How to debunk just about anything

jessop1 · 28-02-2007 11:33pm #1

FAO: honest truth seekers. Ever wonder why these debunkers that infest forums like this the world over are so incessant in their efforts to debunk everything? If you thought something was BS, would you bother wasting so much of your time discussing it with the "loons" purporting these "theories"?
Summat is amiss there...

As for their tactics, I think you will find this an interesting read...

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html

there are so many of these tactics used here on boards.ie and I think this is why the debunkers have been so effective at killing threads here....

I'll list a couple of the obvious tactics which anyone who has been following the threads here will recognise immediately as being used by the chief resident boards debunkers.

"Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms such as "ridiculous" or "trivial" in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority."

Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known. In other words, science equals reductionism. You can apply the reductionist approach in any situation by discarding more and more and more evidence until what little is left can finally be explained entirely in terms of established knowledge.

I hope this posting will somehow help fellow honest truth seekers to recognise and combat these tactics that are being used against them and continue to search for truth and keep an open mind.

peace to all :cool:

is_that_so · 28-02-2007 11:45pm

Debunk

from about.com

"To expose and disprove false or exaggerated claims"

And Websters

"to expose the sham or falseness of"

We all enjoy debunking.

/*Sits back and gloats*/

mike65 · 28-02-2007 11:47pm

You know what you are right. The conspiracy theorists are correct everytime.

We never did get to the moon (but Arizona sure looked good under arc lights), JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and Castro, Princess Di was murdered at the behest of Madge and Phil the Greek, 9/11 was the work of CIA/FBI/Mossad/the Banks and Halliburton. We are all fools.

Or could it be that the real conspiracy is the conspiracy theorists who are in the employ of this chap using distraction and reverse plausibility techniques so that when they take over as we sleep we wont have seen it coming because the rest of us so flatly refused to belive it was ever possible so mad were the posting on the interweb.

Well its possible is'nt it?

Mike.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 28-02-2007 11:49pm

truth seekers.. my god

to think that a somewhat grown person would refer to themselves as a truth seeker.. that makes me sad

jessop1 · 01-03-2007 12:41am

/is that so/... I'd say that the term has taken more of a meaning of skeptic rather than someone who disproves... gloat on though...

Mike: anything is possible..we live in a world of utter deception, so keep an open mind on what may be possible. Perhaps all the conspiracy theorists themselves are part of the conspiracy and somehow aiding the deception, knowingly or not......the most convincing conspiracy is the one closest to the truth.

Mordeth thanks for your posting... dont be sad

So Glad · 01-03-2007 12:43am

Mordeth wrote:

truth seekers.. my god

to think that a somewhat grown person would refer to themselves as a truth seeker.. that makes me sad

Erm, how? Oh, since we all should be living with a guise of falsehood, I see, sorry didn't understand you there!

jessop1 · 01-03-2007 1:22am

mike65 wrote:

You know what you are right. The conspiracy theorists are correct everytime.

We never did get to the moon (but Arizona sure looked good under arc lights), JFK was killed by the mafia working with the CIA and Castro, Princess Di was murdered at the behest of Madge and Phil the Greek, 9/11 was the work of CIA/FBI/Mossad/the Banks and Halliburton. We are all fools.

Mike.

=

How to debunk almost anything guide wrote:

"Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case." "

in practice.

So Glad · 01-03-2007 1:28am

jessop1 wrote:

=

in practice.

Lets not forget the highly accepted method of "educated skepticism".

jessop1 · 01-03-2007 1:32am

So Glad wrote:

Lets not forget the highly accepted method of "educated skepticism".

Indeed.. discernment is key. But my point that you quoted stands - debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...

So Glad · 01-03-2007 1:37am

jessop1 wrote:

Indeed.. discernment is key. But my point that you quoted stands - debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...

Yep, smudging all the areas grey.

bonkey · 01-03-2007 8:57am

jessop1 wrote:

debunkery by association is exactly what Mike was doing there...

Whereas your assertion that debunkers are all the same, following some well-established methodology, etc. is ... what, exactly, if not the same?

Similarly, your condescension to debunkers is apparently perfectly understandable, reasonable and allowable, whereas the condescension of debunkers towards you is a cynical plot.

