It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


To Debunkers and Skeptics, is every single theory on ATS bunk?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:05 PM
Is everything on ATS bunk to you?

I see alot of "resident experts", "hardcore debunkers" and "fundamentalist skeptics" post in a way that makes me wonder if they believe in any of the conspiracy theories here on ATS.

There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, we need it, but in the end, ATS is a CONSPIRACY site, and if you don't believe in any of the theories presented on this site, what are you doing here?

Is it your ego that has to prove others wrong, is it for entertainment, or are you sincerely concerned with giving people the information that you think is the truth?

Or are some of you here for supression of info?

It just doesn't make sense to me why these hardcore skeptics, that "debunk" everything, spend so much time on a conspiracy site, it's almost a definition of trolling.

Like I said healthy skepticism is vital, and I'm skeptical about things myself more often than not, but I see so much closed-mindedness in these skeptics, and all of that in the name of science off course.

So my question is, are there any theories on ATS you believe or consider to be possible. If so, wich one(s)?

If not, what are you doing here?

posted on Dec, 28 2009 @ 05:31 PM

The following is MY opinion and nothing more

I would 95% of what we think we know is probably so far off it is astounding...I honestly see very little honest evidence here....real concrete proof that makes me say..."huh...that's pretty wild"

Now...with that said I do believe aliens are real...I do not believe they are speaking to us from this forum

I also think there is something being sprayed from planes but if anything it is weather seeding not population control

I also want to know what is going on in Norway...I am an ex-2W2 in the Air Force...I know ICBM's very well and I have yet to see a malfunctioning ICBM do that

My question to you is the following...

Why do the truthers always guarantee they are right? Is it ego? Is it entertainment?

Both sides are equally have some people who come here and refuse to believe anything and you have some people who come here and will believe's insane on both sides I think

I also believe in Bush as a criminal and I believe in alot of the lobbying that is discussed here

beyond that I think people are way off on alot of things

So if you're looking to point fingers why not point at both sides and not just the debunkers. It is a free forum and they are just as welcome to challenge notions like Reptillians and Paul McCartney's clone

I'm sorry but have you seen some of the horrible stuff that comes out here?


We're all guilty...I could just as easily post something about truthers who will believe anything just on word alone

Some truthers here think EVERY single thing is a conspiracy

Brittany Murphy dies...conspiracy
MJ dies...conspiracy

Everything is a conspiracy to some people


posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Point of No Return

If not, what are you doing here?

Playing the role of a debunker is a great way to get one's trolling jollies.

And it is easy too. There is very little effort required to be a debunkertroll on a conspiracy site and generally you'll get away with whatever antics you get up to - so long as it is in the name of debunking/educating the masses/denying ignorance.

Try it.

When you are playing the role of a debunker, you can get away with alot more trolling.

Here is a Troll who has just figured out that he can get away with so much more - simply by pretending he is a 'debunker' out to deny ignorance:

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:17 AM
So if I don't fall in line behind every conspiracy theory on ATS, I can't come here?

President Bush, is that you?

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:17 AM
I believe 99% of threads are rubbish. Hardly anyone here is critical enough or applies scientific reasoning to their thoughts.

The conspiracy theories that perhaps to me, have the most merit are:
9/11 - This was probably avoidable, or something 'fishy' was definitely going on.
... and that's about it. (Maybe I will think of more)

What am I doing here? I find it interesting. I love the idea of alien life, but sadly I do not believe in any way what so ever it has visited Earth. I love the idea that there are conspiracies to uncover, but again I feel they just do not exist. I just read a quote on another forum, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence."

I sometimes like to post in the science board if I feel I can help someones understanding or clear something up.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by science lol]

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:27 AM
reply to post by DarthChrisious

That,s not what I'm saying. I'm talking about people that don't seem to believe in any theory here.

What's the point of being here?

I'm at work right now, can't post for a while.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by DarthChrisious

What's the point of being here?

Are you in trolling denial?

Don't be.

They are here to do some high-minded trolling.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:57 AM
I have to admit, alot of the stuff here is BS. There are alot of younger member's who joined because they were doing a search on " Twilight" and ended up here.

