why does this site even exist?

this place is like troll central for people who have too much time on their hands and think they know better, think that their 'source' is more accurate. how can you have any argument when the words you use to debunk something are not those of your own but from a complete stranger who you have no relationship with? how arrogant must one be to assume that every copied article they steal from is the winning article of all disputes!

people who spend their time trying to crush the beliefs of others have an agenda. ..or else why do they do it? i would say they the psychology of the debunker is more likely mental damaged than that of their nemesis the conspiracy theorist. now post me an article from a the Tee Vee doctor telling me that i am wrong and you of course, as forever always, are right.

funny how this site even has the debunkers registered in other I.Ds pretending to be those crazy theorists.

care to argue that youre right and that im even more right than you?
 
i say that those who spend their time trying to debunk the ideas and evidence of others are obviously mentally ill.

seriously now. do you not let yourself be robbed on a daily basis? do you not listen to the controlling powers tell you that its good for you? did you ever tick a box to allow such powers to have authority over your life? does that controlling authority ever do anything for the common good? do they tell the truth-do they lie-do they work in the interests of others and not those who put them in power?

isnt just a little too arrogant to assume you know better than someone else just because you hold a conflicting article against theirs-and then it becomes a battle of faiths, and then you"ll find that its the debunker who doesnt see the big picture, doesnt think for themselves but relies on the "truth" of someone else to win their fights.

i see things as they happen. i see red and i call it red. but then a debunker will tell me that so and so said it is blue and therefore i must be wrong and all points to you because you are the debunker. but see here, where i just made a remark or statement regarding an observation or experience, the debunker cannot. they can only quote other sources-as too can us "theorists". so see, i have my own opinion, observation, experience and that of others and debunkers, for whatever their purpose on the planet (paid trolls or hobby trolls), just latch onto something that someone else produced or created. you are like parasites that wouldnt exist without the blood of something else.

am i making any sense here?
 
can i just say, i think the very idea of a site like this is detrimental to society. not harmful, except to yourselves, just detrimental because you are lowering the bar here.

here you have created a den of intolerance, financed by some enthusiast who thinks being "right" is worth paying for even though it is just a construct in their own perception. even then i doubt that many of the authors on here actually believe the articles they defend themselves with. ..and to what ends? what do you achieve? is this a debating society? No.

is this a place to learn brainwashing techniques or somewhere that an elitist mindset can come and dump a mass of enquiring minds into the grey sludge.

what is your objection with other people having their own ideas and sources of information?

this is a place where some come to tame<insert control>others, and thats seems to be the basic reason for the existence of a site such as this.

this is a parasitical organisation and wouldnt exist without the ideas of others. trying your hardest to trample on their shared experience along the way.

there are us. there are some who dont care. there are you. and you are at the bottom of the heap im afraid.

please now, who believes in god here? tell me that that isnt a conspiracy. jesus! haha
 
just some guy.

i dont mean to be rude here or offend anyone but id like to know why mike west doesnt use real name?

given the nature of a site like this i would have thought it wouldve been in his best interest to be upfront and honest.

though obviously that isnt really what this site hopes to make any allowance for.

haha
 
parasite central, mental health and conspiracy theorists.

this site wouldnt exist if it was for FREE THINKING people like me!

that is a fact. you can try your little debunking exercise on a post such as this but you might rather prefer to delete and notch it onto your bedposts as a victory. that win would all be in your head of course.

seriously now, why dont you all just get on with your lives and go do something less boring instead?

well i'll tell you why. it is because you ALL share the same parasitical mental illness.

you may well think that a can of baked beans has 456 beans per can. well, i dont really care. the fact that you may think this, that you may have read this somewhere might be in contradiction to a can of beans from which i counted the contents. ..but hey, i dont really care so im not going to devote my time to a website debating 'other peoples information' because it is not on other peoples information that i can hold a trust above my own and of any shared experience from which i can base a truthset.

i question things that have some consequence in my life.

here it seems that you have no common debunking experience to share, only articles pushed by those with their fingers deep in the pie of someone elses agenda. its always 'someone else' never from your own hearts. you believe strangers more than you believe yourselves. ..and that is inherently wrong. debunking is parasitical by nature and i hope you come to accept that and question why you do what it is you try to.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i dont mean to be rude here or offend anyone but id like to know why mike west doesnt use real name?

given the nature of a site like this i would have thought it wouldve been in his best interest to be upfront and honest.

though obviously that isnt really what this site hopes to make any allowance for.

haha
My real name is Mick West, not Mike.