I see.

humanji · 01-03-2007 10:41am

And why is everyone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory, automatically a debunker? There are the conspiracy theorists, those who want to expose the theories, but there's also people in the middle who want to weigh up things for themselves. But according to you, if the third group don't agree with you, they are obviously debunkers in disguise. That's just paranoia.

bonkey · 01-03-2007 11:02am

I can answer the question of why debunkers "infest" fora like this without any irrational appeal to a one-sided judgement of traits.

If you believe yourself to be a "truth seeker" and you post in this forum, ask yourself why you do it. Could it be that you want to try and convince others of the truth you believe in? Could it be that you wish to ensure that those who believe differently to you are not given an open platform with no dissenting voices? Could it be that you want to see how your beliefs stand up to challenges from those who have differing beliefs and/or different information on a subject? Could it be that you believe in learning through the challenging of other's beliefs, to see how they can justify them?

Now consider....I presented those questions about people seeking truth. Unlike Jessop1, I did not once suggest that people seeking truth can only be those who believe in Conspiracy Theories.

Unlike Jessop1, I won't ascribe motive to his actions. I aill allow the weakness of the action to speak for itself.

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 1:30pm

bonkey wrote:

I can answer the question of why debunkers "infest" fora like this without any irrational appeal to a one-sided judgement of traits.

If you believe yourself to be a "truth seeker" and you post in this forum, ask yourself why you do it. Could it be that you want to try and convince others of the truth you believe in? Could it be that you wish to ensure that those who believe differently to you are not given an open platform with no dissenting voices? Could it be that you want to see how your beliefs stand up to challenges from those who have differing beliefs and/or different information on a subject? Could it be that you believe in learning through the challenging of other's beliefs, to see how they can justify them?

I do it to learn more and to hear other peoples views and decipher truth for myself. As I have repeatedly said, I dont have a problem with people disagreeing with my views, I welcome it, I welcome debate and I am open to changing my mind based on the information I hear.

But when people act by the debunkers bible like you and diogenes and oscar so very obviously do, this is not conducive to ongoing debate. Ridicule is a debate killer.

Bonkey, it seems very clear to me that you and co are not interested in seekeing truth, all ye do here is try and supress and ridicule any discussion which goes agaisnt the official story of events.

bonkey wrote:

Now consider....I presented those questions about people seeking truth. Unlike Jessop1, I did not once suggest that people seeking truth can only be those who believe in Conspiracy Theories.

...Only those who believe in conspiracy theories... what conspiracy theories??? theres quite a few, are you saying they are all BS?? I smell the Debunkery by associated tactic being used here again.

jessop1 · 04-03-2007 1:33pm

humanji wrote:

And why is everyone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory, automatically a debunker? There are the conspiracy theorists, those who want to expose the theories, but there's also people in the middle who want to weigh up things for themselves. But according to you, if the third group don't agree with you, they are obviously debunkers in disguise. That's just paranoia.

I welcome the third group, as I have already said. I reject dirty tactics an will gladly expose them wherever possible. Thats what this thread is all about. If you want to debate reasonably on the topics I am happy to do so with you. You are more than entitled to your views and to disagree and I respect that. You are NOT (IMO) entitled to use the sly and dirty tactics of the debunkers bible. (not saying you have done or would do, but others here have).

bonkey · 04-03-2007 11:48pm

jessop1 wrote:

Ridicule is a debate killer.

Indeed....and this "debunkers bible" isn't an attempt to ridicule anyone. Its a genuine heartfelt, evidence-based criticism of a clearly-identifiable group who are the only ones to engage in "dirty" tactics.

Bonkey, it seems very clear to me that you and co are not interested in seekeing truth, all ye do here is try and supress and ridicule any discussion which goes agaisnt the official story of events.

In many threads, the assigning of actions to a given motive is one I have often criticised. It is easy to decide on a motive and then assign actions. It is less easy to show that this is the only motive that can fit - a difficulty which is typically gotten around by the assigner of motive insisting that its somehow "clear", "obvious" or something that your "gut instinct" will tell you is true.

I can tell you that in this particular case, you are definitively wrong in your selection of motive, despite it being "clear" to you.

