level from THPS 3 was just beautiful level design, many others were, but I could slaughter that level. Have you worked on any recent console projects?
 

Balance

Senior Member.
But admittedly, you have to say that in the big picture look at this topic, is it even necessary to debunk this sort of thing? While persisting contrails is something I personally believe exist in a manner of less innocence than the official word given by mainstream scientific data would lead us to know - and by that I mean with a dramatic increase in occurence, appearing in close vicinity to 'normal' contrails, etc... -- I think that this forum just looks at the topic as something that simply cannot possibly have a shred of credibilty to it, looking at those that do with a certain degree of ridicule.

I was going to ask if you'd mind elaborating on this part but I think it might be better to ask if you've read the many posts on this site regarding this subject and in particular the other site http://contrailscience.com/ as it might give you an alternative perspective?

If you already have read it, please do elaborate. I'm unsure what less innocence refers to and what is your distinction of normal versus persistent. Is yours simply the belief it can only caused by a secret additive or do you have specific reasons to doubt the science that does explain it all?
 
Last edited:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
My concern is, that when you claim something like "chemtrails" (a term 'CTs' should not be using...) is debunked, what is being missed is the obvious secrecy such a topic would be cloaked in in terms of documentation. There is no way around this. Secrecy exists.

Secrecy exists therefore chemtrails could exist. Sure, I agree 100%, but so what? where does that leave us?

Using that argument we could also say that the government could be manufacturing secret mechanical zombie unicorns. Who's to know? Obviously a zombie unicorn program would be cloaked in secrecy. The problem with the approach you seem to be taking is that it is not intellectually satisfying; the argument doesn't advance our knowledge or understanding.

I think that this forum just looks at the topic as something that simply cannot possibly have a shred of credibilty to it,

Evidence of secrecy, MKULTRA, and CIA dirty dealings definitely exists. What doesn't exist is evidence of chemtrails.

It has been almost 20 years and nobody has been able to provide a single piece of scientific evidence for chemtrial. Despite the fact that these things are claimed to be sprayed daily, in broad daylight, and in full view of every chemist, meteorologist, environmental scientist of every kind, from every nation, both friendly and hostile. Borrowing from Sagan's dragon: What is the difference between ineffective, undetectable, unproven chemtrails and there being no chemtrails at all?

You'll find that the forum will examine claims of evidence in great detail. Unfortunately for the chemtrail proponents, their claims have been found to rely on speculation moreso than anything substantive. For many people, until evidence of chemtrails is uncovered, then they are about as credible as mechanical zombie unicorns.
 

Panopticon_ISIS

New Member
Secrecy exists therefore chemtrails could exist. Sure, I agree 100%, but so what? where does that leave us?

Using that argument we could also say that the government could be manufacturing secret mechanical zombie unicorns. Who's to know? Obviously a zombie unicorn program would be cloaked in secrecy. The problem with the approach you seem to be taking is that it is not intellectually satisfying; the argument doesn't advance our knowledge or understanding."

I am just asserting myself here, not trying to come off as a prick - but in any discussion that is attempting to have a diplomatic discourse on controversial issues -- it is very unfair for you to take a small, small portion of my words and quote them to use an outlandishly out-of-context remark to make it seem like my singular view on this subject is based on a correlation between secrecy and plausibility of "chemtrails (which is a term you need to stop using, if you are trying to engage in a scientific discsussion).

Therefore, I must - by asanine association, also believe in the zombie unicorn central bank waiting to jump into the lair of Baphomet, which lies underneath the bog pits of ye 'ol Denver International Airport. There, we - along with the Jews, PNAC, OPEC and NAMBLA -- will launch the L.Ron Hubbard Clone Federation to depopulate what once we called Earth, but now (dramatic orchestral buildup, heartbeat pounding as video fades rhythmically in and out) we sovereign terrestrials who survived the OT8 assault and near collision with Uranus after the Nibiru grays invasion- we call this world - AMERICANUS - starring Benjamin Bratt and the Shark, from Sharknado....

Well, that is not how I go about my logic. I would not use that sort of tact in reply to your beliefs posted, because that is not proper discussion.

If we all cannot agree on this, at the very least, then proper discourse between those on both sides of issues will simply be impossible on these forums.