Now, I see a lot of personal attacks here. I don't see any facts. Would you like to present some evidence, or dispute some claim?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I am here, because I have a solid grounding in Science. My parents taught me to not believe everything I read, but to take the time to do my OWN research. I do not like those that USE others to further their agendas or to sell useless and possibly harmful herbs/drugs/chemicals (they are all the same thing, no matter what you are told).

Would you please take one point here and tell us why you are right and we are wrong.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Your articulate and well-written views interest me. Please tell me more. Perhaps you have a newsletter or blog I may subscribe to?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...

funny how this site even has the debunkers registered in other I.Ds pretending to be those crazy theorists.

...
Is your writing an example of a debunker pretending to be a crazy theorist?
Because it's expertly done if so.

If not, you could blow this site wide open by providing proof for the claim.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
A lot of attacks on Mick personally on this site of late.

Conspiracy believers showing their true colours again. When you don't have any evidence, try and undermine the credibility of the source.

I'd suggest politics as an alternative career to blindly accepting everything you watch on youtube.
 
no personal attacks on my part no. i was just saying, and maybe its something that you dont care to hear or dont want to accept, but that is the reality, that your hobby is of parasitical nature. what would you do without people like me? who or what would there be to debunk? have i managed to so terribly articulate this that someone might understand?

i just cant see how anything that debunkers 'do' is of any merit or attribute to society as a whole? first i believe that actually debunkers 'do' very very little. in comparison, if i have a problem i then try to resolve it-whereas a debunker, inbuilt with a certain level of masochist tendency, most certainly looks for problems..those problems most frequently are to found in the belief systems of others.

it is then the self appointed work of the debunker to then 'prove' in 'other peoples words' that one or other of the usual controversial items commonly termed conspiracy theory are 'bunk'.

so what is your definition of a conspiracy theory anyway? no dictionary definitions please. i would say that the term conspiracy theory-in its negative-implies that there is an issue that has an agenda that is detrimental to the common good, kept out of sight, out of the media and only mentioned in the public arena as subject of ridicule....until one newspaper or other then pushes the same 'theories' 3, 4, 50 years later.

a conspiracy theory is also the realisation that someone in the chain above you is definitely taking advantage and doing wrong. of course today the term could be dropped for good as most crimes committed by authorities are just done out in the open and everyone is conditioned to accept major theft by banks, illegal wars and corruption as the norm.

debunkers are a consequence of something else.

do you not think that it is conspiracy that many food manufacturers provide elements of poison in glamourously wrapped packages that are supposed to feed our bodies with nutrition? you think that that is normal or should be accepted as the norm?

nothing is fair.

why would you want to spend time telling me that artificial sweeteners are not bad for me when i very well know that it damages human cells. the only people i would expect to defend such an issue for example would be those who work for or promote artificial sweeteners. anyone else who would choose to devote an extended period of time debating the issues with the facts of those who either work for a sweetener company, promote them or whatever, must have some mental illness.

what is it about wanting and needing to be right? obsessing, over correcting the concerns of others aand forgetting those of your own.

never have to admit to being wrong because you always use the 'evidence' of others.
 
i must say that the previously posted items above were mostly posted in seperate forums under relative subject matter provided by other members. for example the 2nd post from the top was posted in reply to a thread named mental health and conspiracy theorists. funny how they all ended up in here. the editing of someone else.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
i must say that the previously posted items above were mostly posted in seperate forums under relative subject matter provided by other members. for example the 2nd post from the top was posted in reply to a thread named mental health and conspiracy theorists. funny how they all ended up in here. the editing of someone else.
It's because they're impolite, and insulting I would've thought, or because you don't know how to use the forum correctly. If you can't manage to operate politely here, expect your posts to be moved or to be banned.

Impolite personal comments you've made -

"this place is like troll central for people who have too much time on their hands,"

"i would say they the psychology of the debunker is more likely mental damaged than that of their nemesis,"

"funny how this site even has the debunkers registered in other I.Ds pretending to be those crazy theorists."

"your hobby is of parasitical nature..."

To name a few.

