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.

 

A Challenge to Chemtrail Debunkers

page: 14
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Even if it's just intuition on my part (and mine is well developed) combined with ruling out what aren't contrails, .


How do you know (ot think) what aren't contrails?



posted on Apr, 2 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The one's I can't explain to myself as contrails based on what I knew about them already and what I have learned about them here. Am I correct all the time? I don't know, but I have learned to rule trails out ironically based on information you guys have provided (i.e. temperature, flight paths, dissapation rates based on temp)
edit on 2-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: adding another example



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
The only rational explanation here is chemtrails



Can't get much clearer than that can it?

Oops, I sure hope it does. Those chemtrails look nasty.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Obviousy you still dont know what contrails are
The fact you can offer not even a tentative, speculative, reason as to why they might be chemtrails is telling.

And why do you have to spam the same post in multiple thread? Surely once is enough to be told its a picture of very normal, common, contrails?

Anyway, just for fun, some I took in Wales this weekend


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf491c7b0bbe.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bc5d66c4aaa1.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bce5a02bcd05.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/52b7b4a9dd9a.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2dc74cc40170.jpg[/atsimg]

Unfortunately I was on the hill so not able to check who was responsible. But my guess is that some German businessmen heading for a conference in Chicago and a bunch of Glaswegians off on a stag do in Majorca may well have been involved.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I have said many times that the persistent contrails that create man made cirrus are chemtrails.

Obviously you still don't know what chemtrails are.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Essan
 


I have said many times that the persistent contrails that create man made cirrus are chemtrails.

Obviously you still don't know what chemtrails are.


we certainly don't know what you think they are.

Are you now saying that chemtrails are only contails that expand to form cirrus clouds?

so they are just water crystals and "normal" pollution after all?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
The only rational explanation here is chemtrails


nope - contrails is a perfectly rational expaination since we know that contrails behave like this - and we've klnown this since at least 1940.

How do you know they are chemtrails? chemtrail is not actually rational, since ther is still no credible evidene that any such thing exists....well depending on what you think a chemtrail is......I guess if you think a chemtrail is a normal contrail that happens to exist where atmospheric conditions result in it spreading out then those are chemtrails.....but I'm not aware that anyone does think that.

What is it you think a chemtrail is Matty?



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I have a proposal for all you debunkers. Try to debunk the most craziest chemtrail claim ever made and then work towards the other more provable claims. Let's do it politely and treat each other with respect. I will help debunk things if I can even. I will debate points for both sides. Do you think you can do that?


A case for chemtrails?, page 4
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: edit



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




What is it you think a chemtrail is Matty?


A chemtrail is a new phenomenon that is unexplained. It is a persistent jet contrail that spreads out and last for more than 30 mintues or so.
edit on 3-4-2011 by MathiasAndrew because: add quote



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




What is it you think a chemtrail is Matty?


A chemtrail is a new phenomenon that is unexplained. It is a persistent jet contrail that spreads out and last for more than 30 mintues or so.


Unexplained? But there are explainations as to why contrails expand, and that phenomena is not new at all - there is evidence of contrails from jets expanding actoss the sky way back to eth 1960's.

And why only jets? What is different about jet contrails compared to piston engine contrails that also last more than ~30 minutes and expand out to cover the whole sky?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MathiasAndrew
 


Well yes, that's correct. Some people call persistent contrails, chemtrails. Which doesn't change the fact they are still just normal contrails.

But I thought you were of the opinion chemtrails were a form of stratospheric engineering? Do make up your mind!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Persistent spreading contrails are not normal contrail. Normal contrails don't persist nor do they spread.

Please make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.

The reason they persist and spread is not because weather conditions are abnormal, it's because the contrail itself is abnormal.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
As this thread is intended to be about the way chemtrail thread "discussions" happen, I've been re-reading William Coopers "Behold A Pale Horse" and found these segments to be particularly interesting. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but anybody who reads these threads can recognize the text below as reflected throughout the threads.

