I was thinking this morning, rather angrily I might add, that this is my blog, and I can make rules and insist that commenters follow them. And the rule that right away came to mind was “no more links to debunking sites.”I will refine that a little bit here in a minute.
First, what is “debunking”? A few examples, the first rather hilarious. I still lived in Bozeman, and we were now and then discussing 9/11 on the blog, with miles to go before we slept. But I had mentioned Newton’s Second Law of motion, generally stated to be that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That in mind, when an aluminum jet aircraft slams into a steel and concrete building at (we are told) 500mph, it is no different than if the building is traveling that fast and slams into the jet aircraft. The aircraft are crushed. There are no Roadrunner holes in the building, and debris falls to the earth, tons of it.
Two reactions, one from my Bozeman days, one more recently. At that time a Montana State University bookstore employee commented that he was very familiar with the people in the engineering department, and that they were scratching their heads in wonder, as obviously there was more to Newton Law 2 than they knew. That is academia for you, frightened cowards who cannot say what they see. That was disgraceful.
The other reaction is from a current blog commenter who will not be named unless he wants to come forward and take a bow. He said that he had seen those planes hit those buildings on TV, and he knew that what he saw could not be, so that the event was fake. That is the ab-normal reaction, to simply see what is seen and say what appears to be the truth: It is a hoax.
The man who saw and said what was true could be a debunker. He is known to us, we know his credentials, and know that his affiliations would not force him to lie to us.
But I don’t like the term “debunker,” as it is a propaganda term. It is a way of saying “We own the truth and you are not allowed to disagree with us.” The IPCC recently said just that, “We own the truth.” What that translates to in real life is this: Anyone who works for or who interacts with IPCC must go along with their crazy proclamations. If not, such people are shunned, fired, defunded, and attacked publicly. That is how propaganda, and not science, works.
NASA has many supportive “debunking” sites and NASA itself acts as a debunker. I would guess these non-affiliated sites are funded by NASA on the sly, and again, the behavior surrounding the Moon landings is not scientific. It is propagandist. Surely no one in the agency will disagree publicly, nor will anyone in government or any in industry connected with the Moon hoax. They may know it to be a hoax, or may have chosen to live the lie, but on some level, they know. Only trouble awaits.
So agents within NASA back in the 60s and 70s chose to implant clues in evidence that things were not as they appear. This is the work of Aulis and to a degree, Stanley Kubrick in some of his movies. Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan also key in on these hints, but the two serve different purposes. Kaysing has turned up a couple of times here over the years, but I know little about him. There is a term in propaganda, maybe invented by Miles Mathis, called “blackwashing” wherein an outfit like NASA would send out someone like Kaysing to be discredited, taking everyone down with him who followed him.
McGowan is a different animal, obviously a limited hangout. The purpose of the LHO is to beat a strategic retreat, to concede that part of the battle field already lost, but to protect the royal jewels. McGowan discovered nothing new, but did a nice compilation of what had been learned by many others over the years. But he did not divulge the true purpose of Apollo. (Similarly with Laurel Canyon, he disclosed military affiliations of rock stars, but no fake deaths. With the Boston Marathon bombing, he was given access to high quality photos supposedly coincidentally gathered. Highly suspicious. With Lincoln, he forgot to tell us his death was faked.)
So back during the 9/11 days, a man named “Steve” came here now and then, and later using a pseudonym. He would look curtly at the evidence we were assembling, and comment “It’s been debunked.”
And that was end of story for him. So what is going on with that? Most people do not think critically, cannot (do not have time to) process large amounts of information, and do not want to go against the grain. The professional debunkers know this, and so offer their debunking sites to ease their pain, allow them to pass without thought, and at the same time give them a morally superior perch over people who do think critically. “Debunking” is the flip side of “conspiracy theory”, and surely connected to Dunning-Kruger.
So, what I propose here is that this site will no longer allow linking to debunking sites UNLESS the following criteria are met:
1. The names of the people behind the site are public knowledge.
2. The affiliations of the people behind the site are public knowledge.
3., And most critical, the person linking to the site demonstrates knowledge of the science behind both the pro and con side of the matter being debunked.
Absent all of that, the debunking link will be deleted. I have had enough of having these sites thrown at us as the bottom line, the final answer, with the assumption behind them that honest science is going on. They could be bought, you know.
16 thoughts on “Debunking debunking”
Excellent Mark. Totally agree. Love your site.