As I've said before...I'm not interested in assigning motive. You know why I'm not? Because I really don't know enough detail to be able to assign motive meaningfully. Even if it was "clear" to me what someone's motive was, I wouldn't comment on it....because I really can't be sure enough and I certainly couldn't supply anything in terms of meaningful proof to back up my claims.

I'm not interested in suppressing anything. If I ridicule anyone, it is not deliberate and I would far rather a PM saying "that was a bit out of line, and here's why" so I can improve my style rather than a thread where someone has assigned motive to my actions because of the way I form my arguments.

But here's the kicker...I'm not even all that interested in convincing you of this.

What I'm interested in is being given an equal platform to put my side of things and to allow the interested reader to form their own opinion.

The interested reader can decide for themselves how genuine I am, and how well I make my case.

If someone wishes to believe I'm a card-carrying, paid-up disinformation agent of the NWO, thats just fine by me. I don't particularly care. What I do think, however, is that it would be a shame for anyone to immediately dismiss an argument out of hand because of who made it. It would be an even greater shame for someone to insist an argument can have no worth because of who has made it.

To be honest, I would have applauded your starting of a thread such as this had you recognised in your original post that the article at hand applies just as much to the tactics used by some to "debunk" what you refer to as the "official version" of various events as it does to any other group.

Rather than use this thread to victimise one group of posters, you could have used it to appeal across the board for a rejection of such tactics.

Its a lost opportunity. Lets assume that you're correct in believing what is clear to you about my (and others') motives. Lets also assume that the implicit suggestion that such dirty tactics are only abused by debunkers. Why not then suggest that all posters agree to not use these tactics, and to withdraw any point/post made where they do engage them once it is pointed out. If what is "clear" to you is correct (which we're assuming for now), it would have put us debunkers in an untenable position. We'd either have to refuse to agree to something and thus nail our true colours to the mast, or we'd agree and be utterly screwed when it came to discussing issues.

The only cost of such a play would be that the non-debunkers of the forum would also have to not engage in such tactics.

Like I said...a lost opportunity. Shame, really.

Edit to add
I've just noticed the following item in the debunkers bible, which strikes me as ironic...

"If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants"

...Only those who believe in conspiracy theories... what conspiracy theories??? theres quite a few, are you saying they are all BS??

No. I not saying that. I never even suggested such a thing.

What I suggested is that there is absolutely no connection between seeking truth and believing in Conspiracy Thories. You can be a truth seeker and believe not a one of them. You can be a truth seeker and believe in some of them. You can be a truth seeker and believe in all of them. Similarly, you can be a believer in none, some or all, and not really be interested in seeking truth at all.

Tangentially, I was suggesting that labelling something as a "debunkers bible" doesn't mean that every person who challenges a conspiracy theory is doing so unreasonably, nor that the tactics listed are only engaged in by debunkers. And no, for the record, I was not tangentially suggesting that no debunkers ever engage in such practices.

As to whether or not "they" are "all" BS - seeing as you asked - no I don't believe something so ill-defined for a second.

JC

Flyingfish · 02-06-2007 4:32am

I'm going to go out on a limb here. Bonkey, I applaud your last post, but why stop there? If you are serious about what you said.

In particular:

Why not then suggest that all posters agree to not use these tactics, and to withdraw any point/post made where they do engage them once it is pointed out

Debate is healthy. The tactics as described in the fist post are definitely not, regardless of what side uses them. The debate in general would benefit if this were agreed.

If both sides of the debate will agree to this, to avoid the use of said tactics (including those who have had threads dedicated in their honour) I for one will agree to do the same. Providing it applies across the board and we ALL do our utmost to uphold it and point out breaches even if they occur on our own “side”.

So who agrees?

Diogenes · 02-06-2007 10:53am

Flyingfish wrote:

So who agrees?

So this means so you'll stop doing things like call me an "idiot" or "goldfish"?

oscarBravo · 02-06-2007 1:04pm

Flyingfish wrote:

So who agrees?

/raises hand

Flyingfish · 02-06-2007 1:51pm

Diogenes wrote:

So this means so you'll stop doing things like call me an "idiot" or "goldfish"?

