Who is making money by debunking ?

Leifer

Senior Member
Who is making money by debunking (the chemtrail conspiracy) ?

This may be understood as a companion thread to another topic in this forum, " Who is Making Money off the Chemtrail Conspiracy ?"
This is not a rebuttal to this other thread at all , but linked in it's examination of motives and results......good/bad....right/wrong....correct/incorrect, etc....
...specifically: $$ profit/loss.

I can think of only three (3) publicly accessible web sites that have focused on the "chemtrail/contrail" debate. "Contrail Science", Jay Reynold's "goodsky.homestead.com/"
.....and partially, this one......Metabunk.

In none of those three, can I find any means or intent of profit making.
Mick West (owner of two sites) has plainly explained that profit is not to be had in his efforts....in this quote and elsewhere:
Speaking for myself....I have invested overall near $2000 of my own cash in the interest of debunking this rather far-fetched theory. I do so willingly.

I assume Mick and Jay (and others) have emptied personal pockets to run, pay-for, and upkeep their commercial-free websites. (not to mention everyone's un-paid time involved).

One thing I must note here (and correct me if I am wrong)....no $$ dollar effort that these people have invested in bunking, is beyond their gracious means or exceeds their personal income to do so. Therefore, it is a case of "what are we willing to do and accomplish, that precludes any outside sponsorship or investment."

Total investments in debunking seems not to be a $ dollar issue, but a personal interest to help correct and inform a rumor-susceptible internet public.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Senior Member
Who is making money by debunking (the chemtrail conspiracy) ?

This may be understood as a companion thread to another topic in this forum, " Who is Making Money off the Chemtrail Conspiracy ?"
This is not a rebuttal to this other thread at all , but linked in it's examination of motives and results......good/bad....right/wrong....correct/incorrect, etc....
...specifically: $$ profit/loss.

I can think of only three (3) publicly accessible web sites that have focused on the "chemtrail/contrail" debate. "Contrail Science", Jay Reynold's "goodsky.homestead.com/"
.....and partially, this one......Metabunk.

In none of those three, can I find any means or intent of profit making.
Mick West (owner of two sites) has plainly explained that profit is not to be had in his efforts....in this quote and elsewhere:
Speaking for myself....I have invested overall near $2000 of my own cash in the interest of debunking this rather far-fetched theory. I do so willingly.

I assume Mick and Jay (and others) have emptied personal pockets to run, pay-for, and upkeep their commercial-free websites. (not to mention everyone's un-paid time involved).

One thing I must note here (and correct me if I am wrong)....no $$ dollar effort that these people have invested in bunking, is beyond their gracious means or exceeds their personal income to do so. Therefore, it is a case of "what are we willing to do and accomplish, that precludes any outside sponsorship or investment."

Total investments in debunking seems not to be a $ dollar issue, but a personal interest to help correct and inform a rumor-susceptible internet public.
I don't debunk things for profit. I debunk things because I dislike the spread of erroneous knowledge almost as much as I dislike the people that spread erroneous knowledge for profit. There are enogh problems in the world without having to deal with the frauds and hoaxers that obfuscate the truth to line their own pockets.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
I have no doubt that other "skeptic" websites might make money. If they do...please list others not mentioned here, and the dollar figures.
I imagine some of these become self-sustaining by book sales, donations, and subscriptions.
Maybe there is a profit ??

Public figures touted as "professional skeptics" :

James Randi surely gets paid for various appearances and lectures. His fame is the money maker for him. It's his income, his job. He is a performer and a writer of books.
His foundation reports approaching $2 million in income when all sources are tabulated (assets) http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/650/650649443/650649443_201112_990.pdf
I don't proclaim to be able to decipher Randi's tax form, but I do remain open to further investigation.
There are so many enemies of the Randi Foundation, that a simple google search results in many attacks and interpretations of Randi's profits, if any. Help here is needed....it's not my expertise.

Michael Shermer and Skeptic magazine (Skeptic.com)
...Brian Dunning of Skeptoid
Richard Dawkins
and others....do have visible and inherent (books, lectures, products for sale) sources of income.

This thread would be incomplete, unfair, and misleading, if this was not mentioned.
 

