What makes something "debunked"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have a FACT for you. Because I have TALKED to the guys that landed on the moon. I have seen moon rocks and the analysis of them. I understand how they could go to the moon.

Do you expect someone to 'prove' every news broadcast to you? That is what you are asking.

You said that YOU had doubts and now it seems that you are refusing to offer any grounds for those doubts.

So now you want to run off to and start the same nonsense on another thread.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Belief in or acceptance of supernatural claims about deities has nothing whatsoever to do with human spaceflight.

There's no basis for likening the Apollo program and the acceptance of well-established facts demonstrating its accomplishments to religious or theistic arguments.

Ok, this is the most interesting thing I've heard all day and it is exactly what I am interested in because this goes to the heart of our disagreement, not the technical stuff and the footage. This is where the meat of the matter is, so I'm pasting it over there and see if it gets any liftoff.
 

cosmic

Senior Member.
To where it belongs.

False.

Someone asked me if I doubted something. I said yes. I gave some reasons why.

You provided no actual clarification.

I stated motivation from the pressure because of the failures.

That's not what you stated. What you posted was so vague that I asked multiple questions to try and narrow it down. You still haven't spelled it all out.

You chimed in to ask what failures. My answer in full at this point is because of the clips of one after another rockets blowing up on the pad and the document they cited underlining their fears that they wouldn't be able to land them without killing them and that wouldn't do on live TV, would it?

The launch failures you're describing likely predate Alan Shepard's flight, which goes back to the Mercury program, years before Gemini or Apollo, using entirely different hardware for different purposes. I think your knowledge of the involved history is your primary impediment.

I'm watching footage of all the money spent on the simulation stuff and rehearsal stuff. I'm not digging into each and every clip and trying to determine if it's real or fake. I don't care about that. If that's what you want, wrong guy.

I don't know what you're watching, actually, because you won't tell me. If you can't be bothered to make those references, you're not as interested in discussing this as you'd have me believe.

I would like to know why you or anyone believes the official story in the face of all the doubts raised.

Chances are your doubts revolve around misinterpretations or misrepresentations. The real question is: will we ever find out?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeC

Closed Account
Ok, this is the most interesting thing I've heard all day and it is exactly what I am interested in because this goes to the heart of our disagreement, not the technical stuff and the footage. This is where the meat of the matter is, so I'm pasting it over there and see if it gets any liftoff.

Over where, if this is what you are interested in why didn't you say so already, and how is it relevant to whatever it is you think the disagreement is??:confused:
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
I have a FACT for you. Because I have TALKED to the guys that landed on the moon. I have seen moon rocks and the analysis of them. I understand how they could go to the moon.

Do you expect someone to 'prove' every news broadcast to you? That is what you are asking.

You said that YOU had doubts and now it seems that you are refusing to offer any grounds for those doubts.

So now you want to run off to and start the same nonsense on another thread.

Yes. Since you are so put off by my nonsense, maybe you could make us both happier and not follow me when I do, since it will just bug ya.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Ok, this is the most interesting thing I've heard all day and it is exactly what I am interested in because this goes to the heart of our disagreement, not the technical stuff and the footage. This is where the meat of the matter is, so I'm pasting it over there and see if it gets any liftoff.

You are free to discuss religion vs atheism or philosophy or anything else here. There are places for everything, but no matter the topic, if you make claims about evidence either being true or false you will most likely be asked to provide more than your opinion on said evidence.

Don't just think of providing evidence as something debunkers want but something you should be willing to provide so that if people that might agree with you will have something to learn from. You have access to an audience here, take advantage of it.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
You are free to discuss religion vs atheism or philosophy or anything else here. There are places for everything, but no matter the topic, if you make claims about evidence either being true or false you will most likely be asked to provide more than your opinion on said evidence.

Don't just think of providing evidence as something debunkers want but something you should be willing to provide so that if people that might agree with you will have something to learn from. You have access to an audience here, take advantage of it.

I would be happier if instead of the never ending asking of advice that is then dismissed out of hand, maybe a little more talking about the issue. There's more to getting at the heart of something than just continually asking for more evidence.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I would be happier if instead of the never ending asking of advice that is then dismissed out of hand, maybe a little more talking about the issue. There's more to getting at the heart of something than just continually asking for more evidence.

If you want people to stop asking you for evidence, don't make claims about evidence being true or false.

And I don't want your advice.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I would be happier if instead of the never ending asking of advice that is then dismissed out of hand, maybe a little more talking about the issue. There's more to getting at the heart of something than just continually asking for more evidence.


