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.

 

Elite Debunkers on ATS have been debunking every conspiracy since they joined. Why?

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by Misterlondon
If you never had People debunking threads this site would be ridiculous..


Why cannot you think for yourself ?

Forming a cult around someone and believing everything they say is well, equally as bad as not believing anything someone says because they lied in the past.

Everyone has lied in the past, including Phage. No human is perfect. I guess no one has any credibility anymore.

I guess that means debating things is pointless now. Since we all have lied at least once before.

This website is not ridiculous, but some of the absolutist absurd claims made here sure as heck are ridiculous.



What do you mean why can't I think for myself? Your damn lucky right now T&C's exsist here because you would get a piece of my mind..
I don't care who anyone is here or their so called status, I have my own opinions on a subject!!!
anyone with a little bit of common sense will know that any issue or subject is better viewed with both sides if the story.. Meaning different opinions and viewpoints. Unlike some who seem to be stubborn and single minded in their views,..

And following people like a cult?? Can't make my own mind up... How dare you!!





And of course the site would be ridiculous without the debunkers.. Think about it!! All you would have here all day long would be "look at this second sun" (lens flare) "the world is going to end because of elenin" (no it's not) "look at this UFO" (cgi)
Without the people coming in and saying no that's wrong you would just have a one sided view and a site full of disinformation..
Therefore it would be ridiculous...

edit on 13/8/11 by Misterlondon because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
"Belief is the death of intelligence." - RAW


“It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.” - AH

I prefer to have a bit of both (belief and knowledge). Belief in right and wrong, for example.

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - EW



Belief is merely personal vanity/ego needing to possess thoughts, it has nothing to do with the truth.
...
... but consider looking into who it was that said it, and take into consideration the fact that he was one of the great truth seekers and conspiratorial minds of the 20th century. He was both those things precisely because he understood that belief not only is not required in the pursuit of truth, but might in fact be the greatest hurdle to it. And he didn't mind debunkers any more than he minded believers ... like most intelligent people he let them play their little self validating games, watched them entrench themselves in the insignificant, and went on his way uncovering truths without their distractions.


So, from this I guess I can assume that you want to possess the extraordinary essence of this gentleman. You believe in his reputation, enough to use it as an appeal to authority as far as this topic is concerned. One who believes in a philosophy that aims to create discord just for the sake of doing so is not one that I would give authority over myself.

Thanks for inciting a bit of research and a good deal of contemplation, I just can't agree on this matter. I think a complete lack of belief in anything whatsoever would only empower those who aim to manipulate me.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze

I have noticed a small minority of debunkers who have only one intention - to debunk every single conspiracy on ATS.

How can you be so sure that this is their [color=B1FB17]ONLY intention??


If it's the auto-debunker I thought it was when I read the OP then yeah, that person seems to be in one section only and posts dozens of times in every single thread to debunk while others try to discuss all possibilities and facts.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eMachine

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Belief is merely personal vanity/ego needing to possess thoughts, it has nothing to do with the truth.
...
... but consider looking into who it was that said it, and take into consideration the fact that he was one of the great truth seekers and conspiratorial minds of the 20th century. He was both those things precisely because he understood that belief not only is not required in the pursuit of truth, but might in fact be the greatest hurdle to it. And he didn't mind debunkers any more than he minded believers ... like most intelligent people he let them play their little self validating games, watched them entrench themselves in the insignificant, and went on his way uncovering truths without their distractions.


So, from this I guess I can assume that you want to possess the extraordinary essence of this gentleman. You believe in his reputation, enough to use it as an appeal to authority as far as this topic is concerned. One who believes in a philosophy that aims to create discord just for the sake of doing so is not one that I would give authority over myself.


Let's take this one statement at a time:

- Quoting someone does not mean 'that I want to possess the extraordinary essence of this gentleman' anymore that you, or anyone else, wants to emulate everyone they quote. It was simply an apt statement to the false and all but irrelevant dichotomy of believer/debunker.

- Discordianism isn't simply discord, nor is it applicable in the context or scope of this discussion, but it is interesting inasmuch as much of it cannot be explored if one is subject to conditioned belief. But you used the word, so that's something.