You have people who post their dreams as though their reality and ask people to interpet them, you have people who post random ramblings about why they think this or that, you have countless failed predictions,

But at the end of the day, there is no community like ATS, because out of all that crap, every now and then I find a shining gold nugget, which send's my thoughts into unknown tangents ultimately helping me grow as a human being. What could be better than that ??

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 12:57 AM
reply to post by Point of No Return

Without a hearty dose of skepticism ATS would run a muck with the most outrageous outlandish and absurd theories and lot's of people would bite into them hook line and sinker.

There are very few skeptics that are so extreme as to dismiss EVERY theory they come across. Those few are no threat as no amount of skepticism is every going to shake a true believer and that's what the skeptics are there for. They are the opposite and equal reaction to the equally silly handful of folks who believe every theory they hear and rarely if ever ask question.

I believe in open minded skepticism, a claim must be weighed and carefully looked at before it can be determined whether it is true or whether it even fits into the realm of extreme possibility or has a kernel of truth. Accepting it hands down with nothing to back it up is pretty much the definition of ignorance and we're supposed to be denying ignorance right?

I say let the professional debunkers have their fun but let's make sure we all stay courteous and respect the right to believe, or disbelieve, as we see fit

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by Point of No Return

My theories and beliefs are considered so radical to those close to me that my mother banned me from talking about politics at family functions. When my aunt married an FBI agent (who's now retired), my mother (and I kid you not) said, and I quote, "If you say anything slightly resembling 'grassy knoll' or 'Dealey Plaza,' I will take you out back and beat the ever-living sh*t outta you!"

I'm a conspiracy nut through and through, and I love every second of it. But I want debunkers. I want people to keep me on my toes. I want to be proven wrong. Because, quite frankly, it scares me to think I'm right.

We here on ATS should value truth more than anybody else. That is, after all, what we are all searching and fighting for. Whether or not it confirms our beliefs is irrelevant.

What I want is truth; not truth because a majority of people think or say it is.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 03:48 AM
Couple of things:

- By the law of the land, we aren't allowed to post "me too! Right on!" posts. Posts and treads I agree with get starred and flagged, but I don't respond unless I have something else to actually add to the discussion. Which b/c of the T & C's, tends to be different information than what has already been presented.

- The topics posted here are VAST. I would honestly fear for the sanity of the person who believed every last post they saw here. Just b/c you may subscribe to a belief in aliens doesn't mean you believe in God, or 9/11 conspiracy, or don't think the US went to the moon. I have haunted this forum for years b/c I really like reading about these types of topics, but that doesn't necessarily follow that I accept every idea someone posits even under the main topics I read.

- The motto of this board is "deny ignorance". That does not equal complete acceptance of everything anybody says. If I wanted a board w/o any critical thinking skills, I'd be hanging out with my "galactic friends"! Trolling implies deliberate attempts to bait others w/o any real caring of the subject at hand. I honestly don't see that often here.

I personally enjoy good debate, learning new things, and the free and open exchange of ideas on topics very few in real life has any interest in. But that does not mean that I check my brain or reality testing skills at the door...

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:17 AM
Ah dude, c'mon conspiracy theorists need debunkers to keep us on our toes. I've found the majority of skeptics here are quite respectful in their approach and they play an important part in making ATS, ATS. How boring would it be if everyone just agreed with everyone? The whole point is to deny ignorance and without both sides thats impossible.

But thats just what i reckon anyways.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by DarthChrisious

But he is talking about people who "debunk" everything, even when slapped in the face with some kind of evidence . . .

Then they come out with something like:

That evidence is wrong, and if it was even remotely close to being right, it does not matter anyways. It is wrong no matter what, and anyone who believes it is an idiot . . . just because.

I can name you about 10 screen names right off hand that act like this.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:21 AM
I'd say about 90% of conspiracy theories are either wholly untrue or simply things that happened by the nature of chaos and numbers that people are looking for blame in order to rationalize why bad things happen...

None the less...

Like looking for fruit in a supermarket, you have to pick through a lot of rotten apples to find one good one... there are valid points made in here and valid theories offered...

In searching for the truth, it will always be 99% speculation 1% fact gathering, just the way it is...

