Question from an aspiring "debunker" (?), page 1

reply to post by TheMindWar

---

Hm.....interesting reply. I'm not sure what you are talking about- guessing it is concerning current concerns about vaccines (mainly the one for the veneral warts virus) being forced in the US?

I am not in the US. That vaccine was offered to us for our daughter and strongly advised, and we said no. End of story.

But the importance of debunking in that instance might be-
if it is false that this is being planned and will happen,
It would be important to prove that and make it known so that some people won't be believing in it and being distracted from more realistic problems or challenges in front of them.

reply to post by Bluesma

---

I think I have misunderstood the term for a while. I thought it meant that indisputable proof has been found and presented that invalidates something, but I keep finding topics labelled and shut down as debunked hoax's, when a long search through the threads upon it comes up with nothing- nothing but personal opinion and "feelings".

IMO your definition is correct but many on ATS are only hear to debunk pretty much everything and they make up their own definition to suit..

reply to post by Bluesma

---

you will quickly find that ` bunk ` is shovelled at ATS in a never ending stream - by a loose coalition [ but not limited to ] of the ignorant , the credulous , the attention seeking , the scammer , the snake oil sales man , the hoaxer , the troll , , the scared and the insane

and the problem is that most are shovelling so fast that few of them take the time to even check thier own shovel full for veracity - never mind anyone elses

thus very little gets anything but the most cursory fact checking and verificsation from anyione by the despised " debunkers "

with a distressing number of people adopting the ` i want to believe ` attitude and falling back on the cop-out :

"well it hasnt been debunked yet "

as if this makes it true - but they dont actually make any effort to find credible evidence for the claims made

and the problem arises that with such a volume of bunk - trends arise - and bunk APPEARS to support other bunk - either by accident or deliberate hoax

and thus the myth is born - that claim A proves claim B when there is no actual evidence that claim A was ever true , and when claim C rears its ugly head - the assertion arises that " its so widley doccumented "

when infact - its just a series of blog track backs , forum cross opsts and interviews by the same usual suspects on Crap2Ccrap , hoaxland , project cameltoe , jiff rinse etc etc etc

all backed up by articles on websites that conveniently can sell you " the solution "

welcome to ATS - its knee deep in bunk and rising - grab a shovel and brace yourself for the smell

EDIT to add :

oh and be prepare for bunkers demanding that you prove that the claim is false - its a pretty standard MO here

reply to post by Bluesma

---

I think I have misunderstood the term for a while. I thought it meant that indisputable proof has been found and presented that invalidates something, but I keep finding topics labelled and shut down as debunked hoax's, when a long search through the threads upon it comes up with nothing- nothing but personal opinion and "feelings".

The moderators have a list of "known hoaxers." If a thread is based on one of these sources, it is quickly moved to the [HOAX] bin, whether the thread has fully examined the evidence or not. Although I'm not sure of the entire list, it certainly includes Billy Meier and "Sorcha Faal." "The Agency" also seems to be a source that will get a thread tipped into the bin.

reply to post by Bluesma

---

I think you have your terminology down to a T on the matter of debunking. However , one thing you will find, is that new evidence is found for or against a position (wether it be political, scientific, or philosophical) the status of a discussion on a given subject will change, and that which was once debunked, may well become a talking point once again, as the membership insert the new information into thier thinking.

And equally , you will find that positions once thought unassailable or difficult to debunk, will become targets after a new information source is located and exploited by some members in order to demolish a story or position.

You may also find that some peoples definition of concrete proof may differ from your own, and some may have definitions which even fly in the face of the definition accepted by the large majority of members (most of whom are usually pretty reasonable people in my expirience)!
What I find challenging sometimes on this site,is navigating the stormy waters of perception from one member to another. However, as long as you concentrate on making sure that your thinking, and your posts focus on achieving proof and examination which would pass the factual definition of a debunk, rather than dancing about in the middle.

Originally posted by DJW001
The moderators have a list of "known hoaxers." If a thread is based on one of these sources, it is quickly moved to the [HOAX] bin, whether the thread has fully examined the evidence or not. Although I'm not sure of the entire list, it certainly includes Billy Meier and "Sorcha Faal." "The Agency" also seems to be a source that will get a thread tipped into the bin.

Another one that goes to the hoax bin is seeingUFOsPA.

Here's a debunker thread where a site owner thanked the contributors for their contributions to helping separate the wheat from the chaff, or the sightings full of bunk from the truly unknown cases.

The Dishonesty & Danger Inherent In The seeingUFOsPA Hoax

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SpringerI would like to say threads like this, while filled with bravado matching that of the hoaxers (rightfully so), are one of the top ten reasons I personally got involved with owning 1/3 of ATS. When SkepticOverlord, Simon and I were setting up The Above Network, LLC (the company that owns ATS) one of my personal metrics for success was to see that ATS helped get the "Ufology" spotlight moved away from the hoaxers and charlatans and onto the truly mysterious cases and sightings....

The point is, if we as a community interested in getting at the truth of what is really happening in our skies continue to support hoaxers, charlatans and con artists we deserve to be laughed at and giggled right off the world stage.

In that light, threads like this one are important, just as important as the ATS [HOAX] Forum IMHO.

You asked for debunking examples so you might want to check out that thread as an example of debunking that an owner said was appreciated.

And here's the link to the HOAX! forum, be sure to check that out too.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

What is bunk??

You might find this page useful - it has a definition of bunk, and a personal article by eth author why he debunks.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

---

Thanks, that's a pretty good definition. I especially like the part about not choosing sides, that's important. Seek the truth whatever side it's on.

I also found this list of things that have already been debunked:
debunkatron.com...
It shows "Undebunked subjects" as "none" but I'm sure they just haven't looked hard enough, there must be more!

reply to post by Bluesma

---

See the section of that site "resources for your debunking toolbox".

reply to post by Bluesma

---

Very true.

Verdict seems to be out, so...

Hereby requested, addition of

- Left of center Haaretz ;

- Right of center Jerusalem Post ;

- IDF, with Special consideration to further testimony by Captain Barak Raz ;

along to sanctioned, approved Hoax sources.