- I see you went through the considerable effort to google logical fallacies and thought this would be the perfect time to assert one where you thought it applicable. I commend you on the former notwithstanding its misapplication. But since you're on a logical fallacy quest let me share with you one that is oft neglected by those who compile them:

Fallacy Fallacy


Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.


Therein lies the pickle for those who simply discard arguments on the basis of logical fallacies ... namely that a logical fallacy does not always produce an inaccurate conclusion.


Thanks for inciting a bit of research and a good deal of contemplation, I just can't agree on this matter. I think a complete lack of belief in anything whatsoever would only empower those who aim to manipulate me.


No one person, group, or thing has as much power to manipulate you as much as you manipulate yourself through dogma and belief ... in fact those are the very characteristics that make one malleable and conducive to the highest degree of manipulation. Once you believe things, and they become 'your' beliefs then an affront to them is an affront to you. Hundreds of millions of people have died because they believe things like gods and maps matter. They died defending concepts because they believe them.

Btw to be clear, the belief I refer to isn't the 'belief' referred to in the believer/debunker nonsense, as both sides of that argument are equal believers.

And you're not really disagreeing with me per say ... just with something I quoted.



edit on 13 Aug 2011 by schrodingers dog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The thing I notice about most of this elite debunkers, are that they are so full of ego.

I've yet to see an open minded debunker, perhaps i haven't noticed, who has a 'benefit of the doubt' approach to mostly anything that's presented.

Other than that, with every one liner, there is bound to be heaps of stars. What a joke??
With those stars your only build their egos, and the more arrogant they become.

Are we not all for seeking the truth??? If you've joined ATS with nothing other than habitual debunking, than you got get your act straight, your not helping the course.

On the contrary, I welcome debunkers.... we need some balance in a our quest for truth.

Keep it cool, just don't act like a know-it-all, cause the fact you cannot explain everything as it is.

Peace


edit on 13-8-2011 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2011 by InnerPeace2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012

Are we not all for seeking the truth??? If you've joined ATS with nothing other than habitual debunking, than you got get your act straight, your not helping the course.


Yeah that would be nice, unfortunately that often isn't the case:

People sometimes seek the truth, but most prefer like-minded views

Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct:
A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information


That's the nature of personal belief, it needs to be validated and reinforced ... as is often apparent on ATS (and everywhere else for that matter), authenticity of intent and embracing of truth are often mere pretexts to those ends by 'believers' and 'debunkers' alike.

Meh ...


edit on 13 Aug 2011 by schrodingers dog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

I have no desire to emulate anyone that I quote. When I think someone has verbalized a concept effectively, I may use it instead of trying to put it into my own words, which would not be as concise. I like to know more about whomever I want to quote, so I can better understand the context of their perspective, but I do not idolize or wish to emulate them. That seems only to lead to a cult of personality.

It wasn't necessary to google "logical fallacies". I understand that a person's reputation is only their public image, a fraction of who they are. There is a human being beneath and I don't believe that I should give my own authority to any other fallible human being. So, when I see someone holding up another person's reputation as a reason for me to admire and look up to that person, I do feel that it is an attempt to put that person above myself. Others can choose idols for themselves if they need someone to emulate, but their idols won't be imposed upon me.

On the topic of the thread: I recognize no "elite" posters or "debunkers" on ATS, only people debating various concepts for their own personal reasons. Whether it is their own emotional investment in the ideas or a more material investment that's at stake, the ideas/evidence either stand on their own or they do not. I can make up my own mind on a case-by-case basis, the personalities involved don't carry much weight.

edit on 8/13/2011 by eMachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by eMachine

So, when I see someone holding up another person's reputation as a reason for me to admire and look up to that person, I do feel that it is an attempt to put that person above myself. Others can choose idols for themselves if they need someone to emulate, but their idols won't be imposed upon me.


Well yeah, that's the other consequence of personal beliefs, they lead to an awful lot of "feelings."


You mean to say the one-liner you posted, which included a quote and no explanation, was not relevant to the topic of the thread you posted it in? Sorry if that caused me to misunderstand.


Passive aggressive Saturdays are fun.

Aaaaanyhoot ...



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Saying someone doesn't understand something is a cop out.

Explain it to them than, clearly and concisely, if you are so enlightened.