Interesting that you answer your own questions in your posts. It looks to me like that's a way of life for you. Would you like to start a thread, and actually provide some evidence for any of the things you're claiming as facts now?

 
the previous posts have been taken out of context. that is the fact and only the admins here can provide you with the evidence. as to their motive...well, would only take a little push to manipulate things so that i appear the idiot.

i dont see how a debunker can dispute that they are somewhat mentally impaired...? im really not trying to be rude or upset anyone, but by its very nature debunking behaviour can be characterised by all manner of textbook neurosis.

i hate try try explain it again but debunking is in essence 100% parasitical. i dont know why you choose to find that offensive as i havnt called anyone as much as a flea. to debunk a conspiracy theory you first need a conspiracy theory. without the conspiracy theory there is nothing to debunk. that is parasitical behaviour.

this is a thread.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
i dont see how a debunker can dispute that they are somewhat mentally impaired...? im really not trying to be rude or upset anyone, but by its very nature debunking behaviour can be characterised by all manner of textbook neurosis.
Please provide a clearer definition of the neuroses debunking behaviour suggest to you.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
i hate try try explain it again but debunking is in essence 100% parasitical. i dont know why you choose to find that offensive as i havnt called anyone as much as a flea. to debunk a conspiracy theory you first need a conspiracy theory. without the conspiracy theory there is nothing to debunk. that is parasitical behaviour.
I begin to understand your meaning here. May I suggest that, instead of using the fairly inflammatory term 'parasitic', you use one like 'symbiotic'.

Parasites usually benefit at the expense of their host. Debunking the false information which surrounds many conspiracy theories actually strengthens the theory, allowing it to better stand up to scrutiny and forcing the exponents to more rigorously vet future evidence before making it public.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
how can you have any argument when the words you use to debunk something are not those of your own but from a complete stranger who you have no relationship with?
*Splurt! There goes the monitor, first thing in the morning!
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
i just cant see how anything that debunkers 'do' is of any merit or attribute to society as a whole?
You don't think separating fact from fiction, science from snake oil has merit or contributes to society? Look at the Heaven's Gate Cult. Two people convince a bunch of other people that the planet Earth is about to be "recycled" and there's a spaceship waiting to take them away, all they need to do is take phenobarbitol, pineapple juice and vodka and place a plastic bag over their heads. And don't forget $5.75 for your interplanetary toll? Do you not think that would have served at least those 39 folks better to debunk this theory?

i have my own opinion, observation, experience and that of others and debunkers, for whatever their purpose on the planet (paid trolls or hobby trolls), just latch onto something that someone else produced or created. you are like parasites that wouldnt exist without the blood of something else.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Do you think an anonymous YouTube video has more validity than someone with a lifetime of work and/or a PhD in the subject at hand?
 
but our association isnt symbiotic implying that we are both, or one or the other dependant on the the other, when in fact all my 'theories' exist even if you dont. if conspiracy theorists didnt exist then you would have no means to exist. that is parasitical behaviour. nothing to feel so defensive about, its just the truth.

you spring into action at the sniff of a conspiracy theorist, you try your best to devour them-with other peoples factoids etc-and you are then locked in an unrelenting battle to prove beyond doubt that you, the debunker are correct until the theory has been killed and temporal death of which accepted by your contemporaries.

regarding the issue of using other peoples information to form a debate-well-that is an argument of sources and can go back and forth all day until the least stubborn side lets the other think that they are right.
 
so how did debunking save the victims of heavens gate cult?
i dont argue that making people aware of something dangerous is positive, but tell me, as an example, if i believe chemtrails to be poisoning us, and water poisoning us, and banks robbing from us and the allowers of this are people we put in power, then where is the danger in my thoughts? you leave me alone to be the village idiot if that is how you would like to think of me/us. but why so vehemently try to put such a harmless concept to rights?

"hey, stop killing yourself!" yeah, right

"they are spraying poison in the sky" eh, no they are not, so what.

so why the heaving debunking about something/someones thought and belief that have no consequence or action about your own life-except that it might pee you off to read a post about it. to react to such is mental illness, an unhealthy compulsion that you cannot resist.
 
anonymous...??!!! really? oh dear. my screen just exploded also. yes. and no. i have own ideas about them but anyway...

lifetime phd etc etc...erm. well if it all amounted to nothing and i/they couldnt get the financing etc for project x then they might have to lie about something, falsify this a bit here, that a bit there..for financial gain or celebrity, political motive etc etc. its all been done before-always will be.

again, why should scientist be held with such regard as though they are all for the common good-the best for mankind?

do you mean bio geneticists polluting the planet with crazy hybrid life forms (seeds). do you mean big pharma chemists pumping people full of drugs for profit? do you mean weapons manufacturers? expertise in a field does not mean strength or character or integrity or something. so why quote these people? obviously you dont mind if the people you quote really would love to see the world destroyed or something..as look as you could win an argument by agreeing with the odd sentence now and again.

