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.
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.