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
My Very outdated website has always been free. I have had a net loss of several hundred dollars debunking. No income, but I do hope to write a book someday, a memoir when most of this is over.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I also plan to write a book. But I doubt it would make much money.

I think there's a danger of a false equivalency arising here. Making money from writing (or talking) about debunking is not the complement of making money from spreading bunk. In the former case the money is made by people being interested in what you have to see, and specifically in an honest attempt to reduce bunk in the world. In the latter the money is made by selling products that depend upon people believing the bunk you tell (generally ads for survivalist type gear and alternative health products).

Anyway, I'm not making money, and don't anticipate making any money in the immediate future. I lose about $1 per day doing this.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/who-is-making-money-by-debunking.2747/#post-78062
 

Strawman

Active Member
A german debunker has written a book about chemtrails and published it with a small publisher. I doubt they made a lot of money off it. It did sell out its first edition, though.

He has an account here, A380.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member
A german debunker has written a book about chemtrails and published it with a small publisher. I doubt they made a lot of money off it.
I was a little bit involved in making this book. The initiative to make it camed from the publisher, not the author. The Publisher asked some sceptics if they are interested in writing a chemtrail-debunking-book. I was also asked, but I denied for some reasons. @A380 agreed and spend a lot of time writing it.

The publisher "JMB-Verlag" has a faible for topics beyond bestsellers, he is very engaged in publishing books from sceptics. Publishing Books is his passion. Regarding his tweets on Twitter for longer time, he obviosly needs a "money-making-job" besides his publishing engagement to finance his passion being a publisher.
 

A380

Member
I doubt they made a lot of money off it.
Not a lot of money, no money at all.

If you published something, the first question is the target group and the region (respectively language). A book about conspiracy theories can reach a large quantity, so that a profit may be(!) possible.

However, a debunking book about chemtrails has only a very small target group and we know, that believers ignore such a thing. The number of the readers is therefore limited from the outset. That you need to know in such a project as well that the publisher and distribution channels cost money, lots of money in such a small project. Most people order at Amazon, where you has as an author the least revenue.

And so it is that you invest a lot of time, so therefore it is money - because at that time you have through the job no income. Here I am talking in my case about several thousand euros, thereby missing. Such a book will therefore always be a losing proposition. But it is important to provide a source, where to find information when needed. However, it remains a work of idealism.

Even with my website (chemtrail-fragen.de) I have switched advertising, Google ads. But even here you have to be realistic: most people have ad blockers so that the revenue does not cover server costs by far.

That is the big difference to material that is sold by the conspiracy theorists: They want to bind followers and find new followers, so that they are addressed to the general public. Thus, they have much more potential buyers than we, because we address a limited audience.

The idea of earning money with Debunking, you can forget.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Mythbusters? Penn and Teller?
The only way to make money is to have a wider range of subjects and an entertaining way of engaging them.
 

justanairlinepilot

Active Member
Not a lot of money, no money at all.

If you published something, the first question is the target group and the region (respectively language). A book about conspiracy theories can reach a large quantity, so that a profit may be(!) possible.

However, a debunking book about chemtrails has only a very small target group and we know, that believers ignore such a thing. The number of the readers is therefore limited from the outset. That you need to know in such a project as well that the publisher and distribution channels cost money, lots of money in such a small project. Most people order at Amazon, where you has as an author the least revenue.

And so it is that you invest a lot of time, so therefore it is money - because at that time you have through the job no income. Here I am talking in my case about several thousand euros, thereby missing. Such a book will therefore always be a losing proposition. But it is important to provide a source, where to find information when needed. However, it remains a work of idealism.

Even with my website (chemtrail-fragen.de) I have switched advertising, Google ads. But even here you have to be realistic: most people have ad blockers so that the revenue does not cover server costs by far.

That is the big difference to material that is sold by the conspiracy theorists: They want to bind followers and find new followers, so that they are addressed to the general public. Thus, they have much more potential buyers than we, because we address a limited audience.

The idea of earning money with Debunking, you can forget.

What was the name of the book? Something like, "Chemtrails Debunked" would be a turn-off. But "Are Chemtrails Real?" might be more enticing.
 

JRBids

Senior Member
A better question, which would result in a longer list, is who is making money bunking.

How did "debunker" become a bad thing. Since when is exposing a lie BAD. Rhetorical question. I know no one here thinks that.
 