Absolutely!

Kernel · 06-06-2007 1:31am

Goodness, this forum is dead. Don't feed the trolls here jessop, it's far too hostile to any views apart from the mass media shíte served up by news corporations. It's certainly useless to attempt to discuss conspiracy theories (I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply).

Try abovetopsecret.com or similar forums (prisonplanet etc). Most former contributors don't post here anymore. I think it should be taken to feedback, but I get the impression that most of the mods on the site have no time for the subject, or don't take it seriously (even those who believe in Witches and Fairies, and discuss such things openly in Paganism forum) so....

*shrug*

bonkey · 06-06-2007 12:24pm

Kernel wrote:

It's certainly useless to attempt to discuss conspiracy theories

If by "discuss" you mean "discuss with fellow believers, free of those damned skeptics", then, yes.

(I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply).

Clear proof of just how much you want to discuss.

As you say....*shrug*

oscarBravo · 06-06-2007 1:10pm

Kernel wrote:

I think it should be taken to feedback...

So take it to Feedback.

bonkey · 06-06-2007 1:13pm

Kernel wrote:

Don't feed the trolls here
...

I just skipped through Bonkey's usual 5,000 word reply
...
I get the impression that most of the mods on the site have no time for the subject

Who's the troll here?

Kernel · 07-06-2007 1:06am

oscarBravo wrote:

So take it to Feedback.

I was banned from feedback quite a long time ago, but as I said, it wouldn't do any good because there is a general feeling that this forum is for the crazies, and it is not taken seriously by many mods. Disparaging comments ahoy!

bonkey wrote:

Who's the troll here?

I've a feeling I will regret engaging with you bonkey, but anyway; you're the troll, since you are inexorably opposed to even the most plausible theory, and I don't recall you ever agreeing with any conspiracy theorist or conceding any points.... Am I wrong?? Are you even slightly interested in conspiracy theories, or is it sport for you to shout people down?

Diogenes · 07-06-2007 2:16am

Kernel wrote:

I've a feeling I will regret engaging with you bonkey, but anyway; you're the troll, since you are inexorably opposed to even the most plausible theory,

Frankly Bonkey's dealed with everything from no planes at the WTC, to Danny Jowenko, in a calm level headed and rational, and incredibly even handed manner.

and I don't recall you ever agreeing with any conspiracy theorist or conceding any points.... Am I wrong??

Can you give an example of a successful point from a conspiracy theorist, a plausible theory, that was well made, with solid evidence supporting it, that Bonkey either refused to consider, or refused to concede.

Are you even slightly interested in conspiracy theories, or is it sport for you to shout people down?

I think thats an unfair and disinegnious comment. Bonkey has never made a single point "shouting people down" or indeed acting in any form of abusive behaviour. In fact he's politely and rationally discussed issues with people who behave in the exact opposite to him. Indeed, you have started not one, not two, but three threads who's title accuses bonkey of being a paid liar, an incredibly offensive accusation, yet bonkey again engages you in a polite and rational debate in this matter.

Frankly my opinion of the mods of this forum, they are far too leniant on the behaviour of the pro conspiracy side. You get to start three threads calling a respected forum member a paid liar, and no punative sanctions are encured. Jessop gets to call my behaviour sick, and doesnt get called on it, and in fact, when his actions are pointed out to Mods it's greeted with silence. Yet if I innocously bump a thread twice, asking a Mod for information he claimed he had, I get an unnotificed, indefinatify ban.

Kernel you're annoyed that you need to discuss matters with people who will challenge and will robustly debate your claims. If you have a theory and it honest and plausible and accurate, it should stand up to rigorous debate, your bleating that you don't want criticism of your opinions suggests that your "theories" cannot stand up to basic criticism

meglome · 07-06-2007 2:52am

I consider myself fairly cynical but not paranoid. So whether its the moon landings, 911, JFK's death, princess whatsherface's death... I like to think I’ll take a somewhat cynical view but open-minded to the facts as they are available. So through all the reading I've done I've found that the conspiracy theorists take a much more selected view of the facts than any other group. But at the end of the day wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. I've yet to hear a major conspiracy theory that actually stands up to proper scrutiny. If you want to discuss the issue then fine but if you want people to just agree with you I’d say boards.ie is the wrong place for it.

