why does this site even exist?

Jazzy

Closed Account
a more logical response would have been to engage in constructive debate over the issues, and refine their ideas until they could stand against any discreditation.
I'm not sure that last word is a word. What's that quote?

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

Perhaps improved by putting the word "easily" between the words "cannot" and "reason". (Hope springs etc.)

I hope you liked my latest piece of music. :)
 

Belfrey

Senior Member.
well here we go then...DAN WILSON-you are wrong. just accept that you are wrong-your page pulled from the web WRONG. seriously-cannot be bothered. it is the schoolyard bully thing here. your web pulled page my web pulled page-my experience-your web pulled page...
Except that you haven't brought up any sources to support your statements, as Dan Wilson did. As you say, you "cannot be bothered".

iKnowWhoYouAre said:
on this site, something is debunked on the basis that you disagree with something or refuse to believe something.
No, it's evidence that is key on this site. A claim can be debunked based on lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary. So far, your posts here have not focused on evidence.
 

Dan Wilson

Senior Member.
well here we go then...DAN WILSON-you are wrong. just accept that you are wrong-your page pulled from the web WRONG. seriously-cannot be bothered. it is the schoolyard bully thing here. your web pulled page my web pulled page-my experience-your web pulled page..

How is it wrong? How do you know? If you had a valid reason I'm sure that we would all agree with you or at least be happy to discuss it. We aren't all out to get conspiracy theorists, you just genuinely don't have a good argument. Surely you can see that you're not being constructive at all.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
JRBids and plane852 should have a discussion break, I think. Poacher turned gamekeeper... ...JR I had to unthank you, which shows you where I was coming from. :cool:
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I take issue with the OP's assertion that CTs do not harm people. First there are garden variety conspiracies like UFOs (just one example). These folk are often nice sane people who believe in nonviolent fringe ideas. However these beliefs can become violent as in the case of chemtrailers thinking of shooting down planes. Thankfully that has not happened yet...

But there are CTs that are racist, unsafe and deadly. Holocaust denial is a CT. It is racist at the core and often used to promote a Neo Nazi agenda or to discredit Israel. The fact that Penguin publishing/ Deborah Lipstadt were sued for libel in the UK relatively recently over calling out deniers says enough. Not to mention that nutty bastard in Iran holding that conference highlights the presentness of the problem.

AIDS denial a la House of Numbers is another issue. People have proven 100s of 1000s have died prematurely due to antiviral meds being blocked from S Africa. Not to mention the poor saps in the West who follow that film's advice when they have AIDS/HIV and opt out of treatment. The same can be said of homeopathy as in the case of a Perth woman using that method exclusively to cure her aggressive bowel cancer. FYI she died painfully. Tell those people a conspiracy theory did not hurt them.

There is also Jenny McCarthy and her ilk trying to do away with vaccines. Better ask the parents of children who have died or have been crippled for life due to their kid coming into contact with another kid having pertussis or another easily preventable disease.

Lastly there are the lunatic fringe who believe in any antigov BS a la Wild Bill Cooper. Incidentally he nearly killed a sheriff because he believed the government was out for him. Cooper has inspired other "Patriot" types. Ruby Ridge occurred because 1 family wanted to take on the "Zionist Occupy Gov"/NWO. Sadly this in turn seemed to inspire Timothy McVeigh to bomb OK City. TM also read the bunk Turner Diaries.

This not even covering the tasteless Truthers of 9/11 and Sandy Hook. So to the OP when he says CTs don't hurt people, I am constrained by this forum's rules to politely but firmly disagree.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The damage that the CT folks did during the Blow out in the Gulf and since is quite real. Folks MOVED and left their homes along the coast, because they were afraid of a huge tsunami or of the 'chemicals'. Folks have been 'detoxed'. The rumors about deformed and contaminated seafood has hurt the fishermen and shrimpers, more than the spill did.

The municipalities and states asked BP to help with commercials to counter the 'stories and hoaxes'.

In the end, some of these folks will hurt their own cause. After seeing what happened in the Gulf, I take 'environmental' stories with a bag of rock salt. I am going to research it first. I am a lot less likely to donate or urge my friends to. Some groups have joined Greenpeace, in my too radical category.