anonymous...haha! so by that standard-can i assume that all debunkers are pro israel?
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
but our association isnt symbiotic implying that we are both, or one or the other dependant on the the other, when in fact all my 'theories' exist even if you dont. if conspiracy theorists didnt exist then you would have no means to exist. that is parasitical behaviour. nothing to feel so defensive about, its just the truth.

you spring into action at the sniff of a conspiracy theorist, you try your best to devour them-with other peoples factoids etc-and you are then locked in an unrelenting battle to prove beyond doubt that you, the debunker are correct until the theory has been killed and temporal death of which accepted by your contemporaries.

regarding the issue of using other peoples information to form a debate-well-that is an argument of sources and can go back and forth all day until the least stubborn side lets the other think that they are right.
Symbiosis. A fair correction, but you're over-literalising and ignoring the point that parasitic is also flawed in this context. Use a word which is applicable, and less loaded, and you'll get a better reception here.

Proclaiming something 'the truth' doesn't make it so, and I'm not personally irritated by the idea that debunking is parasitic, so the attempt to characterise me as 'on the defensive' doesn't ring true either. This whole line of discussion just suggests you're deliberately not being very diplomatic. Trolling. Boring.

The 'factoids' used to debunk conspiracies here are often rooted in science. If you don't understand about the rigours of the scientific method, you should go and seek some understanding of why it's a more solid basis than just 'somebody else's say so'.
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
anonymous...??!!! really? oh dear. my screen just exploded also. yes. and no. i have own ideas about them but anyway...

lifetime phd etc etc...erm. well if it all amounted to nothing and i/they couldnt get the financing etc for project x then they might have to lie about something, falsify this a bit here, that a bit there..for financial gain or celebrity, political motive etc etc. its all been done before-always will be.

again, why should scientist be held with such regard as though they are all for the common good-the best for mankind?

do you mean bio geneticists polluting the planet with crazy hybrid life forms (seeds). do you mean big pharma chemists pumping people full of drugs for profit? do you mean weapons manufacturers? expertise in a field does not mean strength or character or integrity or something. so why quote these people? obviously you dont mind if the people you quote really would love to see the world destroyed or something..as look as you could win an argument by agreeing with the odd sentence now and again.

anonymous...haha! so by that standard-can i assume that all debunkers are pro israel?
You appear to be answering other threads in this one. Please take a moment and learn to use the forum. It isn't the moderators doing this I'm afraid.

EDIT - Ah, no, you're not. I just spotted JRBids last paragraph. If you use the 'Reply with Quote' function, it's much easier to know who and what you're responding to. It also helps if you don't randomly fling unrelated accusatory questions around in every post.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
so how did debunking save the victims of heavens gate cult?
Read a little slower instead of jumping at the thought that someone answered you. "Do you not think that would have served at least those 39 folks better to debunk this theory?"


i dont argue that making people aware of something dangerous is positive, but tell me, as an example, if i believe chemtrails to be poisoning us, and water poisoning us, and banks robbing from us and the allowers of this are people we put in power, then where is the danger in my thoughts? you leave me alone to be the village idiot if that is how you would like to think of me/us. but why so vehemently try to put such a harmless concept to rights?
As long as the village idiot doesn't incite other village idiots to shoot down planes because they've convinced them that they're being poisoned, you're welcome to "believe in" whatever you like. Personally, I"d rather find out that what I believed was bunk than keep repeating it and looking like the village idiot.


"hey, stop killing yourself!" yeah, right

"they are spraying poison in the sky" eh, no they are not, so what.

so why the heaving debunking about something/someones thought and belief that have no consequence or action about your own life-except that it might pee you off to read a post about it. to react to such is mental illness, an unhealthy compulsion that you cannot resist.
Read the "Advocating Violence Against Chemtrailers" thread. If one of the frequently quoted people there does manage to get their hands on a missile and I'm on the plane she decides to make an example of, it's going to affect my life. WOuldn't you agree?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
anonymous...??!!! really? oh dear. my screen just exploded also. yes. and no. i have own ideas about them but anyway...

lifetime phd etc etc...erm. well if it all amounted to nothing and i/they couldnt get the financing etc for project x then they might have to lie about something, falsify this a bit here, that a bit there..for financial gain or celebrity, political motive etc etc. its all been done before-always will be.

again, why should scientist be held with such regard as though they are all for the common good-the best for mankind?

do you mean bio geneticists polluting the planet with crazy hybrid life forms (seeds). do you mean big pharma chemists pumping people full of drugs for profit? do you mean weapons manufacturers? expertise in a field does not mean strength or character or integrity or something. so why quote these people? obviously you dont mind if the people you quote really would love to see the world destroyed or something..as look as you could win an argument by agreeing with the odd sentence now and again.

anonymous...haha! so by that standard-can i assume that all debunkers are pro israel?