I've watched those online films about 911, can't think of the names right now. Very well put together but extremely selective. They talk to 5 people who say it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon but don't bother with the 100 that saw one. They say the hole in the building was too small for a plane even though it came in with the speed of a missile to the newly reinforced section of the building so surprise surprise the wings just snapped off and went into the same hole. They say there wasn't any plane wreckage but when you look at all the footage available there's bits of plane all over the place. I mean there where marks from at least one wing along the grass.

You can prove the moon landing is real in 30 seconds. Just look at the footage of the astronauts walking around on the moon surface. The dust they kick up falls straight back down. On earth air friction would cause it to settle slowly... end of story.

I could go on.

Kernel · 07-06-2007 2:59am

Diogenes wrote:

Frankly my opinion of the mods of this forum, they are far too leniant on the behaviour of the pro conspiracy side. You get to start three threads calling a respected forum member a paid liar, and no punative sanctions are encured.

I made a double post of a thread due to a browser error, and it wouldn't allow me to delete, iirc I apologised for that and said the mods could delete the second thread. But 3 threads? One thread, that was a double post.

Diogenes wrote:

Kernel you're annoyed that you need to discuss matters with people who will challenge and will robustly debate your claims. If you have a theory and it honest and plausible and accurate, it should stand up to rigorous debate, your bleating that you don't want criticism of your opinions suggests that your "theories" cannot stand up to basic criticism

With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'. I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum. Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

Flyingfish · 07-06-2007 4:15am

Kernel wrote:

With all due respect, you are making assumptions about me, and why I'm 'annoyed'. I know that some theories are bull****, but I believe there is way too much close mindedness coming from certain people here, who will always be on the opposing side of what this forum purports to discuss (it's your paradigm, but it opposes the paradigm of the conspiracy theorist).

Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum. Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

Well said! I must agree, it does seem a lot more like a forum for pointless argument rather than genuine discussion

oscarBravo · 07-06-2007 8:49am

Kernel wrote:

Again I say look at the paranormal/islam/paganism/etc. forums and you will understand that those forums cannot function properly if a flood of firmly entrenched skeptics question the very core of the forum. Why don't all the skeptics go onto Islam and debate the existence of Allah? Because it's not permitted, as it would merely kill the whole idea of the forum.

The "whole idea" of the religious forums is to provide a place where people who subscribe to a particular faith can discuss aspects of that faith. The religions in question are not presented as "theories", but as philosophies to which individuals have chosen to subscribe, and on which they are not inviting debate.

A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, ought to live up to its name. If it's an actual theory in the scientific sense of the word - a hypothesis that seeks to explain events on the basis of people conspiring to make them happen - then it needs to present a falsifiable hypothesis and be prepared to defend it.

If you're happy to think of conspiracy theories as religions, whose central tenets are beyond question and which don't permit debate on their core beliefs, then fair enough - but until I'm told differently I'll continue to perceive this forum as a place to discuss the plausibility or otherwise of theories.

Kernel wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are interested in discussion of ideas, and exchange of facts not hostile debate and constantly attempting to persuade (inexorable) skeptics.

Scientists, on the other hand, are interested in discussing hypotheses to see if they stand up in the face of robust debate. You're disingenuously presenting skeptics here as people who refuse to be convinced of anything other than their own preconceived ideas; whereas in reality we're just waiting to be presented with theories that are sufficiently plausible as to survive questioning.

Kernel wrote:

I could understand such a debate arising from one conspiracy theory, or aspect of a theory, yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

Bull. Look at the last page or two of the 9/11 thread. I looked at the "frozen fireball" clip, and thought to myself: that's pretty bizarre. I wonder what's up with that? It's clear that bonkey also initially accepted the premise that the fireball was frozen in the clip (but asked an intelligently skeptical question as to why that appeared to be the case).

So, I checked the premise. With a little bit of work, I was able to demonstrate that the apparently "frozen" fireball was actually animated, and what we were looking at was a simple optical illusion.

