It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How To Debunk Just About Anything

page: 1
11

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Well, I have finally found their training manual. One of their meetings was apparently infiltrated and we are all blessed to have recovered this highly classified document which details how to debunk just about ANYTHING!!!!

Please read, as this is our only defense against them. We must know our enemy in order to beat him.

How to debunk just about anything

Here is just a sample:


· 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-worshiping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending scientific method.

· Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it -- and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

· Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the “process” of science with the “content” of science. (Someone may, of course, object that science must be neutral to subject matter and that only the investigative process can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here.")

· Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

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


There is plenty more where that came from.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by cbass]


Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2008/11/21 by Hellmutt]




posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cbass
 


That is pretty cool and quite accurate. S&F
Now all we need to do is find the "How to believe in just about anything" manual.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


There is also alot of great info on that website as well.
Plenty of hours of reading.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Lets play bump the thread shall we?
I'll start first. Shameless i know but I feel this needs to get out there.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Free bump because I owe it to you for trying to start discussions by creating all these threads.

Interesting anyways.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It's a great list. If it's not a politician training document it certainly describes what they do.

I'm not against debunking BTW but I would never use these tactics because my search is for truth.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Metaphysics isn't science and can not be compared to rational thought. Some people cling to religion because they are incapable of managing all the crap info shoveled into their heads.

I learned ALLOT growing up in a church, but uhm, I never tried to do THAT stff to people... I didn't really believe all the stuff I was taught and some of the stuff was interesting, but soiled by the same application of divisionary "I am God's Man on Earth and therefore I am right." I don't fault the metaphysics people who are into that stuff, nor do I dislike the science minded people - I do dislike to the "need" to be right for either side though.

I watched a documentary awhile ago about a culture that seemed to never have heard the "good news" in an Asian country (the one where the peoples bodies are chopped up so the vultures can eat'em and the bones buried)...so they had already heard about the Jesus stuff...really funny, I think. I wonder if any as yet corrupted society in the Amazon already knows about that story - who knows?



posted on Nov, 20 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cbass
 


That sounds like...

Part of a course from ATS moderator school?



posted on Nov, 22 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Lmao @ Symbiote. Excellent. However it is usually easy to tell. Disinfo = Deflection of questions, and irrational or theoretical basis.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by cbass
 


A whole new species has evolved on these forums, a vociferous parasite indeed. I shall explain;

Debunkist Skepticae don't have to back up any of their claims - the burden of proof is never on them.

Point in fact; when the Debunkist Skepticus makes a claim that there ' is no proof' - the burden now rests on your to refute their claim....

Welcome to the twisted logic of the Debunkist Skepticae, an obscure albeit highly prolific and pervasive species prevalent on conspiracy forums. They can commonly be found parasitizing the threads of abstract thinkers, wherein they find their most delectable fodder; explorers and dreamers.

*Warning: When a Debunkist Skepticus demands a link, he has already prepared a generic attack for whatever source you may cite.

Be wary of this, you cannot ever appease him or satiate his desire to kill your thread. Giving in will only lead to further attacks which will inevitably attract more parasites, who have been known to swiftly overwhelm and kill our younger and less defended Threadlings.

Reply only to those who treat you with respect... Do not take the bait or fall for the traps set by Dekunkist Skepticae - he is a malicious animal, though You will soon learn to recognize patterns in his behaviour and will soon be able to identify him by his 'seemingly' overt simple-mindedness and blatantly false naivete.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by cbass
 


That is pretty cool and quite accurate. S&F
Now all we need to do is find the "How to believe in just about anything" manual.




My friend is a creationist so he must have it.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Interesting info. thanks for sharing it



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 08:54 AM
link   
You know...

The IGNORE button works.



new topics

top topics



 
11

log in

join