Just two days ago, while driving through my town on the way to the place of my employment, I came upon a man walking down the sidewalk holding a piece of cardboard above his head.
The writing said (and I quote) “9/11 WAS A LIE”
What’s so important? Well… the very message is.duh
I live in a small town we just never see anything like that here. — until now!
Kudos to the truthers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Spectacular post, Mark 🙏.
I’m still waiting on a deplorable debunk on the lack of circulation from the wingtip vortices, post “collision”.
Some debunking sites debunk themselves by the logical contradictions or the nonsense which they peddle. Some of their verbiage is arguing at length on irrelevancies. What debunking sites choose to peddle is in of itself useful information, much like traffic analysis in signals intelligence. What they want you to believe – that is or isn’t true – is revealing, as are lies by omission. I doubt you can have proper discussions without at least some reference to debunking sites… if only to make fun of them.
Agreed, but analyze them at arm’s length. Do not let them them in on face value. The fact that a commentator tosses them out as true without critical analysis is the modus operandi. They embed the lies. I am tired of it.
I’ll second this… I can see where it gets annoying if a certain Unnamed Commenter floods her posts with links, and doesn’t try to address the particulars of the debate herself. But it’s pretty useful to see what those sites are saying. It’s a little too bubble mentality imo to make a blanket rule about them… Maybe just have a special Petra Rule? Sorry Petra! 😝
In all seriousness, for myself I don’t even mind if that’s how Petra wants to make her case – people are free to take it for what it’s worth. But it’s not my blog and all so just my two cents.
In the end, I object to the mere notion of “debunking,” as it stems from the attitude that “we own the truth.” It is also part of a system of mind control wherein people who do not possess good reasoning skills are allowed to sideline, even dominate those who can think well. This allows nonsense like Roadrunner holes in the twin towers to prevail 21 years after the fact. Debunking has a definite propaganda purpose, to keep lies in force, some very big lies.
I do not mind disputation of ideas, disagreement, severe disagreement, contested reasoning, even accusations of ignorance or stupidity. That’s all part of our process, such as it is, but this idea that an idea has been debunked by someone in a high scientific position does not sell with me. It is propaganda.
Other than that, I just got fed up with PL, as she was playing round and round we go. I will let her back in in a week or two, as our blog policy is that banning is never permanent, and hopefully a chastised PL with be easier to deal with.
Right now I am reading Lunar Geology and Ionising Radiation from a Revisionist Perspective at Aulis. It would qualify as “debunking” if I chose to use that term, but “revision” works better. It is surprisingly readable for me, the layman, though at times it is deep in scientific jargon. I am 27 pages in (out of 48) and it has held my interest throughout. The author concludes that living organisms would quickly die on the lunar surface, and that the rocks brought back by the missions 11-17 (minus 13) are fake. More importantly, he says, because these rock samples are bogus, the science that stems from their study is hopelessly corrupted. One such corruption was the idea that the Moon possesses water. It does not. The Artemis Mission better not plan on watering up there.
More to come.
Your comment went to moderation for use of her name. Use “PL” in the future.
The last magician’s second law is f=ma of course.
I loathe the word debunk. Makes me want to poke when I hear it. I’m gonna send your story here to a friend of mine who loves to tell me everything that’s been deb%$#!!!!]
Yes – create the conditions for communication and relationship to occur.
Grow conscious responsibility for our OWN use of word and phrase – as a cultural willingness. If others use ‘template-thinking’ knock to seek a more consciously owned sense of their meaning.
Grow the signal by not giving permission for noise to define or frame life because ‘Someone says’ or insinuates.
When you know, you know. As I watched the first tower fall, I said, “It’s a controlled demolition!” When I heard about the “pandemic” nonsense, I said to my sister-in-law, “Give me twenty dollars, I will lick this shopping cart handle.” And regarding climate change, I didn’t really buy the narrative that humans are to blame. (I’m of average intelligence, with a BA in something or other, yet I knew something didn’t smell right.) When I bring up topics (with extended family or former friends) that go against the narrative, I’m looked at like I have three heads. But that’s okay, I’m used to it. I’ve been a vegetarian for decades; didn’t allow my kids to eat school food; fed my kids fresh vegetables with their lunches, carried no credit card debt, didn’t do Disney cult vacation, etc., so I kind of stuck out at Play Group and later at the PTA. Now my children are grown and flown and neither have complied with the jab nonsense. Perhaps they leaned through osmosis not to go along with the (idiot) crowd.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I replied Your comment, but it went to the wrong place under My next comment. It begins with “Yeah..”
