The Silliest of the Debunker Arguments -- "He would be DEAD!"

For the most part, the seasoned debunkers here at ATS do indeed put forth some nice arguments to support their position.

However, there are times when the less seasoned debunkers tend to put forth arguments that border on moronic.

Let's look at a few of these.


1. "If what he/she is saying was true, they would be dead already!"

While our government is certainly not above killing innocent citizens, this argument is BY FAR the weakest one they throw out on a regular basis. This argument is most frequently thrown out when names like Alex Jones, David Icke (though, he may be better off dead) and any "whistle blower" are thrown into the mix. Example: "If anything Alex Jones says is right, don't you think he would be dead by now?". These words are supposed to automatically "prove" that Alex Jones and his "beliefs" are wrong simply because he is still allowed to breathe. This logic makes absolutely no sense. What sense would it make to kill someone who the general public already views as a quack? The American people, in general, don't WANT to believe what Alex Jones (or the others) says. His dying a "mysterious" death would do nothing BUT lend credence to what he says. It's far easier to discredit someone than it is to kill them and get away with it without arousing unwanted suspicion. Logically, if someone has any proof that can't POSSIBLY be disputed, they would be dead long before the public knew their name. These days, the mainstream media labeling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is enough to discredit them in the eyes of the general public. Killing them would be totally counterproductive.

2. "If that were true, don't you think it would have been on the NEWS by now?"

This one is a personal favorite. It has been shown time and time again that the mainstream media shows a VERY pro-government bias. Sure, they may throw up fake bias here and there when it comes to things like the war in Iraq, but, for the most part they support ANYTHING the government does. The fact that the mainstream media outlets are owned by some of the same guys that own most government officials should be enough to end this argument. Yet, it still find it's way into arguments daily. If you want honest and fair reporting, the mainstream media is the LAST place you should be looking. However, far too many people in this country seem to have placed every ounce of their faith in the gods that are CNN and Fox News.

3. "Our government would NEVER do that to us!"

Vietnam, Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, The Tuskeegee Experiments, MK-Ultra, 9/11 (disputed), The Franklin Cover-up and the Federal Reserve. Need I say more? When was the last time "our" government actually did something to BENEFIT us?

4. "There would be too many people involved. That many people couldn't keep a secret."

First off, they HAVEN'T kept the secret in most cases. Us crazy ass conspiracy theorists actually find out the truth and try to share it with the world. The problem is, John Q. Public doesn't WANT to believe it's true. But, to say that a large number of government officials can't keep a secret is ludicrous. How many wrongs are carried out by our government daily? How many of those do we actually know about? To say that secrets can't be kept by a totally secretive government is just ignorant. Look at the Bay of Pigs ordeal, it stretched FAR and WIDE through levels of government, cuban exiles and even the MAFIA. Yet, there are still details in regards to that that likely remain secrets to this day. Even the things that DID come out, didn't come out right away. They were indeed kept secret by a great number of individuals.


The above are just a few of the illogical reasons SOME skeptics throw out for why CTs MUST be false. Fortunately for the government, this is EXACTLY how they want you to think. Every one of you that refuses to believe a conspiracy just for the sake of not believing makes each coverup that much easier. Even if the truth DOES get leaked, they are not in any real danger because the majority of the American public follows the logic shown in the examples above.


It couldn't possibly be any easier for them.


Jasn

Starred and flaged. I agree with your thread.

Now that my family and friends know about me spending time on ATS they call me a conspiracy nut. That's ok I will accept that name with pride.

It is funny to me that they come to me with a newpaper article and ask if that is what I was telling them about weeks ago. Ha, I tell them yes and if they would bother to check out our site they too would know the news before it hits the papers or TV.

I think many folks post to threads when they should still be learning and soaking up the data here on ATS.

I spent 5 hours traveling to a funeral with my grandson yesterday. He asked me if I believed there were aliens. That was my cue to introduce him to ATS. I imagine he is lurking about somewhere on ATS as we speak as I see the light on in his room.

Happy Lurking to you grandson and other lurkers. Jump on in when you feel like it.

Dizzie

Originally posted by SimiusDei

4. "There would be too many people involved. That many people couldn't keep a secret."

This one is a soft ball in my view. All you need to do is refer to the Manhattan Project or equivalent secret military project. Ten's of thousands of people were involved in it and its secrecy was paramount. Compartmentalization was employed (need to know basis) to ensure that secrecy was upheld. Secrecy was maintained in this manner and the project was completed.

The manifold fitter doesn't know how the bomb works, who designed it, what its purpose is etc... he just knows how to fit the manifolds. Of course thats a very simple way of explaining it but I'm sure everyone gets the gist.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by blahdiblah]

[edit on 10-11-2007 by blahdiblah]

reply to post by blahdiblah


Indeed!

You actually explained it much better than I did.


Thanks!

Jasn

reply to post by blahdiblah


The Manhattan project's secrecy was compromised from the onset. At least two Russian agents were both operating at Los Alamos independently and transfering our 'secret' technology to further Russian nuclear ambitions. This is a well documented fact and led to the Soviet Union developing nuclear weapons far ahead of schedule.

