Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10
OverSword

O.D.D. obsessive debunking disorder

247 posts in this topic

I think it is wrong to suggest that there are only 2 camps - CT'ers, and De-Bunkers. Most of the people here fall into one or the other camp dependent on the theory being discussed, but may hold apposite views in other theories and debates. This makes them neither CT'ers OR De - Bunkers.

For myself, I used to wonder very seriously whether the USA put a Man on the moon and stated such. My viewpoint was altered 180 degrees by the sheer weight of facts evidenced by the late, and sadly missed, MID.

I have serious reservations about the Govt Line on 9/11 however - but that could just have been the result of an over zealous Media wanting instant answers from their Govt., and once a story is released it becomes exponentially more difficult, with the passage of time, to retract it. Instead of being allowed sufficient time to get to the heart of the issues, they bumbled about like headless chickens to get SOMETHING released.

There are many issues like those above where people, being people, will hold different viewpoints, but it is very evident that the same person can be a CT'er AND a debunker

I think those are all reasonable Points. I've asked before (rhetorically) whether, if one thinks that there may, for example, be something in the idea of UFOs being Extraterrestrial, that has to mean that one beleives all the (favourite word of the Denunkers) Woo Woo there is going. It does, though, seem to be largely those who like to describe themselves (as if it's their mission in life) as a Debunker who seem to insist that one must. It seems rather like the hardcore Atheists who insist that if you don't dismiss the idea of God out of hand, then you must believe every word int he Bible literally. It seems to be the Debunkers that insist on setting the agedna, so they can laugh at everyone whose views they disagree with.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it seem like humanity has an innate tendency to instantly assign blame for everything that occurs? ("The Iranian earthquake was caused by global warming!")

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is someone who believes in Aliens but not bigfoot a skeptic or a believer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is someone who believes in Aliens but not bigfoot a skeptic or a believer?

neither, he is crazy right?

Edited by quillius
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ironically I knew that 9/11 wasn't right when I never even had internet access.... So caryy on with your BS.

Also you go by the official story reported by the media from the goverment.

The same media who do this:

[media=]

[/media]

Public manipulation. 90% of the US fall for this. That is being a sheep.

Well, I see your anecdote and raise you my own. Although I do not irrationally hate the media or think there is some kind of conspiracy involved in the way they report events I do know that they are large corporations in a free market society and are always out to make money. I see how they report scientific papers and couldn't possibly take anything they say with anything more than a tiny grain of salt. I do not let people make my mind up for me or parrot anyone's story. I research and come to my own conclusions. So carry on with your own BS.

Edited by FurthurBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it seem like humanity has an innate tendency to instantly assign blame for everything that occurs? ("The Iranian earthquake was caused by global warming!")

No, it was HAARP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it is certainly a sign of the times when questioning government stories which do not comply with the facts is seen as being a "madness".

Orwell would be proud.

That is quite a leap there wouldn't you say? I know for a fact the government lies to us all the time so right away you have proven part of my point. You have made up a story based on your prejusidces and beliefs and then attacked me as if those prejudices and beliefs are fact. Two big lies of teh moment are the lies about the attack in Benghazzi and Fast and Furious. I am sure there are others.

Individuals and groups of indiciviiduals in government lie to cover their asses just as I am sure people at your place of work lie to CYA, so to think everything coming out of the government is the truth would be infantile. At the same time not everything the government says is a lie and not everything thety get wrong is a lie either, sometimes they screw up. yep, teh gigantic all powerful government makes misrtakes, in fact it makes a lot of them.

The government, as a whole, is one of the most incompetently run organizations on earth. I can't name one program that they run successfuly (which begs the question why give them healtcare to run?) a the moment yet CT's continually have them running the most intricately woven conspiracies imaginable. Let's look at Fast and Furious as a a real conspiracy. They conspired to send guns obtained "illegally" from licensed gun dealers and sent them across the border with Mexico to be sold to druug cartels. They then lost track of these guns until they started turning up at murder sites. To date huindreds have been killed by these weapons and Holder has locked the case down. Now that is a real conspiracy that can be proven and and it was extraordinarily poorly run and covered up. This is government conspiracy at its best and you guys don't even talk about it. Why?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't name one program that they run successfuly

The IRS. That one will never be run unsuccessfully.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So many an explanation for UFOs is given as black projects.........yet it seems black projects could never really exist due to the incompetency directed at the Government.