Maybe you could sum up what you think the issue is again? What bits of it have not been talked about?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Been a little busy dealing with however many of you, while there's only one of me. ..

This is an unfortunate phenomenon that tends to happen - however the reason is we are all individuals with an interest in this stuff, so we all have an opinion when you question the foundation of the epistemology (that's 'how to know about knowing' right?) we try to practice.

It seems you're annoyed this isn't just a place to talk about interesting stuff that can't necessarily be proved, but the point is this place is specifically focused on that dynamic - there are legitimate times and places to talk about those things, just less so here - although there is some room for more speculative off-topic stuff that comes up organically.

Having a somewhat narrow focus on presenting and discussing verifiable evidence for the many claims about our universe that are out there is what makes this place, in my opinion, valuable and interesting. It's a discipline I appreciate. I can't understand you being so offended by it. However I do appreciate this conversation, as frustrating as it is, because it allows for some really good clarifications.

We enjoy looking into details, so don't be shy about taking a point you want to examine, and starting a thread on it.

This particular one seems more pre-occupied with disagreeing on our particular sifting of bunk on ideological or philosophical grounds... if this is not so, please be more precise and exact in your criticisms so we can trace your discontent properly.
At the moment it just seems you're offended because people evaluate what people claim according to a very specific standard. You also seem to see a hypocrisy or double-standard, but it remains vague and ideological at this point to me rather than very specific and understandable.

And as to the moon mission questions, the most awesome resource and proof is in the collected archive of all the media produced by the apollo missions, found here...
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
It really is incredible.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
This is an unfortunate phenomenon that tends to happen - however the reason is we are all individuals with an interest in this stuff, so we all have an opinion when you question the foundation of the epistemology (that's 'how to know about knowing' right?) we try to practice.

I hear that. But what I meant was that it's just one of me and all of you. You all may be individuals, but you are a group, too, and it's hard to keep up with it because it's like playing tennis with eight people on the other side.

It seems you're annoyed this isn't just a place to talk about interesting stuff that can't necessarily be proved, but the point is this place is specifically focused on that dynamic - there are legitimate times and places to talk about those things, just less so here - although there is some room for more speculative off-topic stuff that comes up organically.

This is an excellent point. I'm not annoyed that it isn't a just a place for interesting stuff that can't be proved, but that it is hard to do it at all. I realized that I shouldn't have followed the tangent that led to the detour through the metabunking stuff, but once in it snowballed and took on a life of it's own.

Having a somewhat narrow focus on presenting and discussing verifiable evidence for the many claims about our universe that are out there is what makes this place, in my opinion, valuable and interesting. It's a discipline I appreciate. I can't understand you being so offended by it. However I do appreciate this conversation, as frustrating as it is, because it allows for some really good clarifications.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not offended by anything. And I do understand the need for narrow focus. It's necessary. But it's not sufficient because without at least a loose grasp of the forest, the trees don't make as much sense. Both are needed and a balance has to be struck.

Just like it is with CT's and all the loopy stereotypes you guys have about them, all of which are true to some extent and false as well, there is the debunker stereotype as well, and it is well deserved. I just hate to see it dominate the signal to noise ratio because just as in CT land, the few sterling adherents of all that is wrong with the breed make it harder for more balanced approach that I'm looking for.

So after that first wave, I have plenty of data on who is who and what they are up to. Hey, I'm like the NSA, I guess. ;) Now I have a better sense of the players so it's easier to go from here. So, annoying as all that was for me and no doubt others as well, it's valuable so I'm glad it happened.

We enjoy looking into details, so don't be shy about taking a point you want to examine, and starting a thread on it.

That is the plan.

This particular one seems more pre-occupied with disagreeing on our particular sifting of bunk on ideological or philosophical grounds... if this is not so, please be more precise and exact in your criticisms so we can trace your discontent properly.

At the moment it just seems you're offended because people evaluate what people claim according to a very specific standard. You also seem to see a hypocrisy or double-standard, but it remains vague and ideological at this point to me rather than very specific and understandable.

Heh. Again with the offended. Please don't get me wrong, Pete. It's frustration, not offense. But, hey, you nailed it with the double standard. It is ideological, which is my point. That's the source of my stuff about the labels.

