The Hobbyist Debunker Mick West

a reply to: ConnectDots

Everything hinges on what is left out of the argument. Or misinterpreted. For a reason.

So is there a reason you define debunking in an almost opposite way of what it means?

Debunking is simply exposing falseness, why would say its trying to make something untrue, trying to make something untrue is a form of lies, one must use lies to try and make something true, untrue.

So, I guess I was just baffled with your interpretation of what debunking is.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: intrptr

In my opinion, the connotation of the word "debunk" screams agenda, emotional issue, a lack of objectivity.

Then view this objectively yourself. "Connotation'' screams subjectivity.

debunk

: to show that something (such as a belief or theory) is not true : to show the falseness of (a story, idea, statement, etc.)

Debunk from Merriam Webster: To discredit, or expose to ridicule the falsehood or the exaggerated claims of something.
A "debunker" according to wiki: a person who attempts to expose or discredit claims believed to be false, exaggerated or pretentious.
According to the definitions it would be assumed that the claim is false and can be proven wrong beyond any doubt. Such is not the case with many topics that have been purportedly "debunked" such as chemtrails for example. I would further postulate that many "debunkers" are using facts to convince others that their ideas are true when the the real truth can not possibly be known. From wiki: The term "debunkery" is not limited to arguments about scientific validity; it is also used in a more general sense at attempts to discredit any opposing point of view.

debunker
debunk

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: intrptr

In my opinion, the connotation of the word "debunk" screams agenda, emotional issue, a lack of objectivity.

What you are doing here, trying to change a definition of word based on your opinion of what it means to you is a classic example that's been seen few times in the chemtrail fiasco.


What is hard to understand about exposing falseness. Yes there is an agenda, the truth be told and the lies exposed.

Yes there is emotion involved, some despise deception and use their knowledge base to debunk the untruths by exposing the truths.

Are you for or against deception?

If you are for and you recognize deception, would you not expose it for what it is?

If so, then that makes you debunker.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Debunking is simply exposing falseness, why would say its trying to make something untrue, trying to make something untrue is a form of lies, one must use lies to try and make something true, untrue.

Falseness according to whom?

The mainstream media? The university? You?

Nothing is cut and dried when it comes to the topics discussed on Metabunk.org.

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Debunking is simply exposing falseness, why would say its trying to make something untrue, trying to make something untrue is a form of lies, one must use lies to try and make something true, untrue.

Falseness according to whom?

The mainstream media? The university? You?

Nothing is cut and dried when it comes to the topics discussed on Metabunk.org.

Wigington?

a reply to: Ksihkehe

If someone is a conspiracy hobbyist, personally, I wouldn't take their website seriously, either. A hobby is something people do for fun. Fun is essential for life, but we shouldn't mix it up with the serious business of preserving life on the planet and furthering the interests of humanity.

Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails should be taken seriously.

a reply to: ConnectDots

If someone is a conspiracy hobbyist, personally, I wouldn't take their website seriously, either. A hobby is something people do for fun. Fun is essential for life, but we shouldn't mix it up with the serious business of preserving life on the planet and furthering the interests of humanity.

Ad hom fallacy, and constructed using a bit of falsehood as well. What about the information? Deal with that, if you can.

Mick has said

I’m not a scientist, or a meteorologist, but I try to ensure that what I post is comprised of independently verifiable facts. You can check these facts yourself. If you find ANY error on this site, then let me know and I will issue a correction immediately.

contrailscience.com...

Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails should be taken seriously.

GE absolutely. What is a ''chemtrail''?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
Debunking is simply exposing falseness, why would say its trying to make something untrue, trying to make something untrue is a form of lies, one must use lies to try and make something true, untrue.

Falseness according to whom?

The mainstream media? The university? You?

Nothing is cut and dried when it comes to the topics discussed on Metabunk.org.

there is no according to whom, if something is false and shown to be false with facts then whats left?

Its false not according to the person that debunks it but is false because of the facts brought forth to show it to be false.

So I take it with this questioning you don't understand what the term debunk means even though I explained it using the simplest word available?

What don't you understand, do you understand what exposing is?

Do you understand what falseness is?

If you do, whats the issue?

Nothing being cut and dry about another website?

Could you not take it up on the website itself?

Would you be able to argue your point without linking to a site you have plugging here on ATS for months on end?

What does this thread of your have to do with geo engineering and chemtrails?