Some suggestions:
1. use the quote feature. If we know who you're talking to we MAY be able to figure out what you're talking about.
2. pick one topic and let's talk about that and then move on to the next. YOu just crammed 50 pounds of manure into a 10 pound bag there.
 
i didnt pile on the initial posts in the same thread-an admin did. i was programming computers since my first zx81 when i was 9 years old. i think i know where to post by now.

i suppose this thread really is about debunkers being a detriment to society.

regarding the missile being projected towards a plane by some crazy conspiracy theorists...bit far fetched. i would say any missile that hit a plane be it commercial, private or scientific, would more likely come from a military source. they are the odds with which you might form an argument. but they are the odds, based on historical evidence and who might most likely have the potential to carry out such an operation. to think that a private person do this is paranoia.

personally i am allowed to think whatever i want. i am allowed to have discussion about any subject that i choose to-even if i am the number one grade A village idiot. you have the option to turn off or stay away-but you do not have the right to silence the thoughts of others but that is exactly what this site is about. and i say what is the point? and i can only link it to some form of unhealthy compulsion.

brain washed cult members are not your responsibilty-you might save more lives if you spend your time debunking the false necessity to go to war with peaceful nations and bomb innocents with drones of democracy.

so where did we say we stood with the israel issue? are debunkers pro israel? pro rothschilds nation?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i hate try try explain it again but debunking is in essence 100% parasitical. i dont know why you choose to find that offensive as i havnt called anyone as much as a flea. to debunk a conspiracy theory you first need a conspiracy theory. without the conspiracy theory there is nothing to debunk. that is parasitical behaviour.
Debunking requires bunk, but that's no more parasitical that a doctor is parasitical upon illness.

Conspiracy theories are not necessarily bunk. However the evidence used to support those theories often contains bunk.

Perhaps your argument would be helped if you provided a specific example from here, with quotes? What's wrong, for example, with the following "FEMA Coffin" debunking? Is it not a good faith examination of the evidence?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/904-Debunked-FEMA-Coffins-(plastic-grave-liners)
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I combined the top five posts. Three were separate threads you started that seemed to be basically on the same topic. The other two posts were in other threads, but seemed better suited to this on.

I think focus is helpful to clear communication.

I got my ZX81 in 1981.
 
well doctors are also parasitical given that they live off of patients. more so when they are administering drugs unnecessarily. sure they set out with the intention of helping the sick, but financial gain is the motivator now.

FEMA coffins.. im under the impression that the biggest threat to the US, as perceived by its government, are the people of the US. so they are expect a civil war along the way. why not stockpile coffin liners? why else? i dont know. i would be suspicious of the arrival of something like that if it turned up somewhere near where i live. i dont know how the authorities have responded to any questioning from concerned members of the public. i dont even know who they have been purchased by and from who?

i'll go through the thread later, but im saying, would you accept that you might be wrong with your info and then doing the public a huge disservice by promoting ideas that distract from the truth?

i understand people get cross wires when excitedly trying to explain or articulate something they think they know. but it doesnt mean they are wrong in essence. nit picking at truths can twist them beyond recognition.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
i'll go through the thread later, but im saying, would you accept that you might be wrong with your info and then doing the public a huge disservice by promoting ideas that distract from the truth?
I'd certainly accept that I might be wrong about many things. One of the features of science is that it is self-correcting, and it's always looking for errors in current science. I think science is often misunderstood as a fixed dogmatic insular belief, when really the opposite is true.