A call for proper and civil discussion as opposed to low-brow journalism tactics of semantics hunting in the context of the opposing views is in my view, something that should be a consistent reminder on this resource. I am someone who has what you would consider a rather 'conspiratorial view' on history and certain modern issues - and I am here not to argue or be inflammatory -- I am here with an ooen mind, and I am new -- I am still learning.

What you will not see from me is me posting about beliefs I have in something I haven't done my own research on, within my capabilities, I'm not the person trusting every YT doc about conspiracies and I do not listen to Alex Jonse or any of that other crap. You will also not see me debate unfairly and divert from the subject at hamd, which destroys any chance at discourse.
 

Panopticon_ISIS

New Member
Evidence of secrecy, MKULTRA, and CIA dirty dealings definitely exists. What doesn't exist is evidence of chemtrails.

It has been almost 20 years and nobody has been able to provide a single piece of scientific evidence for chemtrial. Despite the fact that these things are claimed to be sprayed daily, in broad daylight, and in full view of every chemist, meteorologist, environmental scientist of every kind, from every nation, both friendly and hostile. Borrowing from Sagan's dragon: What is the difference between ineffective, undetectable, unproven chemtrails and there being no chemtrails at all?

You'll find that the forum will examine claims of evidence in great detail. Unfortunately for the chemtrail proponents, their claims have been found to rely on speculation moreso than anything substantive. For many people, until evidence of chemtrails is uncovered, then they are about as credible as mechanical zombie unicorns.


I would like to remind you that MKULTRA began in the early 1950's - with ARTICHOKE predating that -- the program was not brought to light until 1977 and was only finally declassified - with huge omissions from the burned evidence and many redactions -- in 2001.

You are making me seem as if my statement is retarded, delusional, and you are focusing on the wrong aspect of what this thread is about - if what you do is try to gratify yourself intellectually by picking a small flaw -- missing the analogy completly (that things that are shrouded in secrecy tend to not have much proof existing in the public domain, and also tend to take generations to come to light, which you conveniently or ignorantly ignored (pardon my redundance) - because it's much easier to make my views seem idiotic if you frame the debate your way - by using dramatic language to compare my beliefs, under your - forgive my bluntness here -- Palin-esque debating tactics, than even try to see the other persons point of view, what documentaion they might have, etc...

I mean, this is like debating a "discredit one thing and I've won" robot. If you are just assuming my beliefs are based on such simple premises as you imply, you assume to much and may as well just be at peace with your stance and be pleased with that, and move on to something else. You seem like you are not the type of person who is willing to look at one page of one ducument without just fishing for something you can use your poor verbal gymnastics to twist and then declare debunked - from your discussion tact alone I sense that you are a person who won't be convinced because you are already set...

If this is what debunking is, this place is not for me, and I really hope someone tells me it isn't.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
If you are just assuming my beliefs are based on such simple premises as you imply.

I don't debate, I attempt to debunk. As far as I can tell your beliefs are backed by one big argument from ignorance. Just pointing that out. If you have evidence of chemtrails start a thread and I'll see you there.
 

Steve Funk

Senior Member.
Panopticon, welcome to the board, and I hope you do stick around. The regulars here do tend to be argumentative, but mostly we keep it at the same level one would see in the comments for a scientific journal--heated, but not personal. Re the one line of evidence scenario; funny, in my discussions with chemtrailers, it seems to be just the opposite. If I can debunk nine of ten arguments, they believe the tenth proves chemtrails are real.
The word debunk seems to be losing its negative connotations. Chemtrailers use that word, although sometimes they also call us deniers, an inappropriate term considering that there is not one qualified atmospheric scientist, to my knowledge, who gives the theory any credence. (OK, that is appeal to authority, which is sometimes considered a logical fallacy. But it is a good point of reference, especially for someone who does not have many hours to research this subject.)
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I mean, this is like debating a "discredit one thing and I've won" robot. If you are just assuming my beliefs are based on such simple premises as you imply, you assume to much and may as well just be at peace with your stance and be pleased with that, and move on to something else. You seem like you are not the type of person who is willing to look at one page of one ducument without just fishing for something you can use your poor verbal gymnastics to twist and then declare debunked - from your discussion tact alone I sense that you are a person who won't be convinced because you are already set...

If this is what debunking is, this place is not for me, and I really hope someone tells me it isn't.

Debunking is looking at individual claims of evidence and seeing if they are right or wrong (i.e. seeing if they are bunk), and then making that information available to counteract the bunk.