[edit on 10-11-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]

Minimization of assets is a legitimate measure of the credibility of a conspiracy theory. Your examples of the Bay of Pigs and Manhattan project are flawed to your reasoning.

While it might be possible (but as the above poster has shown wasn't) to suppress leaks of group activities when you have everyone given a new chance at life and the ability to work on a project they wanted to do in the first place, and sequestered out in the middle of BFE, it is an entirely different story to theorize that large numbers of people were asked to murder thousands of their fellow citizens and large numbers of government employees just willingly participated and have kept their mouths shut. The two situations are far from being similar.

Again, the Bay of Pigs...the groups listed were willing participants with a high degree of benefit (or at least hope of benefit) to the successful execution of the plan. But once again, it appears the secret wasn't held as tight as you are trying to represent. Only the brokering parties who benefited were able to stay below the radar for some time.

reply to post by AugustusMasonicus


Touche, although it doesn't surprise me. Comparing what a spy learns to what a member of the project leaks to the public is totally different.

reply topost by blahdiblah


Your are absolutely correct. Your previous analogy would hold here as the 'manifold fitter' would only be privy to his smaller role in the overall scheme of things. But in the Manhattan Project the infiltration was at the highest levels as the labs at Los Alamos were comprimised and Russian agents were able to pass on many of the more critical elements of the project.

Originally posted by SimiusDei
1. "If what he/she is saying was true, they would be dead already!" ....

Isn't this basically the same type of argument that the pro side uses also. There are posts where there is mention of the pressure the government put on people's family to prevent them from releasing information. There is talk of this person or that person was killed for what they knew.

There seems to be many that push the believe that quite a few cover-ups are done by killing of people.

So it happens but it doesn't?

Edit: replaced most cover-ups with quite

[edit on 11/11/2007 by roadgravel]

reply to post by roadgravel


If you go to the press and your story is run with, i think there is less chance of being killed because your now in the public eye. So they wouldn't risk adding credence to your story by killing you.

If you are talking to your friends and whomever I'm sure in this instance there is a good chance you may end up dead if you don't stop talking. Although I'm sure there is some sort of process that is undertaken before it gets to that stage i.e. escalating threats and violence to shut you up.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by blahdiblah]

reply to post by blahdiblah


but

they were working (manhatten) to end the nazi war machine from eating up europe. The nazi's didn't need to be demonized, people really felt the future of the world was literally at stake, and knew if info got back to the germans, it could turn the course of history

saying thousands of people would similarly prop up bush and cheney so they could pull off a mass murder to start a war where more people will die is a ridiculous analogy for the 9/11 debate, just absolutely ridiculous

reply to post by roadgravel


excellent points, I've seen posts about NASA workers/astronauts that were claimed to have been "silenced before disclosure".

it's funny, the "debunking" burden lies with those who challenge the official or generally accepted theory or explanation, yet the conspiracy believers are always running around saying you haven't debunked my theory that blah blah blah, so it's true

sorry, it doesn't work that way, the conspiracy theory has to debunk the accepted theory

reply to post by roadgravel


Actually, this is a bit different.

While I will agree (if this is the point you were making) that some conspiracy theorists are guilty of the same crimes I mentioned above, your comparison doesn't really make much sense.

Take the Kennedy assassination and the EXTREME amount of untimely deaths that surrounded it.

These deaths are used by CTs as supportive evidence and they do indeed deserve to be looked upon with an open mind. Naturally, they may not have anything to do with the assassination, but, you must admit they are, at the very least, a very bizarre bunch of coincidences.

The argument of "if what he was saying were true, he would be dead by now" is flawed because it is a statement of 100% certainty. However, 100% of those that could be called "whistle blowers" do not end up dead. In many cases it's far easier to discredit them in the public eye.


Jasn



Note: Sorry if this doesn't make sense hahahhaa, I'm very very tired.


EDIT TO ADD: And as always, thanks everyone for your contributions to the thread.

[edit on 13-11-2007 by SimiusDei]

I'm not really on side side or the other here. Just my thoughts reading the post. If you mean the 'would' in the phrase then sure it

My first post just dealt with the claim that many researchers have been murdered for their knowledge versus natural causes or accidents. There is a pretty good list of people that are claimed to have been killed over this alien cover up. Were they really murdered?

And of course everyone is not going to meet their end.

No they wouldnt be dead because being dead would just add weight to whatever that person is saying.

They would try to paint that person as a nutjob so no one will believe what they are saying.

Reminds me of the Iran Contra affair.

A news reporter on the street stuck a microphone in a person's face and asked for their comment.

They said "This time they got caught. Which says to me, what else are they doing that nobody knows about?"


What else indeed.

About the leak of information during the Manhatten Project: This was just a leak between governments. The secret was still being withheld in the general sense.

I too am not really taking sides, but it is a known and admitted fact that governments have secrets. And rightfully so. There is such a thing as national security, and for security reasons, secrets are a must.

The real question is not are there secrets, but how much falls under the rightful need for them, and which ones are for the power, profit, and security of individuals. The ones for individual benefit are the ones that need uncovering, and these are held just as tightly, if not more so, than those that affect us on a national basis.

Just my opinions.