Now, the "frozen fireball" hypothesis was plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person. Being reasonable and unbiased, and finding it plausible looking (but implausible in concept), I investigated further and found the hypothesis failed under scrutiny.

Are you honestly going to tell me that's not the kind of debate we want in this forum? Is anybody?

bonkey · 07-06-2007 10:14am

Kernel wrote:

yet time and time again it's the old reliables out to debunk even those which are highly plausible (even probable) to any 'reasonable' unbiased person.

I guess this is a matter of perspective, and its where the root problem arises.

Like OscarBravo, I take the notion of plausability and probability quite seriously and would maintain that while you argue something may be plausible or possible, that doesn't make it so from a strict perspective.

As an example...there have been all-too-often appeals to common sense on this forum. Amusingly, there is almost not one single part of the computer you use to write your posts which works according to common sense. When science and common sense collide, its a rare, rare day when science walks away with bloodied nose.

But seriously...if you think I'm being unreasonable, then lets try one small experiment. Post up what you believe to be the single most plausible and probable idea that people like me are being unreasonable in dismsising. Just one. I'm genuinely interested...I can't think of a single one that stands up to any sort of close scrutiny.

Just one. And we'll discuss whether its plausible, whether its possible, and if it were true what the implications would be.

The proof of my words is in the forum itself, you lads have killed it off, despite quite an amount of interest in it.

I got involved in this forum, as I have clarified previously, because I wasn't willing to sit by and allow one particular perspective to go unchallenged when it was clearly wrong. The perspective at the time can generally be summed up as gushing praise for the Loose Change video which was being touted so strongly across multiple forums that I was even suspicious there was a marketing campaign behind it. (A conspiracy!)

So I checked the video out and was appalled at the quality. I did some reading around, and was even more appalled.

So, rather than sit back and give the supporters a free run, I decided to offer the other side of the story. I never once wanted those people stopped from promoting and praising what I saw to be a dishoenst, manipulative piece of rubbish....I simply wanted equal freedom of speech. I think people deserve to hear both sides of the story, not just one. The LC fans were aggressively promoting their "champion", recruiting followers to the cause. I felt it was only right ad proper that the counter-argument be heard.

Now...don't get me wrong. I very much doubt that there's a single person here today who will honestly stand up and say that Loose Change is a good example of high quality 911 research. But the thing is that they did back then. In droves.

But we have to ask ourselves...what has changed. Why was LC Second Edition touted loudly as such a revelation, whereas today its generally seen as being (at best) badly flawed??? Could it possibly be that people have stood up and shown the amount of dishonesty, inaccuracy, logical fallacy etc. in Loose Change and that some of it has been accepted?

If not, then I'm open to another suggestion, but seriously...people were getting as irate then as you are now that people like me dared to suggest that Loose Change didn't stand up to close scrutiny. But the thing is that Loose Change doesn't stand up to close scrutiny.

And so it continued.

After LC, there was some other video. And another video, and another and another. Sooner or later, I stopped responding to video because the poster supplied a link to the video, with some "debunk this!" challenge, or some "this will open your eyes" stock commentary, and nothing else.

Discussion? I'd have loved discussion. Instead, I got every excuse why I should watch the video rather than ask for the poster to discuss the content.

If I did watch and comment on it, instead of a discussion following my comments, I typically got more outrage or dismissal because I dared to critically analyze it.

And sooner or later, people stopped posting. My take is that its because they don't enjoy being asked to defend what they claim to believe in, that they don't enjoy being held to the very standard that they're insisting the so-called "official story" doesn't meet. They wanted to post tehir links, have others nod and say somethign positive, or to express a preference for something else, to which they too would supply a link to youTube for.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that the forum has dried up. I would have hoped that people would have risen to the challenge of having the theories they claimed to support put to close scrutiny....that they would appreciate having the weaknesses shown to them so that they could improve them, see where they needed to do additional research, see where their arguments were weak or lacking.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. As I said...CT-supporters seem to think it would be preferable to have a forum where you're not allowed express an opinion unless you are willing to suspend some or all critical analysis...supposedly in the name of finding truth.

Just bear one thing in mind...if thats what had happened, you'd probably still all be hailing Loose Change as a masterpiece of truth-finding.

How to debunk just about anything

Comments