In the end, all lose.
 

Vinncent

New Member
Most of this conversation has been turned into chemtrail discussion. Since the average life expectancy, IQ, etc have been steadily over the years, I'm not particularly concerned with the idea that there are evil government clouds out to get me.

What I'll focus on, which seems to summarize the original post, is this:

"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." (combined with "this place is detrimental, you all have an agenda, etc)

The original poster seems to completely miss every aspect of what a "logical argument" is. It's fairly rare (though does happen) for two published articles to get completely opposite results. What's far more common in repeated experiments is that there is some sort of control flaw in the first, that flaw is taken into account by another research group in a later experiment, and (depending on the results) this shows that the first study's hypothesis doesn't explain their results, or that its still valid despite tighter controls.

To say that an experiment with bad controls is equally valid as an experiment taking flaws in the previous one into account, is wrong. It's not a matter of "pitting equal beliefs against one another", its a matter of experimental validity. If one sticks with believing in the claim of the first study, despite any valid criticism against the later one, or further experimentation as evidence against the later study... then I can objectively say, without any hint of egotism, that I know better than that person. At that points, their conclusions are based on what they want to believe, contrary to evidence.

Personally, I like this place. Although I have no interest in many of the subjects here... and although I'm opening myself up to all sorts of ad hominem by saying this... I am an "occultist", who is also (unrelated) finishing his degree in the physical sciences with a minor in nanotechology.

I'm really only here for the various "psi"/"intention" related threads. Not to push an agenda, or religiously convert people to my line of thinking... but rather the opposite. I'm here -because- people will disagree with me. That's the beauty of it. If these types of things should be held valid, they should stand up to any and all valid criticisms. This isn't something I can get from any sort of "occult forum", "online psionics community", or otherwise. I can say with reasonable certainty that the vast majority of these people, even despite calling myself an "occultist", are dumb. There's little way to sugar coat that. When criticizing their claims and theories, they offer little in the way of logical argument, and practically nothing in the way of experimental evidence.

The opposite is (largely) true here. Some people still make bad arguments, but they are sound enough that they can be discussed in a back and forth manner. I have yet to have anything devolve into a pissing contest of "You don't know me!" or "You always have to be right don't you?" here (well, aside from the poster of this thread, who doesn't seem to be a regular). Here, I get a level of intellectual debate that experience has shown to be largely impossible in other communities. I find this far more interesting than "you have your beliefs, and I have mine, lets agree to not think about this disconnect ever again."
 

Melbury's Brick

Senior Member.
this place is like troll central for people who have too much time on their hands and think they know better,QUOTE]

I'm sure you can see the irony of this statement given your large contribution here.

Surely there is a degree of hypocrisy too. Do you suggest that those who disagree with a particular conspiracy theory do not have the right to, as ct put it, "ask questions"? And if they can show any part of a conspiracy theory to be erroneous should they not do so?
 

BCP

Banned
Banned
I love reading about CT's more than the theories they believe in. In most cases they will lie just so they can been seen as being right. Morals are lacking with these people just as long as they win their debates. They don't like being proved wrong.

I recently came across this forum thread recently which hammered the nail on the head regarding when they switch their computers and go about their daily lives.

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/...0069-hubby-obssessed-conspiracy-theories.html
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
I love reading about CT's more than the theories they believe in. In most cases they will lie just so they can been seen as being right. Morals are lacking with these people just as long as they win their debates. They don't like being proved wrong.

I recently came across this forum thread recently which hammered the nail on the head regarding when they switch their computers and go about their daily lives.

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/...0069-hubby-obssessed-conspiracy-theories.html

I feel sorry for that poor woman, but if she's thinking about picking up a gun then maybe she ought to think a bit harder on where to aim it. Or simply leave.
 