This is from Chapter 15: Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion

first the authors note


Authors Note: This is an exact reprint of the original text. This has been written intentionally to deceive people. For clear understanding, the word "Zion" should be "Sion"; any reference to "Jews" should be replaced with the word "Illuminati"; and the word "goyim" should be replaced with the word "cattle."


Passage from Protocol #2


For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of it will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want.


Passage from Protocol #5


The principal object of our directorate consists in this: to debilitate the public mind by criticism; to lead it away from serious reflections calculated to arouse resistance; to distract the forces of the mind towards a sham fight of empty eloquence...and we shall give that physiognomy a voice in orators who will speak so much that they will exhaust the patience of their hearers and produce an abhorrence of oratory.


Passage from Protocol #12


...our subjects will be convinced of the existence of full freedom of speech and so give our agents an occasion to affirm that all organs which oppose us are empty babblers, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders.



Whether done intentionally or not, it is clear that these passages are reflected in these threads with:

Science this, science that (#2), flooding the threads with pages upon pages of debunking (#5), and charges that chemtrail believers are ignorant and perpetrating a hoax and cries of "show me the proof" (#12) respectively.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


You are posting something from the slanderous Russian fraud the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence of anything??

OH MY GOD - that is truly sick and deluded!!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Fraudulent in the sense that it was intended on stirring up anti-semitism, which was why I prefaced it with the same note that William Cooper put in his book regarding it. Also, I'm not posting it as evidence of anything, like I said I was not accusing anybody of anything by posting it. I was merely pointing out it's recognizability. You can take it any way you wish, but like I said, anybody who reads the threads can see these strategies in them, even if unintentionally used.

More of an "Isn't this interesting?" than any kind of "evidence."
edit on 4-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: last sentence



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


That's just bravo sierra - you accuse debunkers of using the tactics you quoted


Whether done intentionally or not, it is clear that these passages are reflected in these threads with:

Science this, science that (#2), flooding the threads with pages upon pages of debunking (#5), and charges that chemtrail believers are ignorant and perpetrating a hoax and cries of "show me the proof" (#12) respectively.


Your post is not "isn't it interesting" - your post is slander, and has been reported as such.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Slander? No names mentioned, no person accused. I pointed out the points of correspondence but it would be foolishness to say that anyone was using it as a playbook. You really are upset about this aren't you?

In contrast, I have accused certain people of being disinfo agents at one point or another, using as my "evidence" a comparison of disinfo tactics with the way certain people communicate. Nobody accused me of slander in those cases when I used specific names and posts to back up calling specific people "disinfo agents" even though that could have been considered slanderous as well

In this case, no specific post was used, no specific name was used, no specific charges were leveled. It would be different if I were to use those passages and cut-and-paste relevant correspondences from specific posts identifying specific people. I'm merely putting the passages out there that stood out to me and letting people make up their own minds as to whether or not they stand out to them. The fact that you take it as such and have made an attempt to get it stricken from the record as it were makes me wonder why you feel so offended by it. Like I said in the post, no offense was meant, no accusations leveled. This was started as a thread intended to discuss the way the conversation on the chemtrail threads happen. As such, these are relevant precisely because they were recognizable. If I did not identify where they came from they would still be relevant and recognizable. Would they still be as offensive to you?


edit on 4-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: clarity



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Slander? No names mentioned, no person accused.


You do not have to mention names - you can slander an entire group, as you have done.

What pisses me off even more is that you think there is nothing wrong with quoting a proven fraudulent slanderous document that was used as justification for hatred and murder for at least half a century, as commented by a conspiracy theorist who is indulging in fanciful speculation, and then saying that it is evidence of something.

And then you keep defending it - aer you really so blind that you cannot see how bankrupt and obnoxious your position is??!!


You pitiful comment "it's not evidence" rings hollow - you posted it in order to cast aspersions on the arguments of debunkers.

You picked out "science this, science that" as of particular note - which clearly shows the paucity of your position - you cannot actually argue against the science, so you argue against eth character of the people who present it as evidence.