When I debunk, it's not about proving some theory wrong - it's about seeing if the evidence contains bunk, and then explaining and exposing that bunk. Like for example in the FEMA coffin thread, the claim was made that there was 500,000 of the liners in the field, when a bit of simple arithmetic showed that it was physically impossible to have more than 100,000 there. So that was bunk. It was also bunk that anyone could verify. It did not rely on the opinions or authority of others. It was just bunk, that got debunked.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
well doctors are also parasitical given that they live off of patients. more so when they are administering drugs unnecessarily. sure they set out with the intention of helping the sick, but financial gain is the motivator now.
Right. Because working brutal long hours in one of the most stressful job situations screams, "I'm in it for the money." Certainly not every doctor is doing his/her job right, but you're making an extremely ignorant stereotype, both about doctors and "debunkers."

would you accept that you might be wrong with your info and then doing the public a huge disservice by promoting ideas that distract from the truth?
Yes, provided there was reason to believe the information is wrong in the first place. That's what science is about, finding new information that helps us better understand something. Good scientists, when they read, will ask, how did they find that out? What did they do? As one of my favorite professors used to say, "shit doesn't just show up in a textbook, they figured it out and you need to know how they did it." Having that kind of mindset is important, one that conspiracy theorists often don't demonstrate. When enough people believe bunk, it can cause harm and inhibit overall progress in a field. That's why this site exists, to help people sort out the bunk, make the right decisions, and keep discussion and questioning active.
Should you pay for homeopathy? Should you get your child vaccinated? Should you donate to that 9/11 truth event? Should you try to shoot down that chemtrail plane? People do consider these questions and there is a lot of bunk that could influence the next generation's decisions. Debunking this stuff is important no matter how you look at it.
 
as an example doctors in the UK who are general practitioners retain a higher income when they limit the number of GPs per practice. 4 doctors in a practice will benefit more financially individually than if there were 5 GPs in the same practice. that is not the ethic of people who work for the patient or the good of their community, that is a financially motivated scheme to keep GP salaries above the £200,000 pa mark.

i cant see any evidence that there is a single scientist of any significance that posts in this forum. i gather that you use scientific example but that no one here really has any scientific background.

so we are back to one of my earlier points that this is a school playground essentially where your argument is better/bigger/more special with racing stripes than mine. you say you use this selective information as proof but really if you have any understanding of science, what you are really presenting are theories devised as best someone else(again)thought probable.

you are trying to counter theories with theories. back in the schoolyard your basis is as flimsy as the particles by which we are bonded.

i think it is more important to prove theories than to try strip them of all essence in what really amounts to a pursuit of superiority and oneupmanship.

i think chemtrails are synthetically formulated. thats what i think based on x,y and z. thats what i am allowed to think as it is my free thinking right as a human being. the debunkers take is, "oh no, we're not having any of that lets bury this muppet, we know best etc blah de blah..".

i just asked why, because the justification for needing to put thing things to right, to control what free thinkers think, is seriously hard to swallow.

you say you need to expose the truth to keep the nutters off the streets and to not allow them to take out your holiday airliner..??? keeping us all safe then. i want the next generation to be open to possibilities-not restrict and censor a selected percentage of common knowledge.

in essence debunkers might well be considered parasitical censors. no offence.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
regarding the missile being projected towards a plane by some crazy conspiracy theorists...bit far fetched. i would say any missile that hit a plane be it commercial, private or scientific, would more likely come from a military source. they are the odds with which you might form an argument. but they are the odds, based on historical evidence and who might most likely have the potential to carry out such an operation. to think that a private person do this is paranoia.
I don't personally think I would be able to hit a plane with a missile but I am certain it can be done by someone. If you recall, the Flight 800 conspiracy theories have to do with shoulder mounted missile launchers.

Personally i am allowed to think whatever i want. i am allowed to have discussion about any subject that i choose to-even if i am the number one grade A village idiot. you have the option to turn off or stay away-but you do not have the right to silence the thoughts of others but that is exactly what this site is about. and i say what is the point? and i can only link it to some form of unhealthy compulsion.
Can you please show me where I said you weren't allowed to think what you want? You can also discuss whatever you want. I only asked that you start with one topic and move to the next. The post I addressed had about 10 sentences and 11 topics.
brain washed cult members are not your responsibilty-you might save more lives if you spend your time debunking the false necessity to go to war with peaceful nations and bomb innocents with drones of democracy.
So now you want to introduce yet another topic?

so where did we say we stood with the israel issue? are debunkers pro israel? pro rothschilds nation?

I have no interest in Israel at all, other than as a side interest in Fundamentalist Christianity and their entrancement as it involves the Rapture. I do not know what a pro rothschild nation is, can you explain it?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
in essence debunkers might well be considered parasitical censors. no offence.
Well, I take offense. I'm VERY interested in the simple truth. Specifically in verifiable facts, and not opinions.