You seem to want to discuss/rant about another site and its owner, I really don't see its point being in this forum.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

being a member here doesn't stop people from talking about lear, marrs ventra plus a few others now does it.

Well the fact that Lear, and Marrs are no longer members here changes that, as for Ventura... I doubt he is an actual member here.

Just because there are posts under his name doesn't mean he actually posts them...remember he has a team that works for him who may use it to convey something he said.

having a website that deals with the topics discussed here leaves ones credibility open for discussion, and being a member here shouldn't change that.

And again that should be the place to question his credibility not here, but I guarantee the OP has never tried to go to metabunk and discuss this with him.

Easier to put someone down when you don't validate your problem with the one you have a problem with.

a reply to: ConnectDots

If someone is a conspiracy hobbyist, personally, I wouldn't take their website seriously, either.

But you will believe anything that Dane Wigington says on his site...by the way a person who says he doesn't get paid to do what he is doing...oh the irony in that alone is astounding.

A hobby is something people do for fun.

And yet if he was paid you would cry he is a shill and paid to debunk.

Geo-Engineering and Chemtrails should be taken seriously.

And yet one is, and the other has yet to be proven it exists.

How can one take your posts seriously when you quote Dane Wigington as though it were gospel?

Why should we be discussing Mick West as a person? If you have any issues with the stuff he presents, point it out and if nescessary, correct it.

That's what debunking is. Point out the bunk (falsehoood/nonsense/incorrect information) and in doing so, remove the bunk.

When it comes to 'chemtrails', the whole premise that contrails can't persist is bunk. I've never seen a chemtrail believer explain why contrails can't persist. They just repeat the claim they've heard in some youtube video, and assume that it must be true. Again and again it turns out that they know little to nothing about contrails at all, and this lack of knowledge together with a fertile ground of mistrust of 'the government' allows for the chemtrail hoax to take hold.

The only way to prevent yourself from being misled is by checking verifyable facts. That's what science is about: verifyable facts, independent of the person who is investigating them. Which is quite the opposite direction of thinking to what the OP of this thread implies.

a reply to: InhaleExhale

Could you not take it up on the website itself?

My question exactly...but I am afraid they know they can't handle the fact that Mick is totally out front about his site and why he has it.

Would you be able to argue your point without linking to a site you have plugging here on ATS for months on end?

Highly doubtful.

What does this thread of your have to do with geo engineering and chemtrails?

It doesn't, but because his buddy Dane has been debunked many times there the OP felt this thread was needed.

a reply to: payt69

The only way to prevent yourself from being misled is by checking verifyable facts.

Hard to do that when your main source of evidence comes from Dane Wigington's site.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You are informing me that he is a member of ATS?

tsurfer2000h,

You have been posting off topic since I posed the above question to you, so it's not as if you have not had time to reply.

I repeat, are you saying that Mick West of Metabunk.org is a member of the forum Above Top Secret?

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: ConnectDots
You are informing me that he is a member of ATS?

tsurfer2000h,

You have been posting off topic since I posed the above question to you, so it's not as if you have not had time to reply.

I repeat, are you saying that Mick West of Metabunk.org is a member of the forum Above Top Secret?

Indeed he is. He posts under the name of 'Uncinus' (his favorite type of cloud, if I remember correctly):

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I formerly posted here under the name “Uncinus” (there are still references to this in the comments, and I occasionally post elsewhere, like ATS, using Uncinus

contrailscience.com...

Not a secret. Read his posts here. Is your mind open to the possibility he is correct?

a reply to: OveRcuRrEnteD

Such is not the case with many topics that have been purportedly "debunked" such as chemtrails for example.

Really, because I have yet to see anything that proves they exist...but feel free to show any evidence you can find that shows they do?

I would further postulate that many "debunkers" are using facts to convince others that their ideas are true when the the real truth can not possibly be known.

So facts don't matter...well that surely does describe the chemtrail movement to a tee. Just look at any chemtrail pusher site and you can see that.

a reply to: payt69

Thank you.

I love it when I get a straight answer!

a reply to: ConnectDots

You have been posting off topic since I posed the above question to you, so it's not as if you have not had time to reply.

Yes it's off topic because you don't like what is being said...imagine that.

I repeat, are you saying that Mick West of Metabunk.org is a member of the forum Above Top Secret?

Wow, didn't know one could stutter when using a keyboard...and the answer is yes he is.

Now have you taken this up with him on metabunk, or are you afraid to confront him with your problems about what he does?