Beyond that, you can come to your own conclusions based on what you know. If you think there's still some evidence for the chemtrail theory, then fair enough. Let's have a look at it. If you are just unwilling to express a firm opinion either way, then also fair enough - but you might expect a little questioning as to your rationale if you lean towards the more extraordinary theories.

I'm really not about trying to get people to say "chemtrails don't exist". I'm about trying to get them to look at the reasons why they think chemtrails exist, and see if those reasons stand up to scrutiny.

I personally do not think chemtrails exist (in the sense of long white lines high in the sky being something other than contrails or skywriting). But that's because I've been looking at it for about eight years, and the evidence presented has invariably been shown to be bunk. I totally understand that people who have not looked into it so much might still have doubts. I totally understand that there are also people who are stuck in their beliefs for a variety of reasons.

So I just look at the evidence. I see what is bunk. I explain this. That's it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Wiggles Measuring the radius of Earth using Long Range Observations (LROs) Flat Earth 0
Z.W. Wolf Claim: Martin Gugino Was Using a "Police Tracker." Conspiracy Theories 42
Mick West Measuring 5G EMF and using ICNIRP Guidelines 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 14
Cassi O Google Maps Measure Distance Using Great Circle Flat Earth 0
Stefan Leahu Using railways to view curvature Flat Earth 3
danno Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Rory How to Show the Horizon is Below Eye Level, Using Actual Eyes Flat Earth 59
Rory Using Mountain Ranges to Predict the Shape of the Earth Flat Earth 11
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
ki_cz NASA using green screen to fake ISS experiment footage Science and Pseudoscience 14
Balance Taurus Molecular Cloud Generator - actually an oil field firefighter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Leifer Using comedy to reverse, or promote bunk Practical Debunking 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
Leifer Video Capture using VLC ?? Site Feedback & News 8
Eric Wayne KFC Mutant Chicken Hoax using my own Photoshop Hatchet Work General Discussion 7
Libertarian Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Trailspotter Using Google Earth Identify Contrails and other Objects in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Pete Tar Debunked: Using 13.56Mhz radio waves and HAARP to remove Methane from the Atmosphere HAARP 7
Cairenn Debunked: Mercedes-Benz using chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Using Campaign Finance Reform to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 25
Mattnik 'John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights' General Discussion 10
U Using drones to spray chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: "war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media" Quotes Debunked 1
Mick West Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Short-Term Mortality Health and Quackery 6
dunbar Usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory" Practical Debunking 134
Mick West Bad science in the paper 'Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant GM maize' Science and Pseudoscience 120
AluminumTheory Alternative Thinker (PC term for Conspiracy Theorist) Practical Debunking 9
U Has the whole Geo Engineering term been addressed yet Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Debunked: The CIA invented the term "Conspiracy Theory" in 1967 with memo 1035-960 Practical Debunking 28
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
A Needs Debunking: Proposed COVID Vaccine will become part of our DNA, make us programmable Coronavirus COVID-19 10
gtoffo Needs Debunking: "UFO crash" near Rio de Janeiro UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Code-Beta Needs Debunking: CE-5, humans initiating UFO sightings UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 8
Mick West Debunking Correlations Between 5G deployments and Coronavirus Coronavirus COVID-19 14
Pumpernickel Need Debunking: Foucault's Pendulum debunked through Mach's principle (the Earth is a static object in the center of the Universe) Science and Pseudoscience 16
Mick West TFTRH #34 - Stian Arnesen: Debunking, Censorship, 9/11, and UFOs Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 0
H Need Debunking: Hernando County platforms from more than 10 miles Flat Earth 9
Bill Statler Needs debunking: "Magnetic water" for treating diabetes Health and Quackery 8
Mick West TFTRH #14: Rory – Flat Earth Debunking and Spiritual Journeys Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Qulaey Two problems need help debunking and debating tips? please. Flat Earth 9
Scaramanga The Easy And Logical Debunking Of UFO 'Size' UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 1
Mendel MediaWise #IsThisLegit program Practical Debunking 1
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
mudr0 Need Debunking: Video claiming zigzaggin objects and movement prove EVA filmed in pool General Discussion 33
vooke Need debunking: Writings in the sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 11
Mick West Debunking 9/11 Microsphere Myths 9/11 0
Starman Debunking Bob Lazar's drawing of S-4 hangers UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top