But just simply saying "You just don't understand, hahahaha" is lame to the max.
i think he ment that just because somebody(a professional/expert) understands the subject being discussed better than the guy proposing the theory(OP) and instantly debunks the theory it does not mean the guy debunking has set out to "do some debunkin" they just grasp the matter better. nothing can be done in that situation "someone just understands better" maybe thay explain maybe they don't

not i'm smarter than you nerner



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I know I see it al the time, same guy, yelling at you for having a thought or an idea, too jealous to think of something for themselves. THey are contradictors by heart, and are probably ###holes to everyone they know anyway.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 



I have noticed a small minority of debunkers (not naming any names) who have only one intention - to debunk every single conspiracy on ATS. This small minority of "elite" debunkers have thousands of stars and posts, all of which are dedicated to debunking at whatever cost (having checked their history of posts and threads).


Um can you name names so we can see what your talking about, and also what a debunker means to you.

bunk/bəNGk/
Noun: A narrow shelflike bed, typically one of two or more arranged one on top of the other.
Verb: Sleep in a narrow berth or improvised bed, typically in shared quarters as a temporary arrangement: "they bunk together in the dormitory"

Definition bunker (noun)

-a shelter, usually underground, that has strong walls to protect the people inside it from bullets and bombs
-in the game of golf, a hollow area of ground filled with sand, that is difficult to hit a ball out of
Etymology+Origin of bunker (noun)

1758, from Scottish, "seat, bench," possibly a variant of banker "bench" (1670s; see bunk (1)). Of golf courses, first recorded 1824; meaning "dug-out fortification" is probably from World War I.
Synonyms for bunker (noun)

shelter , fortification , blockhouse , container , trap , depository , military post , dugout , sand trap , sand bunker


De bunker, it sounds like some sort of a military strategy. Like there agents who infiltrate bunkers and then De bunk them expose the shell or remove the shell and get to the soft insides. But it also means a gathering and most likely of like minded people, into a concentrated place or concentrated believes. And the walls of believes are high indead.....But not that high.




It just doesn't make sense to why they would join a conspiracy site to debunk conspiracies when the only reason behind it is that they have an agenda or are paid agents by The Powers That Be (TPTB).

Well no matter the who or what they are or working for, whats important is that there good at debunking stuff.




These elite debunkers are so perfectly well adapted to ATS and have gathered huge support from ATS users that if they were named, this thread would no doubt be attacked and ridiculed!

Shall we test that theory and name some names and what your talking about, and see what happens. If something happens then there are debunkers doing debunking for whatever reason, if nothing happens then maybe there just a little smarter then the average dubunker. Or they might be bussy debunking other dubunkable stuff.

Only one way to find out, put out some bait and catch yourself some debunkers. I figure it will probably be like fishing, a lot of sitting around and waiting. That is, unless you fish with dynamite.



Just to clear things up, I don't have a problem with debunkers. But those that make it a mission to debunk/ridicule every conspiracy discussed on ATS since they have joined, is my cause for concern.

I must be hanging out in the wrong threads because I rarely see them.
In fact this site is just not nutty enough for me sometimes.
I still have not seen one thread that says aliens spacecraft run on unicorn farts.
But hopefully one of these days somebody will make such a thread.
And then I will have something new to believe in.
edit on 13-8-2011 by galadofwarthethird because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
Deny ignorance.

Sometimes denying ignorance means accepting conspiracy, sometimes debunking.

While kneekjerk debunkery is just as blind as kneejerk "i wanna believe," ultimately a good skeptic adds real value to the community by pushing everyone to refine their position and bring it closer to the truth.


Prove it! Great avatar!



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 

is "the guy" in this thread?
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Well yeah, that's the other consequence of personal beliefs, they lead to an awful lot of "feelings."

Right. Those pesky feelings. We should get rid of them, nature didn't have a clue what it was doing.



Passive aggressive Saturdays are fun.

You feel I'm expressing passive aggression because I'm resistant to fulfilling your expectation that I acquiesce to your belief in the importance of non-belief? Or your belief that some individuals should be held above the rest?