That was a good good writing once again. I noticed those debunking sites, or at least some of them, just a few years ago when there were some kind of awakening period going on with the conspiracy theory subjects like the 9/11, the Apollo missions and the JFK incident. More and more people began to understand that they were lied about so many things and events. I first read a few debunkings about the 9/11 and I found them mostly just being a childish claims supporting the official stories without any kind of real proofs or real evidence. They were like “it must be true because so many people can’t hold the lies for a so long time” or “the planes go through the walls because they flight so fast”. I stopped reading any of those sites after I read few of their “debunkings” and never went back to them. They send shivers down my spine and made me wondering how anyone could believe that sh*t. But maybe they are kind of a sleeping pills for those how don’t like to wake up in the reality, virtual melatonin or something like that.
For me the increasement of those sites are a signs from a desperate attempt to stop people from awakening. There are a critical mass of people in known of things that when that mass point is crossed it can’t be returned back. So there must be some kind of percentage of people sleeping or too many will wake up and don’t believe those lies anymore. I thing this is the last moments of time keeping that critical mass and that’s why they are so hardly trying to debunk everything that don’t follow official narratives.
I think too that the critical mass of the 9/11 event is been exceeded. I hardly know anyone anymore who believes the official stories of that event. There are differences in opinions like if the planes were real or not still, but everyone I know wonders how the planes reportedly flew so easily through the steal frames and why they fell so quickly or other details like that, but overall everyone I know here think it was a some kind of hoax. For me the story of the plane crashing to the Pentagon was the final stone to crash my whole old worldview. Before that happening I was studied that the mighty Pentagon was the most heavily guarded place in the whole world and I just couldn’t believe that someone could just hijack a passenger plane and fly it to the one of the most important building of the world so easily. I thought there were too many things wrong about that and that was a real start for me to dive to the conspiracy world. I don’t like to jump any speculations or conclusions too lighthearted or easily and I like to take time to really think and consider things before that. The truth is sometimes layered with many layers and it take time to find and accept the next layers. (For example LHO shots JFK – somebody other(s) shot JFK – Somebody shots JFK:s double – nobody shots nobody)
For the Moon landings I still know people who believes them and that is why so many debunking sites writes so much about that topic IMO.
I think those debunking sites are a kind of dangerous too for the people that can’t or want not think with their own brains, but on the other hand we free thinkers are more dangerous to the authority. I have to admit there have been some paranoid moments sometimes when a car was following too long in the dark or other that kind of events happened, but then I just calm myself down and try to assert myself that I’m really not so important person and nobody really cares what I think about anything. (knock knock.)
The more dangerous or let’s say more harmful than those debunking sites are IMO the sites that tells people about the conspiracy theory things but adds some rubbish and clearly false information to the articles. There are some Finnish sites that do so and they could snatch insecure people to believe inconceivable things without any bases or reasoning and make them dive too deep. They are a kind of gatekeepers, but even worse than those. I don’t know what is a suitable English term for those sites, but they are recognized from that there are no limits in conspiracy topics if You know what I mean. They go way over the critical thinking, not improve it. The Q stuff was a kind like that too I think. I read those sites occasionally, but I am a bit tired with them.
I’m very happy I found this Mark’s excellent site eventually. This is the kind stuff I really enjoy reading. And here are wonderful comments also from people that really know how to think and write about things.
Most important think with these sensitive topics discussed here are in my opinion is to keep one’s head cold like we say here in Finland, it means to be calm and do not make hasty decisions. Just like Kimi Räikkönen use to do when driving the F1 car. And always remember that don’t go too fast to the curve.
Yeah, it’s more important how to use the cards You are given in Your birth than how good the cards are. I know because I’m of quite average intelligence person too, but I know many more intelligence people than I am but whom don’t know how to think at all. They are just so brainwashed to repeat those lies they are educated to believe. Their knowledge range may be very narrow too. They say that Finnish people are one of the best educated people in the World. I bet we are. It tells a lot that Finnish word for an education is the same that training for example the dog in English language.(kouluttaa). They really are good for training the people here.
That comment was supposed to be a reply to Carla Klausler. It went wrong place somehow.