You seem to be talking a lot in generalities. Can you actually give some specific examples? Is there something actually wrong here that I've left uncorrected?

You mention chemtrails. Is there anything at all on my other site http://contrailscience.com that is actually incorrect as far as you know?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
FEMA coffins.. im under the impression that the biggest threat to the US, as perceived by its government, are the people of the US. so they are expect a civil war along the way. why not stockpile coffin liners? why else?.
I think they'd just toss us all into one big whole and burn us. Do you really think they'd be neat and tidy and use coffins and coffin liners?

What country do you live in?
 

solrey

Senior Member.
i cant see any evidence that there is a single scientist of any significance that posts in this forum. i gather that you use scientific example but that no one here really has any scientific background.
There are many people on this forum who have special skills and expertise in various disciplines such as pilots, meteorologists and radar technicians. I'll take information from any one of those experts over some nutter on youtube any day.

Debunkers might well be considered as consultants who help people make better choices. If anybody is parasitic, it's the people spreading bunk, whether for profit or an ego trip, while causing stress related illness in people who believe their bunk.

Please do keep the comments flowing, you're kinda funny.
 

Joe

Senior Member
There are also some conspiracy types like me who come here looking for truth and answers . I find them to be very open to debate . Fair and knowledgeable . Whats the point of believing in something if your not willing to seek the truth from all perspectives ?
 

Rico

Senior Member.
...
i cant see any evidence that there is a single scientist of any significance that posts in this forum. i gather that you use scientific example but that no one here really has any scientific background.

so we are back to one of my earlier points that this is a school playground essentially where your argument is better/bigger/more special with racing stripes than mine. you say you use this selective information as proof but really if you have any understanding of science, what you are really presenting are theories devised as best someone else(again)thought probable.

you are trying to counter theories with theories. back in the schoolyard your basis is as flimsy as the particles by which we are bonded.

i think it is more important to prove theories than to try strip them of all essence in what really amounts to a pursuit of superiority and oneupmanship.

i think chemtrails are synthetically formulated. thats what i think based on x,y and z. thats what i am allowed to think as it is my free thinking right as a human being. the debunkers take is, "oh no, we're not having any of that lets bury this muppet, we know best etc blah de blah..".

i just asked why, because the justification for needing to put thing things to right, to control what free thinkers think, is seriously hard to swallow.
I generally have little interest in debunking most conspiracy theories, though I do tend to hang around the chemtrail thread a lot. Having gone to school studing aviation maintenance and engineering, and being a pilot myself, I tend to have an interest in the subject, particularly on the debunking side. I'm no scientist by title, but on the topic of what happens in our atmosphere with our metal crates flying through the air, I think I'm a little more qualified to talk about the issues than say, a film-maker, or a biologist for instance. That's not the point though.

You say that debunkers are trying to counter theories with theories. Well, is that not what conspiracy theorists do too? Alas, I tend to think the act of debunking is more like examining evidence using a reasonable framework, and this framework comes from the vault of human understanding as it stands today, using information that has well been examined and considered credible. Debunking is about looking at a claim, and seeing if the evidence supporting that claim adds up and "makes sense." Debunkers are not some gestapo out there to quell your free thinking. No. They are just there to see if your reasoning has any useful merit. Besides that, it has a learning value and can be quite interesting. If you have ever written an essay in school, you would know that in order to defend a thesis, you require--often through research--a strong understanding of the topic at hand using reasonable information to back your story up, for otherwise, what's the point and where is the merit in what you are trying to say?

You seem to be saying that debunkers are either against free thinkers or are not free thinkers themselves. But no, it's not about free thinking here. It's not about censorship either (I don't know what gave you that impression?). It's about interpreting claims that could very well be far from the truth.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
i think it is more important to prove theories than to try strip them of all essence in what really amounts to a pursuit of superiority and oneupmanship.

i think chemtrails are synthetically formulated.
Were you intendeing to try to prove this theory?

thats what i think based on x,y and z. thats what i am allowed to think as it is my free thinking right as a human being. the debunkers take is, "oh no, we're not having any of that lets bury this muppet, we know best etc blah de blah..".
Clearly you have no idea about what debunking actually is.

Perhaps the purpose of this site is to educate you to that effect?

Mick has written a lot about what debunking is and is not - it is NOT just saying "you are wrong".

It IS about examining evidence and pointing out where the evidence does not actually support the conclusion.

If someone says "contrails do not last longer than (some period of time usually in the order of a few minutes or less)" then pointing out that this is not true is not "oneupmanship" - it is pointing out an error.