FreiZeitGeist

Senior Member
What was the name of the book? Something like, "Chemtrails Debunked" would be a turn-off. But "Are Chemtrails Real?" might be more enticing.

The Title is "Das Chemtrailhandbuch - Was sich wirklich über unseren Köpfen abspielt" ("The Chemtrail-Manual - What really happens above our heads")

awww.shop_016.de_270_jmbverlag_9783944342122.jpg

The summary printed on the Backside:

...as you can see, we tried to be "Open-minded" ;-)
 
Last edited:

A380

Member
But "Are Chemtrails Real?" might be more enticing.
...as you can see, we tried to be "Open-minded" ;-)
And before the appearance advertising also was made on Truther-websites. So someone wrote:

aabload.de_img_x_cthb_wahrheitsbewegu8i1v.jpg

But if it is even known what it is in such a book, know it all.

Nevertheless, the book is important, because there are always Truther, which deal quietly with the phenomena in the sky. And so, for example, someone makes most advertising for the book, who was a very strong Truther before. Above all, it is also used to prevent.

We only can not expect to make money with such a thing.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
I also plan to write a book. But I doubt it would make much money.

I think there's a danger of a false equivalency arising here. Making money from writing (or talking) about debunking is not the complement of making money from spreading bunk. In the former case the money is made by people being interested in what you have to see, and specifically in an honest attempt to reduce bunk in the world. In the latter the money is made by selling products that depend upon people believing the bunk you tell (generally ads for survivalist type gear and alternative health products).

Anyway, I'm not making money, and don't anticipate making any money in the immediate future. I lose about $1 per day doing this.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/who-is-making-money-by-debunking.2747/#post-78062
I have no doubt that believers in strange stories are making money. Typical example is Cable TV programming (Ancient Aliens, Finding Bigfoot, etc...)
The false equivalency here is correctly (as Mick stated), is not the "amount of money" in a new bank account, but in the amount of highly debatable and unproven ideas (deception) that brings forth that new money.

1) Strange stories that defy the norm are of interest to a lot of people.
2) Normal stories that explain why myths are not so interesting.....are not so interesting to a lot of people..
Guess which version is the money-maker ?
 
Last edited:

Jay Reynolds

Senior Member
Besides the true statement about equivalencies by Mick is this truism:

If bunkers did not promote bunk, there would be no material reason for debunkers to even exist.

If people don't want debunkers to deal with, just stop promoting bunk, or develop some friends with critical thinking skills to look through what you put out before you do so. I even asked G. Edward Griffin to have his friends consider running their future chemtrails ideas through a review here before putting stuff out to save me time and him some embarrassment having to do so after the fact. He hasn't complied.

It makes perfect sense if someone was truly intending to put out good material without mistakes. Most writers ask a good editor to look over their work for errors and improvement before publication. In science it is called peer-review and is the accepted way of achieving some credibility.
 

Leifer

Senior Member
If bunkers did not promote bunk, there would be no material reason for debunkers to even exist.
I think you hit the nail on the head.... with a 32 ounce framing hammer, Jay.
Terrified people often think (I am) we here are debunking solely to back-up the gov't mouth-piece.....but it's not about that.

It's about the incorrect, misinterpreted, and misrepresented information I (we) find peppered throughout the internet.
There are no internet "fact police", nor is there any requirement for intelligent research and discussion.
When amongst a world-wide crowd of many opinion-ators that often forget facts or evidence....it's not too difficult (or unreasonable) to stand-up and say....."hey, I don't think you are thinking objectively, and here's why......".
This has nothing to do with where ANY governing body stands, or has said...... It has to do with simple reasoning and level-headed discussion.
In some ways it's not too different from being on a jury, wading through the testimony bullshit, and arrive at a "just" answer as best as possible.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
1) Strange stories that defy the norm are of interest to a lot of people.
2) Normal stories that explain why myths are not so interesting.....are not so interesting to a lot of people..
Guess which version is the money-maker ?
Personally I want to follow up on my interest in the strange by understanding it, even if it turns out to be not so strange or paradigm breaking - not wanting to know to support a continued state of speculation seems incomplete.
There's probably a natural pendulum to this over a person's life.
 
Top