In it's strict sense, debunking is more akin to fact-checking. Needed, certainly, but not the whole story. This is what I was seeking to point out with the stuff about Dawkins, and suck as that did, it was also very instructive and proved my point re ideology, as well as pointing out the shortcomings of the debunker approach, and both are tied together to form the core of the reason why it is so fucking hard to talk to you guys as a mob.

The ideology part is demonstrated clearly with the Dawkins thing because it points to the good guy/bad guy thing. I wasn't using my Dawkins examples as evidence against him. I was using them as evidence that there was a plentitude of examples of folks debunking them. It wasn't about debunking Dawk, but debunking the notion that he was somehow immune to being debunked or hadn't been. I was providing evidence that the claim was bunk, not that Dawkins was bunk.

Yet folks jumped straight over that point and started wailing on the quality of the debunking in the examples. They may have been totally correct in their assessment of such, but they still were totally off point as to the larger issue, which wasn't Dawkins. It's kind of sad to see a bunch of people congratulating themselves for stealing the ball and making a slam dunk--in the wrong basket.

This is the chief shortcoming of the approach many take to debunking. They don't seem to get it that there's more to things than never ending demands for evidence. But since that's the only tool they have, they hammer everything in sight with it. [And you know deep down that someone will respond to the last point with "where's your evidence?" ;)]

It didn't take long to see that the criticism of logic and rhetoric and the tools of the trade only flows one way--out.

Insiders have a "get out of fallacy jail free" card while outsiders are picked apart for every misstep. This is bad for two reasons. It fosters an unrealistic notion of the strength of your position and masks the flaws in your game.

Cruising through so many threads and seeing such shoddy slop being thrown around with abandon was disconcerting because nobody was pointing out any of it.

I've been apprised a number of times about CT fallacies and it makes my head hurt to see such stupid shit pass by unchecked. There's even a "tutorial" on the subject in the metabunk section entitled Conspiracy theory logical fallacies, yet nobody pointed out the glaring problem with that or anything else in it. So, a pile of slop that is on the site as a tutorial goes by unexamined, but the one I tossed up as an example gets pummeled immediately.

Why? Because the one I put up was pointing out stuff about someone on the team while the other was aimed at the other team so it got a clear pass. Only problem is that my quick toss is already yesterday's news while the one unchecked is still seen as a tutorial.

Regardless, enough with this stuff as all this has knocked me off my agenda, so back to that.


And as to the moon mission questions, the most awesome resource and proof is in the collected archive of all the media produced by the apollo missions, found here...
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html
It really is incredible.

Thank you.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've been apprised a number of times about CT fallacies and it makes my head hurt to see such stupid shit pass by unchecked. There's even a "tutorial" on the subject in the metabunk section entitled Conspiracy theory logical fallacies, yet nobody pointed out the glaring problem with that or anything else in it. So, a pile of slop that is on the site as a tutorial goes by unexamined, but the one I tossed up as an example gets pummeled immediately.


Why don't you point it out?

I assume you mean:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-logical-fallacies-of-conspiracy-theories.1857/

(aside: it's always very helpful to communication if you link to the things you are referencing).
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Has anyone else noticed that Joe Newman, seems unable to answer any questions we ask him? However his is extremely fond of asking us questions. You get 'pinged' because you say something and then dance around any evidence for you belief.

You were asked to point out which one you had a problem with and why.

I see someone changing the subject a lot. Most of the time he ends up trying to take the discussion into religion, instead of science.

If you wish to discuss religion, I am sure that there are forums available for that.
Here are a couple of them.

www.religiousforums.com

www.religionforums.org
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

It didn't take long to see that the criticism of logic and rhetoric and the tools of the trade only flows one way--out.

Insiders have a "get out of fallacy jail free" card while outsiders are picked apart for every misstep. This is bad for two reasons. It fosters an unrealistic notion of the strength of your position and masks the flaws in your game.

Cruising through so many threads and seeing such shoddy slop being thrown around with abandon was disconcerting because nobody was pointing out any of it.
...

Well if a failure of reasoning or logic is evident, it should be pointed out, and welcomed. I have seen examples of this here and there, but very often the claim of a logic error is not actually so, and more like someone just learned to use the phrase 'ad hominem' against people they disagree with without really grasping what is being said.
I would encourage you to bring direct criticism where it is appropriate, but please be specific, so it's not just a matter of personal prejudice or interpretation.
But then again, as in debate or lawyering, it is possible to use the strict laws of logic and reasoning rhetorically to argue for any position, even a false one. So I guess one has to go with their own reasonable doubt in the end.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Has anyone else noticed that Joe Newman, seems unable to answer any questions we ask him? However his is extremely fond of asking us questions. You get 'pinged' because you say something and then dance around any evidence for you belief.