JonN

New Member
New member, and first post. Great site, and very informative. Thanks!! After reading the first half of this thread, I came to realize that I guess I'm a parasite as well heh. I mean as a Automobile collision painter, i live off of people having auto accidents... :/ lol anyway, great site and forums, look forward to reading more.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Sorry coming to the discussion late. I have been an EOD operator and Demolition Safety Officer in the Royal Engineers of the British Army since 2001, and have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and on UK ops. I got into debunking by accident, when one day I watched a Youtube video about how 911 was a mass of 'controlled demolitions' and simply pointed out the flaws in that argument, from a purely technical viewpoint. There is no value in me rehearsing those flaws here, thats not the point Im making. What was interesting was that within 24hrs I had over 100 'truthers' accusing me of being in on it, being a zionist, being a Jew (got that right, but now Atheist Jew), a lot of being simply a 'liar', a shill, Mossad, Bilderberger, Rothschild, CIA and probably Alien and/or Reptilian. The only people who attempted to refute my conclusions on technical grounds were the 'thermate/thermite' advicates or convincing arguments such as 'open your eyes' and 'it looks like the one in Vegas' along with meaningless phrases like 'free-fall speed'. No matter what fact yo present, there is no hope. CTers are allowed to vote, buy guns and hav children. There is harm in willful ignorance.
 

Hama Neggs

Senior Member.
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?

Are you making any sense here? No. The FIRST "debunkers" in the line are the conspiracy theorists. THEY come forth trying to "debunk" what they declare as the 'government line', which they claim is false propaganda, etc. Just because they don't CALL it "debunking", that doesn't mean it isn't exactly that, or that it isn't supporting an 'agenda' all its own.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What gets me is that they have no evidence of where those 'demolition' experts come from. Sometimes there is a vague implication of it being the military. But I have never heard of implosion skills being taught there.

They will nitpick the official report and they fail to have any reasonable answers to their 'theories'

Have you encountered the one that they were demolished by nukes placed when the towers were built?
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
What gets me is that they have no evidence of where those 'demolition' experts come from. Sometimes there is a vague implication of it being the military. But I have never heard of implosion skills being taught there.

They will nitpick the official report and they fail to have any reasonable answers to their 'theories'

Have you encountered the one that they were demolished by nukes placed when the towers were built?

Well at first I naiively wanted to add some technical input to a emotive discussion, but since then Iv heard them all: 'Mini-nukes', space-lasers, thermate/thermite, they did it during elevator maintenance, they did it during refurbishment, they set them off using 'remotes' like the ones in James bond films...

Then I get A&E for Truth people ragging on me, and I ask one simple question: What are the dems calculations for a single column of the WTC? No-one has taken me up on the challenge - I even make it easy and that they can use the explosive charge of their choice.

My point is that it could have been an almighty and increadibly unweildly conspiracy for all I know (although very unlikely), but I simply approached it from a technical viewpoint, and was immediately condemned as an accomplice.
 

Inti

Senior Member.
Do you remember when your a kid and you played the game of looking up in the clouds to see if you can see a shape that resembles something like a animal or mickey mouse ? Funny I don't ever remember snakes ? I see a lot of those these days :)
I lived in North London in the late 1950s and early 6o's up to the age of around 10. Lots or air routes went over us, and we were up on a ridge overlooking most of the city. I was interested in what we're usually called vapour trails then. I remember noticing that some faded out quickly, while others seemed to spread and become like fluffy stretched out clouds.

I asked my Dad about them, and he remembered seeing them as a navigator in RAF Lancaster bombers before I was born.

So I know from personal experience that those who say they never say them until recently are mistaken. They were not living near frequent air corridors ( there were many fewer flights in those days) or they just didn't notice.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I lived in North London in the late 1950s and early 6o's up to the age of around 10. Lots or air routes went over us, and we were up on a ridge overlooking most of the city. I was interested in what we're usually called vapour trails then. I remember noticing that some faded out quickly, while others seemed to spread and become like fluffy stretched out clouds.

I asked my Dad about them, and he remembered seeing them as a navigator in RAF Lancaster bombers before I was born.

So I know from personal experience that those who say they never say them until recently are mistaken. They were not living near frequent air corridors ( there were many fewer flights in those days) or they just didn't notice.
Spot on mate, I'm also a 'norf landaner', Enfield and Edmonton, this was the 60's, saw the same trails and got the same explanation from my grandfather who had been a fire watcher in the Battle of Britain and the Blitz.
 