Disinformation doesn't just comes from debunkers!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





you posted it in order to cast aspersions on the arguments of debunkers.


In the same way that debunkers repeatedly use the terms "hoax", "fooled", or "hysteria" , accuse people of profiteering or use many other emotionally charged words? That is not intended to cast aspersions on the arguments of "chemmies?" Absolutely you use those words among many others to paint the "chemmies" in a bad light. Claims of disinfo agent? Sure I've used that in the past to "cast aspersions". Nobody moved to call that slanderous.


edit on 4-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: Punctuation

edit on 4-4-2011 by coyotepoet because: clarity



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


I thought you might enjoy this list........


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
www.christianconspiracy.org...


Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
[add: Use the derogatory terms 'space beams' and 'rabid no-planers', then associate these with the terms 'wild accusations' and 'ad hominem attacks'. (JW, 2007)]

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
[add example: 'But space beams don't explain the presence of sulfur', (JW, 2007)]

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
[add: Use names like 'rabid no-planers', 'space beams', 'space beamers'. (JW, 2007)]

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
[add example: "I haven't seen any evidence of pulverization on Judy Wood's web site." (JW, 2007)]

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
[add example: 'Thermite is available on ebay and it is untracable, so I guess we'll never know who did it." (JW, 2007)]

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
[add example: 'Exactly how much energy would be required to pulverize the WTC Towers?' The authors of the DEW paper are asked this on a regular basis as if there is a question as to whether or not the WTC was destroyed. But, those with other theories who ask this question feel no need to answer the same question themselves. (JW, 2007)]

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
[add: Show a photo of a toasted car on FDR Drive and then emphasize how well "thermite fits the data". (JW, 2007)]

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
[add: We are frequently reminded to pine for the evidence we don't have (the missing steel) instead of looking at the evidence we do have (photos). (JW, 2007)]

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
[add example: Thermite cannot explain the cylindrical holes in WTC6 and the toasted cars, so that data must be ignored. (JW, 2007)]

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
[add example: 'We have new data (from mysterious and secret samples and test methods) that show strong evidence of possible ___'. (JW, 2007)]

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
[add example: 'If not able to take over 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth,' then start a new group, 'Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice' and establish a new "truth." (But, isn't truth its own defense?)]

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
[add example: Why would a group of folks want to destroy the organization, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and drag it out for many months with multiple emails a day proposing endless negotiations with no intention of following through on any of them? (JW, 2007)]

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
[add example: Murder the student of a prominent 9/11 researcher. (JW, 2007)]

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

26. Isolate and intimidate. On a group email, the troublemaker is replied to individually in an intimidating tone. This includes removing certain "trouble makers" from a group emailing that is designed to promote propaganda that the troublemakers can easily disprove.


Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
www.christianconspiracy.org...


1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a comment at or become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
[add example: Hold "conferences" but do not invite key opponents. Decline all invitations to events where key opponents will be present. (JW, 2007)]

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
[add example: Manage a Journal where content is carefully managed. Reject submissions by opponents and accept ad hominem hit pieces attacking opponents, regardless of how much they may undermine the credibility of the Journal. (JW, 2007)]

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
[add example: Omit including the "official government story" of 9/11 as a conspiracy theory. (JW, 2007)]

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.

2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.

3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.



ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY

www.christianconspiracy.org...


== HOW TO DEBUNK JUST ABOUT ANYTHING ==
*PART 1: GENERAL DEBUNKERY* Top

Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.

Put on the right face. Cultivate a condescending air that suggests that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of Adonai. 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 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."

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

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.

Downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science.

At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence. State categorically that the unconventional arises exclusively from the "will to believe" and may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

Maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw invalidates the whole. In conventional contexts, however, you may sagely remind the world that, "after all, situations are complex and human beings are imperfect."

"Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable law.

Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy. Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that there is no evidence.

If sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, argue that "evidence alone proves nothing!" Ignore the fact that preliminary evidence is not supposed to prove *anything*.

In any case, imply that proof precedes evidence. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation--particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question.

Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist!

Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"--but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

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."

Use the word "imagination" as an epithet that applies only to seeing what's *not* there, and not to denying what *is* there.

If a significant number of people agree that they have observed something that violates the consensus reality, simply ascribe it to "mass hallucination." Avoid addressing the possibility that the consensus reality, which is routinely observed by millions, might itself constitute a mass hallucination.

Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides.

By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity, integrity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.

Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.

Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out- of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. As little as one part fact to ten parts B.S. will usually do the trick. (Some veteran debunkers use homeopathic dilutions of fact with remarkable success!) Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.

Employ "TCP": Technically Correct Pseudo-refutation. Example: if someone remarks that all great truths began as blasphemies, respond immediately that not all blasphemies have become great truths. Because your response was technically correct, no one will notice that it did not really refute the original remark.

Trivialize the case by trivializing the entire field in question. Characterize the study of orthodox phenomena as deep and timeconsuming, while deeming that of unorthodox phenomena so insubstantial as to demand nothing more than a scan of the tabloids. If pressed on this, simply say "but there's nothing there to study!" Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."

Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!

Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the same way.

Find a prosaic phenomenon that resembles, no matter how superficially, the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article. For example, imply that since people often see "faces" in rocks and clouds, the enigmatic Face on Mars must be a similar illusion and therefore cannot possibly be artificial.

When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract people from considering the possibility of nonphysical or nonterrestrial intelligence.

Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts."

Insist that western science is completely objective, and is based on no untestable assumptions, covert beliefs or ideological interests. If an unfamiliar or inexplicable phenomenon happens to be considred true and/or useful by a nonwestern or other traditional society, you may therefore dismiss it out of hand as "ignorant misconception," "medieval superstition" or "fairy lore."

Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical" or "supernatural." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries! Ask questions that appear to contain generally-assumed knowledge that supports your views; for example, "why do no police officers, military pilots, air traffic controllers or psychiatrists report UFOs?" (If someone points out that they do, insist that those who do must be mentally unstable.)

Ask unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof. For example, "if this claim were true, why haven't we seen it on TV?" or "in this or that scientific journal?" Never forget the mother of all such questions: "If UFOs are extraterrestrial, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn?"

Remember that you can easily appear to refute anyone's claims by building "straw men" to demolish. One way to do this is to misquote them while preserving that convincing grain of truth; for example, by acting as if they have intended the extreme of any position they've taken. Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to misreplicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless. To make the whole process even easier, respond not to their actual claims but to their claims as reported by the media, or as propagated in popular myth.

Insist that such-and-such unorthodox claim is not scientifically testable because no self-respecting grantmaking organization would fund such ridiculous tests.

] Be selective. For example, if an unorthodox healing method has failed to reverse a case of terminal illness you may deem it worthlesswhile taking care to avoid mentioning any of the shortcomings of conventional medicine.

Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

When a witness or claimant states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, treat this as if it were not scientific at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, argue that his or her perceptions cannot possibly be objective.

If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. Ad-hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. For example, if investigators of the unorthodox have profited financially from activities connected with their research, accuse them of "profiting financially from activities connected with their research!" If their research, publishing, speaking tours and so forth, constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, hold that fact as "conclusive proof that income is being realized from such activities!" If they have labored to achieve public recognition for their work, you may safely characterize them as "publicity seekers."

Fabricate supportive expertise as needed by quoting the opinions of those in fields popularly assumed to include the necessary knowledge. Astronomers, for example, may be trotted out as experts on the UFO question, although course credits in ufology have never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy.

Fabricate confessions. If a phenomenon stubbornly refuses to go away, set up a couple of colorful old geezers to claim they hoaxed it. The press and the public will always tend to view confessions as sincerely motivated, and will promptly abandon their critical faculties. After all, nobody wants to appear to lack compassion for self-confessed sinners.

Fabricate sources of disinformation. Claim that you've "found the person who started the rumor that such a phenomenon exists!"

Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.




top topics



 
17
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join