You were asked to point out which one you had a problem with and why.

That's just it. I don't have a problem with any particular piece of footage. I never said I did. You just assigned that to me.

I see someone changing the subject a lot. Most of the time he ends up trying to take the discussion into religion, instead of science.

The discussion I wanted to have is directly related to the connection between the two because that's where the evidence is that led to the doubts I have. I don't care about the rockets or the technical details and never said I did. The reasons for my doubts are not in that pile, but in with the roots of the space program (which is what I should have said, not NASA).

If you wish to discuss religion, I am sure that there are forums available for that. Here are a couple of them.

Thanks, but I don't want to discuss religion, at least not in that way.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
The discussion I wanted to have is directly related to the connection between the two because that's where the evidence is that led to the doubts I have.

WHAT IS IT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS?????

WTF are you telling us what it is "related to" when you haven't actually told us what it is??

honestly - I've never seen someone write so much about what they want to talk about without actually talking about it - are you aiming for an entry in the GBOWR for obfuscation or something??
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
Explain "there is no such thing". Say what you mean.

I just did. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory fallacy. There is no such thing as a debunker fallacy, either. There are fallacies. CT folks commit them. Debuners commit them, too. To call a logical fallacy a CT fallacy infers that it is somehow restricted to CT folks, which is in itself a fallacy.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I just did. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory fallacy. There is no such thing as a debunker fallacy, either. There are fallacies. CT folks commit them. Debuners commit them, too. To call a logical fallacy a CT fallacy infers that it is somehow restricted to CT folks, which is in itself a fallacy.

I think that identifying fallacies commonly committed in CT's is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and labeling them as "CT fallacies" is also straightforward and not unreasonable. Ditto for any other group that commits a common set of fallacies.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
WHAT IS IT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS?????

WTF are you telling us what it is "related to" when you haven't actually told us what it is??

honestly - I've never seen someone write so much about what they want to talk about without actually talking about it - are you aiming for an entry in the GBOWR for obfuscation or something??

It was in the other thread that the person was alluding to and her comment there. Sorry you missed that part.

I should have provided evidence that I was alluding to something just said to me by the person I was responding to. My bad.
 

Joe Newman

Active Member
I think that identifying fallacies commonly committed in CT's is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and labeling them as "CT fallacies" is also straightforward and not unreasonable. Ditto for any other group that commits a common set of fallacies.

Really? Ok, can you give me a list of debunker fallacies?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I just did. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory fallacy. There is no such thing as a debunker fallacy, either. There are fallacies. CT folks commit them. Debuners commit them, too. To call a logical fallacy a CT fallacy infers that it is somehow restricted to CT folks, which is in itself a fallacy.
I don't think that inference is justified, well it's not one I would make.
You seem to be making distinctions that are public relations concerns, a concern for how these things can be perceived by an unfamiliar audience?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Well, I have to admit I wasn't there, so I don't have the whole story and can't prove anything, but I'm guessing you knew that. I'm of the mind that they went there and probably faked some of the footage we saw. They certainly had the capacity and shot the shit for no other reason than a Milli Vanilli backup.

Can you imagine the whole world staring at snow during the big leaps and little steps? Perhaps not, but I'm quite certain NASA could and did. Their track record hadn't exactly been spotless along the way and there was a freakish amount of pressure to pull it off.

"Oops" would have been perhaps less than sufficient to allay the loss of face with literally the whole wired world watching. You might want to blow that off, but they surely didn't.


Back to the faked moon footage, that you denied saying. Now go over to the other thread and man up and tell us what you think was faked.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
That's just it. I don't have a problem with any particular piece of footage. I never said I did. You just assigned that to me.

Please don't lie!
From post #17 of this thread.
I'm of the mind that they went there and probably faked some of the footage we saw.
Either you have seen footage you think has been faked or you're just pulling things out of your A$$ to say.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
I think I will take Mick's debunking advice.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-guide-to-debunking.1886/
Then you have the extremists. People beyond the reach of reason, who don’t even have a good basis for their own beliefs. The lack of rationality in their arguments makes them both impossible to reason with, and basically useless for any part of debunking (except perhaps to illustrate how extreme the argument is - but that’s not a very good argument in itself, something of a fallacy). Best to ignore them, and hope they go away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Joe Newman

Active Member
Please don't lie!
From post #17 of this thread.