I'll continue to value my feelings and beliefs to the extent that I deem necessary. For instance, I know that causing harm to others would make me feel bad, because I would not want them to harm me. Therefore, I believe that initiating force or violence against others would be wrong of me. Certainly, I could change my mind right now, but I would rather cling to this belief, however dogmatic it may be.

edit on 8/13/2011 by eMachine because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


my assumptions about you were incorrect for this I am truly sorry you have my respect (we all know whom you are referring)



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
"Belief is the death of intelligence." - RAW

Belief on some levels is the only thing that exists, anything can be questioned till there is nothing left of it but its believes. Even science, its not above its believes even if it observes them, it merely observes what it believes in.

The question would be what are the differences between believes and faith. Because It takes some faith to believe in anything.

And even believing in nothing takes some faith, for you must have some faith that there is nothing to believe in. And so they all have much faith in there believes.

Intelligence however changes depending on what group your with.

And death well death is the ultimate debunker of all believes. It is kind of hard to not believe in death, it's one thing that all no matter there believes agree on, that things eventually die or end. Can anybody debunk that all things don't eventually end?

But if all things eventually end, must not the believe in the end eventually end as well?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by eMachine

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
Well yeah, that's the other consequence of personal beliefs, they lead to an awful lot of "feelings."

Right. Those pesky feelings. We should get rid of them, nature didn't have a clue what it was doing.


Nature is exactly as it is ... and no one, certainly not me, ever suggested that you or anyone should get rid of either their beliefs or feelings. If they weren't there, as all other things, there would be no chance of realization. It is precisely through the questioning and deconstruction, not of beliefs and feelings, but of who is that is believing and feeling that one peels the layers of concepts.

But this is indeed beyond the scope of this thread ... all RAW was saying in his expression was that beliefs are hinderances to the pursuit of truth, for when most people discover truths that contradict their personal beliefs, they will at best have to work past them, at worst discard the truth. It's like trying to drive a car towards the truth whilst fighting two wheels pointing towards one's beliefs. It's simply unnecessary.

No need to idolize the man, it's really not that complicated of a statement. At the end of the day the only reason I mentioned it is that people who identify themselves as either believers or debunkers, are in the purest sense of the word, both believers.


edit on 13 Aug 2011 by schrodingers dog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AzazeI
These elite members you speak of have all earned those stars.


Yeah right, please...they go around starring each others comments all day long. Not to say that some of the stars are no question earned, but its easy to notice they star all of each others comments.IMO anyways.

Btw, there is nothing elite about them, most of them are rude and resort to insults and character assassination if they cannot attack the person any other way. They turned the 9/11 forum into a zoo. I love a good skeptic, and there are many here, but debunkers are a whole other breed. Their not skeptical, they have a agenda.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by CasiusIgnoranze
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


Like I said, I don't mind people debunking the odd conspiracy. But those who try to debunk/ridicule every single conspiracy since they have joined whether as a troll or paid agent, is my cause for concern.


I understand exactly what you have patiently tried to explain. May I give it a whirl?

"Don't believe everything you hear." We've all heard that saying, and it is excellent advise. I'd like to pose that the opposite is true. In terms of ATS, it means dismissing everything posted on ATS is just as dangerous as believing everything that is posted.

The OP is not talking about people post alternate possibilities to broaden and enhance the debate. OP is not concerned about statements of opinion, like "doesn't look like a UFO, because... blah, blah, blah. Rather, OP is referring to those who always seem to show up in the same type threads (UFO's, Fukishima, Elenin, etc) and systematically debunk, often ignoring the information presented, and just stating the entire premise is wrong. They usually don't back it up with anything, the tone is often condescending, and they get a ridiculous amount of stars!!!

I agree that genuine debunking is essential in the quest for truth. But chronic debunkers, who do not back up statements like "Elenin will not affect Earth" make me want to ask when they were elevated to the lofty title of God. But seriously, we must question the genuine nature of that type of debunking. There is simply no way to know what tomorrow holds. Furthermore, after the 12th star for such a post, we must realize that denying ignorance goes both ways!



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


I see u got a lot of stars too ;o)

If it is for u more important debunking,then i think u should ask them for a sellary and get to work,if not let them debunk further,because if u dont have sense of logic to see for yourself what is real and what fairy tales,than what are u trying to proove with this thread? IT IS THEIR JOB TO DEBUNK! Your job is to keep "eyes wide shut" ;o)




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join