I think we are very naive if we really believe the Government could not hide things and manipulate both media and the public into believing what they want.

They would only have to employ 30% of the skeptics here and they would have an intelligent team more than capable IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So often when I read threads with extremely different view points (SH for example) it seems the one thing both sides could and should agree on is just simple common sense.

I'm not a structual engineer or a demolition expert but two 1000' buildings falling into their own foot print, which I've witnessed many times watching control demoltion, because of fire.

Or a large jet airliner slamming into the ground floor of a building and leaving a hole much smaller than itself but totally disinigrating in the process.

Or a mass shooting at a school with 400 plus students and no emergency vehicles on site and no pictures of a large evacuation.

Maybe CT's just have slightly more distrusting inquisitive minds and are not as comfortable just believing something their told or excepting and defending the status quo, which in their minds, just doesn't make sense or add up. I mean we all agree that 2+2=4 right? So....................

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite a leap there wouldn't you say? I know for a fact the government lies to us all the time so right away you have proven part of my point. You have made up a story based on your prejusidces and beliefs and then attacked me as if those prejudices and beliefs are fact. Two big lies of teh moment are the lies about the attack in Benghazzi and Fast and Furious. I am sure there are others.

Individuals and groups of indiciviiduals in government lie to cover their asses just as I am sure people at your place of work lie to CYA, so to think everything coming out of the government is the truth would be infantile. At the same time not everything the government says is a lie and not everything thety get wrong is a lie either, sometimes they screw up. yep, teh gigantic all powerful government makes misrtakes, in fact it makes a lot of them.

The government, as a whole, is one of the most incompetently run organizations on earth. I can't name one program that they run successfuly (which begs the question why give them healtcare to run?) a the moment yet CT's continually have them running the most intricately woven conspiracies imaginable. Let's look at Fast and Furious as a a real conspiracy. They conspired to send guns obtained "illegally" from licensed gun dealers and sent them across the border with Mexico to be sold to druug cartels. They then lost track of these guns until they started turning up at murder sites. To date huindreds have been killed by these weapons and Holder has locked the case down. Now that is a real conspiracy that can be proven and and it was extraordinarily poorly run and covered up. This is government conspiracy at its best and you guys don't even talk about it. Why?

Why, because it has been proven, it was poorly run, and the attempted cover up was blown. Whats left to talk about. Obama's pupett holder shut it down and sadly no one in a position to do something about it gives a s**t!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But when you are only using evidence provided by an establishment... it's not your logic, evidence or scutiny is it?

Take Monstanto for instance. All their tests are internal and they make up their own results. The FDA apporved those results. We all think it's ok. lol When in fact it's not and we have just found out because it's went public. So somehting we thought was a fact based on an establishment people trusted with their health was actually not a fact. It was a lie.

This is a prime example of what all the great scientists/people like Tesla and Einstien tried to explain. Yet so many people don't do that. they go on a forum and regurgitate what the goverment or some big name corperation told them. Not something based on logic, evidence and scrutiny.

When using logic, you should logically know that the goverment and big corperations doens't care about people. They care about money, over human life and there is a lot of evidence proving that.

Cherry picking evidence to support a hypothesis is bad science no matter who does it.

What an entity cares about should have NO bearing in evidence.

The emotional issue gets in the way of facts and evidence.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does ODD apply to those obsessed with debunking conspiracy theories or those obsessed with debunking official stories? Because I can see it being applied to both groups. Which kind of makes the first few replies a touch amusing.

Conspiracy guy: Oh yeah this applies to people I know so well, I can't wait for them to show up here!

Official story guy: Yeah they'll be so mad when they see this, it'll be a great laugh!

:P

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking evidence to support a hypothesis is bad science no matter who does it.

What an entity cares about should have NO bearing in evidence.

The emotional issue gets in the way of facts and evidence.

Nibs

Cherry picking, I can supply so much evidence to back all my claims in my post. I will happily do so. My post is based purely on facts.

Of course it does! lol If the Entitiy lies and provides false information then it is not real evidence is it?!

What emotional issue?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cherry picking, I can supply so much evidence to back all my claims in my post. I will happily do so. My post is based purely on facts.