Either you have seen footage you think has been faked or you're just pulling things out of your A$$ to say.

Or there is a third option, which is the one we're going with. It's my "official story," so it's gotta be true because that's the way this joint rolls. ;)

All I said was I thought the they probably faked some footage. So go feed that strawman to that damn one trick pony you've been riding because it isn't getting the mileage you were hoping for so it's probably hungry.

"I think they probably faked" does not equate to "having seen" fake footage, so stop getting all over my shit about something I never even said. That's a debunker fallacy. Or something. Mick probably knows. Ask him. I'm just supposed to point them out. Maybe he wants to collect them for a new tutorial.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Or there is a third option, which is the one we're going with. It's my "official story," so it's gotta be true because that's the way this joint rolls. ;)

All I said was I thought the they probably faked some footage. So go feed that strawman to that damn one trick pony you've been riding because it isn't getting the mileage you were hoping for so it's probably hungry.

"I think they probably faked" does not equate to "having seen" fake footage, so stop getting all over my shit about something I never even said. That's a debunker fallacy. Or something. Mick probably knows. Ask him. I'm just supposed to point them out. Maybe he wants to collect them for a new tutorial.

At least my pony knows a trick, yours doesn't do anything but wonder in circles!
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory fallacy.

No one said there was such a thing as a "conspiracy theory fallacy", nor was it implied.

Did you read beyond the title of that thread? Because if you had, I find it hard to believe that you thought the post claimed or implied conspiracy theories are logical fallacies, or that logical fallacies are only committed by conspiracy theorists. AluminumTheory simply posted a list of logical fallacies that one might find used by conspiracy theorists, that's all. In fact, the last sentence of his opening paragraph actually states, in English, "Here are some typical logical fallacies used by conspiracy theorists:" Then it goes on to list a dozen or so logical fallacies often used by conspiracy theorists. Including the straw man argument which you seem to be familiar with already.

Perhaps you don't like the title? Maybe a better title would have been "The Logical Fallacies found in Conspiracy Theories" or "Some Logical Fallacies used by Conspiracy Theorists" or better yet "The logical fallacies sometimes, but not always, used by some conspiracy theorists which are also used by other people who have nothing to do with conspiracy theories or even those that oppose the views of said conspiracy theorists and their theories" Don't let the title distract you from the content. Bumping into the trees of distraction keeps you from playing paintball in the forest level of knowledge, it's all about the meat, know what I mean?

Now, is there some kind of occult ritual incantation we need to perform for you to state your point?
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
I just did. There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory fallacy. There is no such thing as a debunker fallacy, either. There are fallacies. CT folks commit them. Debuners commit them, too. To call a logical fallacy a CT fallacy infers that it is somehow restricted to CT folks, which is in itself a fallacy.
It's pretty clear that the thread is about logical fallacies committed by conspiracy theorists; I don't see anything in the thread indicating, inferring, or even implying that those fallacies are exclusive to conspiracy theorists.

I've been watching this thread because I thought you might come up with some good points about pitfalls and logical fallacies that debunkers fall into in their (our) zeal for confronting bunk. But so far I have to agree with those who say that you've managed to write a lot without saying much. Can you please point to a specific instance of bunk that has been given a pass here because it's on the "side" of debunking?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Or there is a third option, which is the one we're going with. It's my "official story," so it's gotta be true because that's the way this joint rolls. ;)

All I said was I thought the they probably faked some footage.

what you said has already been quoted:

I'm of the mind that they went there and probably faked some of the footage we saw.

".... WE saw"

So go feed that strawman to that damn one trick pony you've been riding because it isn't getting the mileage you were hoping for so it's probably hungry.

"I think they probably faked" does not equate to "having seen" fake footage, so stop getting all over my shit about something I never even said.

well I think we can wrap this one up - Joe denies he posted what he posted so he's either something I'm not allowed to type or something else I'm not allowed to type.

It seems that what Joe does best is to insult others.

I'd like to propose his ability at conveniently forgetting what he has posted, even when it is quoted back to him, as something else for you to consider ranking in his constellation of achievements.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is getting a little personal. This isn't a site for discussing Joe.