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:57 AM
reply to post by Point of No Return

Most of the "conspiracies" are ridiculous. Not many have any thought or scientific evidence to support them. I can't help myself but comment on some of the ludicrous threads created by some members.

Anything that starts with... "I just discovered i have a superpower" should just be deleted straight away.

But really... the main reason i check this site is for interesting anomolies and breaking science and technology news... which is why i get angry sometimes that most of the threads are pathetic and pointless fairy tale stories.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Point of No Return
...are you sincerely concerned with giving people the information that you think is the truth?


The Baloney Detection Kit
The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts.

Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").

Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.

Quantify, wherever possible.

If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.

Occam's razor - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.

Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.

Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavorable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).

Confusion of correlation and causation.

Caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

Does any of that mean that every idea I come across is crazy? No, I'll do research on it...but if all of the evidence points to a common originator I'll call into question the originator. If there is no independent evidence beyond the originator I have to draw the conclusion that a claim may not be as true as someone wants it to be.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:17 AM
Not only are they not bunk, but I just started a thread showing how I have come to the conclusion that ALL mainstream conspiracy theories... are legit and support one another. See for yourself.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Osiris_Caine
Ah dude, c'mon conspiracy theorists need debunkers to keep us on our toes. I've found the majority of skeptics here are quite respectful in their approach and they play an important part in making ATS, ATS. How boring would it be if everyone just agreed with everyone? The whole point is to deny ignorance and without both sides thats impossible.

But thats just what i reckon anyways.

Completely agree. If we all simply mixed it up with like-minded people, and weren't challenged by the skeptics, we really WOULD spiral out of control with no checks and balances, whatsoever.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:29 AM
I can speak only for myself.

I believe in many conspiracies in a general way. But, I am a firm believer that in order to find the truth, you have to be critical in your judgments and be able to pick away the falsehoods - even if they are in favor of your general belief.

Take the idea of ET's. I am 99.999999% sure there is life out there, I would be dumbfounding to find out otherwise. I would even go so far as to say I think there is a good chance that on at least one occasion, we have been visited. I would be shocked to find out they weren't visiting quite often and so on.

But that does not in any way mean I will accept whatever crap people claim about them. For example, crop circles. They are man made. It's not because I "want" them to be, it's just that when you look at the evidence and so forth, it's obvious. It makes no sense or purpose if you really think about it.

I listen to the stories and I listen to the logic of it. Many people screw up in their story telling in the same way movies do, and that is what I look for to see true/false. If I find it, then I know it's false. If I don't find it, then I think it is possible and remain open minded about it.

I am thankful for debunkers/skeptics/experts. I want things like ET's to be true, I want "disclosure" to happen. But I want the truth, not fabricated trickery. And without critical thinking and people with a bit of knowledge, that is much more difficult to do.

I've done research on things like Nibiru, found out that 2012 is an impossible date for it, and not even one that is predicted by that culture. 2012 was tacked on to it by people looking to make a buck or get their kicks on people because it was coming up, and the 2012 was getting attention. People who do these things just attach things onto the dates to draw attention.

I'm sure the government puts things into the air and tests etc. But not every contrail is a chemtrail, and all the pictures etc are mostly just contrails and so forth. Pretty sure most of that is bunk.

9/11 - criminal, the facts lead to coverup. That isn't because I want it to be, that is from looking at things. I knew right away when I saw it that was not natural, I was honestly more shocked that the explosives part was edited out later on basically. For a few months I just figured I was wrong, but then as it went on it became more and more obvious as the agenda unfolded. But do I believe every claim made about it? No. I don't know the details, or who was involved in doing it, but the coverup, manipulation and strongarm tactics were obvious. The official story is official crap.

JFK - criminal. Don't ask me why, don't ask me exactly how. The official story is insulting.

And so on. The only way to hide the truth is to surround it with lies. You can't find the truth if you can spot the lies, it's like a house of mirrors.

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:35 AM
What I disagree is that the "debunkers" right here tend to have the worst etiquette than the believers. But if the issue is brought up, they will say that the believers want some kind of 'special treatment' or the usual use the alert button suggestion. I learn my lesson now, don't ever bring this up again, a very touchy one. That's my final opinion in this matter, I have no intention to talk about this matter in this forum ever again.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in