And simlarly with other "evidence" - so someone finds aluminium in soil samples - pointing out that most soil contains aluminium is not a matter of opinion. If someone says the aluminium in soil comes from "chemtrails" then asking how they make that connection is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

One does not have to be a scientist to use at least some of the scientific method of enquiry, and everything derogatory you have said about debunkers applies even more so to the purveyors of conspiracies - and in addition they do not even bother checking their information for validity. Debunkers do not invent theories about what is happening.

You say you are entitled to your opinion - fair enough. So are debunkers - what's more we are entitled to say why your opinion is not supported by the facts as you tell them - good for the goose is also good for the gander.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
J Why Does the Sun Rise and Set In a Straight Line? Flat Earth 14
Joe Hill WTC7: Does This "Look Like" a Controlled Implosion? 9/11 45
J Does google earth pro simulate refraction [No] Flat Earth 7
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
creatonez Explained: Why the Earth does not look oblate in photos from space Flat Earth 0
Mick West Why Does the Atmosphere Not Fly off into the Vacuum of Space? Flat Earth 21
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
ConfusedHominid Need Debunking (Claim): Metabunk Curve Calculator Does Not Calculate for Angular Size Flat Earth 13
S Explained: Why does this Apollo11 photo act so weirdly? Conspiracy Theories 13
FolsomG10 Does Zooming in Change How Much of Something is Hidden by the Horizon [No] Flat Earth 54
Mick West Explained: Why a Spirit Level on a Plane Does Not Show Curvature "Corrections" Flat Earth 98
Trailblazer Why does Polaris appear stationary on a rotating Earth? Flat Earth 16
izz Does this photo show a too-small hole in the Pentagon? [No] 9/11 28
Supreme Logic Why does the equator stay warm all year? Conspiracy Theories 7
P Does Orlando victim switch legs when he switches languages [No] Conspiracy Theories 8
Rory Does the Earth's Curvature Vary with Latitude? [No, not significantly] Flat Earth 34
Z.W. Wolf Does Sundial Disprove Flat Earth? Flat Earth 17
Gamolon Does Mick West's WTC model meet the Heiwa Challenge? 9/11 25
aka How does this Domino Tower Collapse relate to 9/11 Collapses 9/11 75
mrfintoil Study: When Debunking Scientific Myths Fails (and When It Does Not) Practical Debunking 3
Tony Szamboti Does the exclusion of stiffness from Nordenson's falling girder calculations demonstrate anything? 9/11 288
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
Hama Neggs Where does "Scientist" end and "debunker" begin? Practical Debunking 16
Steve Funk Does Guy McPherson believe in chemtrails? [No] Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Ogmion Does DNA emit light General Discussion 8
T How Does This Failed Demolition Relate to the Collapse of the WTC Towers? 9/11 14
Leifer Erin Brokovich does not believe in chemtrails. Contrails and Chemtrails 64
Trailblazer SkyderALERT: where does the money go? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Leifer does Social Media + Ego help drive conspiracy theories ? General Discussion 63
David Fraser Super/subscript, how does one do it? Site Feedback & News 4
qed Why does the Lunar Lander leave not tracks Conspiracy Theories 44
Mick West The Johnson and Johnson Settlement, where does it fit in the conspiracy world Conspiracy Theories 13
qed Does concrete melt? 9/11 84
hiper Does Seismic Evidence Imply Controlled Demolition on 9/11 9/11 101
Mick West How Much Does Metabunk.org Cost to Run? Site Feedback & News 17
MikeC Video that does actually support hypothesis with evidence Contrails and Chemtrails 1
fonestar Why does JFK's Head go back after he's shot from the back? [warning: contains gore] Conspiracy Theories 178
Cairenn How much does a storm weigh? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Does NIST not testing for explosives and not testing WTC7 steel invalidate everything 9/11 246
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
Critical Thinker What does Greenpeace think about chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 34
Canadasix If its just contrails why does it start from the east and work it's way west? Contrails and Chemtrails 10
scombrid Does drug use cause paranoia or do paranoids seek out psychoactive drugs? General Discussion 7
Leifer Rabies does not exist. Conspiracy Theories 8
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
firepilot Does Roxy Lopez have callers on her friday internet show? Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Pogopoint99 Does Rosalind Peterson believe in chemtrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 17
SR1419 Does more dust equal more contrails? Contrails and Chemtrails 9
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top