Joe, if you'd like to address any actual points of evidence, then please go ahead and do so in the appropriate thread, or start a new one. Just state clearly what you think, and back it up with direct references.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Critical Thinker Your views on 'What makes a source (of information) reliable'? General Discussion 9
skephu New tool ChimeIn makes all web sites commentable Practical Debunking 4
C Debunked: Boston bombing recovery photo makes no sense from medical point of view Conspiracy Theories 47
ssfor27 How Dutchsinse makes his "HAARP ring" forecasts.... HAARP 14
Critical Thinker The Anti Media, makes bogus claim that "CDC admits Ebola could be airborne" Conspiracy Theories 75
Pete Tar Debunking just makes people believe the bunk - 'motivated reason' Practical Debunking 67
Leifer Debunker makes a cloudbuster.... Contrails and Chemtrails 0
George B Poll . . .What makes people who believe in the Chemtrail conspiracy tick. . ?. . Choo Contrails and Chemtrails 76
PCWilliams The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant? Conspiracy Theories 152
Mick West Debunked: "you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions." Quotes Debunked 2
P Dan Aykroyd: Making something out of nothing General Discussion 2
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Calculating the height of something in a P900 photo when distance is known Flat Earth 59
M Bornong "Something Strange" - Hurriyah car bombing video seems staged General Discussion 50
MyMatesBrainwashed Research can only prove that something exists Conspiracy Theories 0
DebunkingShills Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk. Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Spongebob Something from Nothing Science and Pseudoscience 2
Rory Debunked: UK undertaker's claim that Covid vaccine is responsible for spike in deaths Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted 9/11 195
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosions preparatory to demolition of the WTC North Tower are visible as Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower 9/11 7
Mick West Debunked: Pfizer Developing a Twice-Per-Day COVID Pill, Taken Alongside Vaccines Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition “squib” is visible at top of WTC North Tower before Flight 11 crash 9/11 66
Marc Powell Debunked: Construction worker Philip Morelli experienced an explosion in the sub-basement of the North Tower 9/11 0
Marc Powell Debunked: ABC News correspondent George Stephanopoulos reported an explosion in the subway 9/11 1
Marc Powell Debunked: Debris from twin towers was projected upward by explosives 9/11 13
Marc Powell Debunked: Government officials revealed having foreknowledge of Building 7’s collapse 9/11 58
Marc Powell Debunked: NIST computer simulation of Building 7 collapse is inaccurate 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: FEMA reported finding evidence that steel had melted. 9/11 47
Marc Powell Debunked: VP Dick Cheney ordered a standdown of jet fighters on 9/11 9/11 16
Oystein Debunked: Claim that Bobby McIlvaine's injuries ("lacerations") are best explained as result of glass shards and debris from bombs 9/11 22
Marc Powell Debunked: World Trade Center should not have collapsed due to 9/11 fires 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Firefighter reports of secondary explosions 9/11 3
Marc Powell Debunked: Steel was hurled hundreds of feet by explosives 9/11 4
Marc Powell Debunked: Demolition Explosion Before Collapse of South Tower 9/11 8
Marc Powell Debunked: Explosion in South Tower Lobby 9/11 7
Marc Powell Debunked: Mysterious Explosion Before the Flight 11 Crash 9/11 48
J.d.K Debunked: Marx: "The classes and the races too weak to master the new conditions must give way... They must perish in the revolutionary Holocaust" Quotes Debunked 0
dimebag2 Poll : Which DOD Navy video do you consider debunked ? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 74
Mick West Debunked: Diving Triangle UFO Photos from Reddit [Fake] UFOs and Aliens 37
Theferäl [Debunked] Object Seen From Airplane Above Canberra: 04 Apr 2012 Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
TEEJ Debunked: Claim that Joe Biden's hand passes through microphone during White House press gaggle, 16th March 2021 Election 2020 8
bird_up Debunked: "Interdimensional being" caught on CCTV in Neza, Mexico Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 6
M Debunked: Atmospheric pressure on Mars is 9 PSI, not 0.09 PSI as claimed by NASA Science and Pseudoscience 75
Patrick Gonzalez Debunked: missing cable on Perseverance landing footage proves it is fake. General Discussion 3
TEEJ Debunked: Biden's Oval Office "Coming Apart at the Seams" [It's a Door] Election 2020 19
derrick06 Debunked: UFO over California Highway (TMZ) UFOs and Aliens 1
P Debunked: 7 Alleged photos of aliens UFOs and Aliens 9
Mick West Debunked: Biden signing "Blank" Executive Orders Election 2020 5
Mick West Debunked: Biden in "Fake" Oval Office Election 2020 27
P Debunked: UN hidden camera: the first UFO contact happened [Deep Fake] UFOs and Aliens 3
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top