DesuMaiden

New Member
This site isn't the only site that exists for the sake of debunking bunk. These debunking websites exist for the sake of preventing bunk from spreading and being accepted as unchallenged truth. Unfortunately, many bunk theories spread, but thankfully there is usually sane people out there that challenge those inane beliefs.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Whitebeard said:
I'm also a 'norf landaner'
Me too. Originally Welsh, but graduating (possibly failing) outwards from off the Harrow Road, Chalk Farm (!!!), Hampstead, (interlude in N. Wales), Mill Hill, High Barnet, and finally Old Hatfield, before scampering off to a warmer climate.
I remember trails in the fifties - it could be because I was an air force brat - and in the sixties and seventies noticed that these trails joined to form an overcast. That was non-controversial to me, because I already knew they were (or it was) water ice.
I was shocked when I first came into contact with people making a living out of lies. It never occurred to me that that might happen, and it sort of spoiled my idealistic dream of what life was like. I have recovered now. Omelettes can't be made without breaking eggs.
The sixties were just fine... I would do it all over again. Please... pretty please... :)
 
Last edited:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I grew up in Dallas, almost due south of Love Field (it was the primary airport in North Texas for many years) Just west and a little north of us was a Naval Air base. I started watching clouds and the sky in April of 1957, after a tornado touched down near us and it tore through Dallas. I was 5 and it frightened me. My parents decided to fight my fear with knowledge (I was reading at around a 2nd-3rd grade level).

I remember both types of contrails and I remember noticing that when they persisted and spread out that often cirrus clouds would follow. I loved seeing mare's tails or mackerel skies .
 
He has a good point. Here you have a consortium of people devoted to scouring the Internet for every ridiculous claim made on the Internet by any old crackpot Joe, demonize it from the reason Joe believes in it (you do a lot of that here) you see, you say your all about proof and links, however on the debunking end you are actually extremely prone to talking about the predisposition to "believe" in a conspiracy. For this I would refer to the "Out of the Rabbithole" section of the forums. Here you discuss that it is really a root psychological problem for people to believe in these wild theories. However if you are all about debunking, the last thing you should be focused on is demonizing the very concept of conspiracy theorism? Which is done quite often here especially among the elite members. I don't see the necessity as you put it "to personally attack others due to a lack of evidence" hmmm sounds like something done quite often here. Rather attack the guys brain for having the idea then actually having it. No worries tho I got a post comin that'll take you guys (or guy) all day to pretend to debunk
 
And as the OP has so graciously pointed out. It the very reason for the existence of this site. Certainly such hard working and productive gentleman have better things to do around the clock then debate with lunatics whom they believe are wrong about each and every claim. Not just to debate with them but to take their claims from the Internet (a vast library of billions of claims) and take them over to a site where people already assume that the nonsense is wrong
 
The purpose of the site is to debunk "theories" if something is a theory it has little to no factual basis. Therefore a theory is already debunked as there are no facts to support the claim

if there are facts to support the claim it's considered science or a fact. And doesn't need to be debunked as you cannot debunk a fact thus the entire website is a logical fallacy
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
And as the OP has so graciously pointed out. It the very reason for the existence of this site. Certainly such hard working and productive gentleman have better things to do around the clock then debate with lunatics whom they believe are wrong about each and every claim. Not just to debate with them but to take their claims from the Internet (a vast library of billions of claims) and take them over to a site where people already assume that the nonsense is wrong

Well, there are people who are on the internet round the clock who spread untruths without questioning, and applaud each other for doing it. Why not other people who want to set the record straight?
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
The purpose of the site is to debunk "theories" if something is a theory it has little to no factual basis. Therefore a theory is already debunked as there are no facts to support the claim

if there are facts to support the claim it's considered science or a fact. And doesn't need to be debunked as you cannot debunk a fact this the entire website is a logical fallacy
Gravity is a theory.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The purpose of the site is to debunk "theories" if something is a theory it has little to no factual basis. Therefore a theory is already debunked as there are no facts to support the claim

if there are facts to support the claim it's considered science or a fact. And doesn't need to be debunked as you cannot debunk a fact this the entire website is a logical fallacy

We debunk specific statements. Not entire theories. Such as "high bypass turbo fans do not create contrails".
 