Of course it does! lol If the Entitiy lies and provides false information then it is not real evidence is it?!

What emotional issue?

Unless an individual is able to (knowledge, access and resources) physically test each thing/bit of evidence then some bias will be in their opinion. If an individual doesn't trust an entity then ANY evidence produced by said entity would be suspect and this individual would be more likely to discard the evidence provided regardless of if it is true or not.

Hence peer reviews.

Nibs

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite a leap there wouldn't you say? I know for a fact the government lies to us all the time so right away you have proven part of my point. You have made up a story based on your prejusidces and beliefs and then attacked me as if those prejudices and beliefs are fact. Two big lies of teh moment are the lies about the attack in Benghazzi and Fast and Furious. I am sure there are others.

Individuals and groups of indiciviiduals in government lie to cover their asses just as I am sure people at your place of work lie to CYA, so to think everything coming out of the government is the truth would be infantile. At the same time not everything the government says is a lie and not everything thety get wrong is a lie either, sometimes they screw up. yep, teh gigantic all powerful government makes misrtakes, in fact it makes a lot of them.

The government, as a whole, is one of the most incompetently run organizations on earth. I can't name one program that they run successfuly (which begs the question why give them healtcare to run?) a the moment yet CT's continually have them running the most intricately woven conspiracies imaginable. Let's look at Fast and Furious as a a real conspiracy. They conspired to send guns obtained "illegally" from licensed gun dealers and sent them across the border with Mexico to be sold to druug cartels. They then lost track of these guns until they started turning up at murder sites. To date huindreds have been killed by these weapons and Holder has locked the case down. Now that is a real conspiracy that can be proven and and it was extraordinarily poorly run and covered up. This is government conspiracy at its best and you guys don't even talk about it. Why?

It was YOU who used the term madness, not I.

I merely pointed out that calling people mad for questioning government stories that happen to be full of contradictions is a sign of the times. Calling people 'mad' for questioning government stories provides considerable insight, at least in my opinion.

I did not attack you, I merely pointed out that calling people mad for questioning the government is a sign of the times. How does that attack you?

I agree with your examples regarding F&F and Benghazi, and that makes me all the more curious as to why you believe the nonsensical story regarding the events of 11 September. It is YOU who is being rather inconsistent in your analyses of government stories. You question F&F but accept 19 arabs with box cutters? :cry:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless an individual is able to (knowledge, access and resources) physically test each thing/bit of evidence then some bias will be in their opinion. If an individual doesn't trust an entity then ANY evidence produced by said entity would be suspect and this individual would be more likely to discard the evidence provided regardless of if it is true or not.

Hence peer reviews.

Nibs

If the entity is proven to lie and deceive then nobody should take anything they say as factual. That is not bias, it's common sense and logic.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the entity is proven to lie and deceive then nobody should take anything they say as factual. That is not bias, it's common sense and logic.

You're kind of proving my point right there.

I didn't say anything about what the entity says. I'm saying that tested supportable evidence provided by that entity would be suspect even if the evidence is accurate and supported by others that have the ability to verify the testing.

Nibs

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're kind of proving my point right there.

I didn't say anything about what the entity says. I'm saying that tested supportable evidence provided by that entity would be suspect even if the evidence is accurate and supported by others that have the ability to verify the testing.

Nibs

Oh I get you now,, yeah that's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool, yet another " Skeptics -vs- Believers " topic.......

I say we need cage matches, MMA style......Volunteers only of course.

That would be more entertaining then the same topics over and over.....Plus, there would be tapouts, knockouts, and blood.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool, yet another " Skeptics -vs- Believers " topic.......

I say we need cage matches, MMA style......Volunteers only of course.

That would be more entertaining then the same topics over and over.....Plus, there would be tapouts, knockouts, and blood.

I'm volunteering! :w00t:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cool, yet another " Skeptics -vs- Believers " topic.......

I say we need cage matches, MMA style......Volunteers only of course.

That would be more entertaining then the same topics over and over.....Plus, there would be tapouts, knockouts, and blood.

I don't believe you mean it. Show me the evidence!

WAIT

I think you are just saying that to get me to do something you want me to do. I think you are lying and everyone else is in on it (including bigfoot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm volunteering! :w00t:

OK, it's you vs. Sakari. RIP ouija! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 10

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.