Skeptic Project

Actually, both of those are on my to do list, but because they were requested, they get moved closer to the top now ;-)

So I decided to resurrect the oldest topic on the entire site.

Resources:

http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/codex/<br /> http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-projects-codex-alimentarius/<br /> http://conspiracyscience.com/forums/topic/codex-alimentarius</p>

http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/wiki-projects-chemtrails/

Site needs porn.

"I think I may have other transcripts, interested in getting the ball rolling on some debunkin'? "

Yeah... I mean, I can certainly try. Got finals and shit coming up, but I also have a 2 month long winter break after that so I might be able to make some ground then.

I'll probably need help though!

Yes, I'm going to try to do some more things for the site, now that I have slightly more time, but I still don't have debunk-entire-movie time.

+ America Destroyed by Design
+ Endgame
+ Fall of the Republic
+ Police State 2000
+ TerrorStorm
+ Truth Rising

I may be in over my head, but I'll ask anyway.

Will you go about Debunking Z3 when it comes out if I make and send you the transcript for it?

@duncanlecombre I agree with that but if that's true I suppose debunking what he presents as fact or one side of the information by presenting the other side of the coin will be a form of debunking. A example would be: All private prisons are bad. Therefore I have heard of a few private prisons that are good yet peter ignores that information and continues with his stance that all private prisons are bad. Not only has new information been given to him that would say otherwise to debunk what he just said but it shows how he ignores the new information and continues to deceive or lie that all private prisons are bad.

If Peter provides any statistical figure and makes up his own hypothesis well then that can be debunk as well. If Peter decides to get some experts with credentials and they go up and give some stats or information but not in their given field that is ground for debunk. If this experts is a expert in a his given field yet says something off the wall that is certainty ground for debunk.

If peter is in fact vague in what he says then a debunk would be to find more information about his vagueness and to see if their needs to be a debunk based on only telling half truths, or again not providing enough information or the other side of the coin. Bottom line is his movie isn't based on conspiracy theories it won't be popular and it will more than likely be a bit of a bore.

Site needs moar pr0n

I would like to see some Pearl Harbor conspiracies debunked. I had a teacher in high school, who was a very good teacher, however she bought into Pearl Harbor conspiracies as well as many about FDR.

Lots of good ideas in this thread.

* Yes, if you send me a transcript, I will debunk anything incorrect in it, if there is anything incorrect at all. Including stats, etc.

* Yes, titty videos are awesome.

* A lot of the Pearl Harbor stuff was debunked across some Alex Jones articles and Z1, but it needs to be in its own article.

* I need to make a request article page where people can submit and I can keep track of shit.