That's not true. Gravity is a science. There is a "theory of gravity" the original idea that gravity exists, and then there are factual repeatable qualities behind the gravity.

This allows for a field of science called gravitational science.

Just as there is a theory of evolution and "the atomic theory" surely atoms exist haha
 
Ok so if you debunk specific statements. 3 types of statements

1. True statement
2. False statement
3. Unprovable to be true or false

If the statement is true then it need not be on the site as its already a fact. Nobody is on here disputing if Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492

If the statement is false it need not be on the site because millions of false statements are made every day. Surely your not just finding every little thing someone says online that is not true? (You'd have your work cut out for you)

If the statement is unprovable with no factual basis then there is no point in posting it here because it can neither be debunked or proven correct. It can only be speculated upon which is not what this site is and is arguable the opposite of debunking
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
That's not true. Gravity is a science. There is a "theory of gravity" the original idea that gravity exists, and then there are factual repeatable qualities behind the gravity.

This allows for a field of science called gravitational science.

Just as there is a theory of evolution and "the atomic theory" surely atoms exist haha

Doesn't really matter, this site does not debunk "theories"
 
My question is if there are only

The true
The untrue
And the unconfirmed
Which of these statement-types needs debunking? And if it's the ones that are wrong, how can you scour the Internet for people who make specific statements that are wrong just to post them here and tear them up?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
And if it's the ones that are wrong, how can you scour the Internet for people who make specific statements that are wrong just to post them here and tear them up?


Thats really NOT what happens here. Clearly, you think you have a point but try to understand the context of MB and how the "debunking" actually plays out before you cast stones. You are bordering on trolling.

try starting with the posting guidelines and go from there

https://www.metabunk.org/posting-guidelines.t2064/
 

tinkertailor

Senior Member.
My question is if there are only

The true
The untrue
And the unconfirmed
Which of these statement-types needs debunking? And if it's the ones that are wrong, how can you scour the Internet for people who make specific statements that are wrong just to post them here and tear them up?
There are plenty of sites like geoengineeringwatch, infowars, indiegogo, and natural news where bunk is present. It isn't scouring so much as it is just casually perusing on occasion, and there are plenty of sites with a high concentration of bunk out there. Really not that hard.
That being said, most of the time I think we just run in to it--going on Facebook, see a post that's scientifically dubious, post it here with a debunk. We have lives outside of MB, families, careers, all that.
Here's a question: why are you on this site if you feel this way about it? What compels you to post here?
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
SR corrected, or clarified what I said. I almost said specific "facts". Basically, my point was and still is we do NOT debunk entire theories. Care to dance around in circles in this thread also?
 
SR corrected, or clarified what I said. I almost said specific "facts". Basically, my point was and still is we do NOT debunk entire theories. Care to dance around in circles in this thread also?

What merit does you saying over and over we don't debunk entire theories have? I've posted the same thing over and over who cares if you don't debunk theories. You debunk statements then or claims

Claims or either untrue
True
Or can't be proven.

And you can't tell me in a website solely devoted to bunk that most of the bunk is stumbled upon lmfao. That's like cnn saying they get their stories on accident
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Edward Current Does the beginning part of Gimbal debunk the claim that the object rotates? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 23
T How much research does a truther have to do to get any respect around here? 9/11 170
W What exactly does “Explained:” mean in a thread title? Site Feedback & News 2
S Does this video footage show a dragon (sea serpent) attacking a manatee? [No] Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Jeff Semenak Does Benford's Law apply to Elections? Election 2020 2
P What does "genuine UFO" mean in the Condon Committee report General Discussion 5
Edward Current Needs Debunking: That the GPS does not implement time corrections from Einstein's relativity Science and Pseudoscience 7
Mick West What does "Off-World" mean to the US Military? UFO Videos and Reports from the US Navy 17
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 5
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
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top