Rennes-le-Château

Debunking for Dummies


Here are 10 tips for becoming a good Debunker.


1.) Make broad sweeping statements like "the all of Franch" or "all legitimate historians" or "the majority of scholars". Ad agencies have been using tricks like these for years to help sell their products. The best known to these being the infamous "9 out of 10 (insert authoritive group name here) recommend".

2.) Quote dead people. This way there is no chance of anybody questioning that person to find out whether or not they really made the statement.

3.) When questioned on a point, were you have no proof to back-up your claim, trying changing the subject and throw out a bunch of unrelated facts. This way you look as if you've answered the question by confusing the reader and making them have to try and figure out whether or not you did. It's a good idea to start asking unrelated question at this point to try and make the reader forget what the original question was.

4.) Call the opponents point of view pseudo-science or pseudo-history. This gives the impression that what you are spewing forth is proven science or factual history.

5.) Quote statements by other debunkers as if they are proven facts. This works especially well if the other debunkers work has been published, then not only use his name, but the book title as well.

6.) When losing a debate, try calling your opponent names. Call into question his character and his motives. This serves 2 purposes, It not only helps change the subject, it angers your opponent into saying worst things back, about you. You can then take the high road and claim the person can't take the heat and is just angry because they are losing the debate.

7.) Of course if there is a really hard question, that you cannot answer, the best thing to do is completely ignore it as if it were never asked. Never admit that you don't know the answer, if anything, use the "I will have to look into" routine.

8.) Keep repeating what little evidence you may have, that supports your case, the more often you say it, the better chance you have that somebody will believe it.

9.) State that evidence does exist, but place it in a hard to reach location. Some obscure book in some foreign language always works well. Then you can say the people of that country have known the facts for years. In this way, you can also claim, the information is being covered up by the pseudo-historians, who don't want the truth to be known.

10.) Use the lack of contrary evidence, as proof your opinion is correct. This is called "winning by default" or there is no proof that what I am say is wrong, therefore, it must be write.


See, who says we can't learn anything from Le Popol.

Jim Beck's "evidence" for his goofball fantasies are the figments of Plantard and de Cherisey's imaginations. Had Plantard and De Chersiey never been born Jim Beck would never have created any of his goofball boloney. Jim Beck relies entirely on Plantard and de Cherisey fantasies in order to produce fantasies of his own.

LOL

A PERFECT DESCRIPTION OF JIM BECK WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND HOW TO THINK PROPERLY

The debunkers anthem
Sung to Gilbert & Sullivan. "I am the very model of a modern Major
General".

I am the very model of the Art of trite debunkery.
Why give something my attention rather perform my own perfunctory.
The reason that I do it is an inner fear of ridicule
It's easier to scoff at than to use it as a knowledge tool.

The mindless, dumb acceptance of a common line philosophy
Is easier to embrace than to have people making fun of me.
I always hold allegiance to the common mindless knowledge pool
By giving my twopenneth with a well placed line of ridicule.

Who cares if I learn something that will make me understand
Rather continue blind acceptance of the knowledge found at hand.
Why I may indeed complain that my subject base is bogging down.
But then why rock the boat again and be taken once more to be a clown.

I'm am of course a coward but then it seems that there are lots of us.
Who climb on things we're told to like commuters on an omnibus.
If I should then see something which will make me see things differently
Why I must cover my eyes and ears again in case I then catch sophistry

I delude myself I'm winning because my comrades come in helping me,
The fact that they are yesmen is of course a triviality.
I can use the groupthink cushion by which I gain my confidence
and bolster up my ego in a melee of supercillience.

I care nothing of the motives of the shakers and the movers
Or whether they know something which in knowledge may improve us.
Or whether they have knowledge of which our science may not know.
It really makes me nervous when they break the status quo.

It matters not to me whether the things these people say
Are important and have caused our lives to take a different way,
Or even if our historians are just giving us legenda,
Or whether many deaths are caused by an alternative agenda.

And last I must not forget my use of straw men and of pedantry
and concentrate on 'how' rather than 'what' it is which people say.
By doing this I can of course divert attention to the irrelevant
and give observers the impression of the allusion to white elephant.


© roscoe

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

You're just another nutcase. Another example of distorted reasoning.
CAN GO AROUND AND AROUND WITH YOU AND IT WILL NOT GET ANYWHERE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO THINK PROPERLY.

Check out Zen and the Art of Debunkery by Daniel Drasin

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

This is Jim Beck's continuous agenda on this Messageboard in a nutshell.
There is no longer any need to read any of his messages ever again.
Just keep looking this up for reference.

:

rennes17 a écrit:

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

Irrelevent; There is no proof that a tomb did not exist there in Poussin's day.

rennes17 a écrit:

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

You only have to look at it and of course it is overlooked by Rennes le Chateau.

rennes17 a écrit:

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

De Cherisey admitted to finding a SOLUTION to the code. There is NO instance where de Cherisey admitted to writing BOTH the original parchments.

rennes17 a écrit:

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

Jean Luc Chaumeil is KNOWN to have attempted to sell a fake document in the past. He can no longer be trusted.

rennes17 a écrit:

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

You've already done this one . See answer to 1 & 2

rennes17 a écrit:

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

The parchments can be deemed genuine if a solution can be made that leads to discoveries previously unknown. When they were made is smoke and mirrors and totally irrelevent. Watch this space.

rennes17 a écrit:

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

You have discredited NOTHING of theirs. Examples please?

rennes17 a écrit:

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

Even your other guru Pierre Jarnac disagrees with this.

rennes17 a écrit:

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

You keep repeating the insults because we regard this as victory and an indication that all reasoned argument has been wrenched from you.

_________________
"In the Aude, the peasants rather believe in the malignant spirit, the fairies and the underground geniuses than with the Virgin and the Angels”

JIM BECK'S TEN COMMANDMENTS

1. The Louis Lawrence Tomb was really the "Poussin Tomb"

2. Forget about Adrien Bourrel's testimony that the Louis Lawrence Tomb was built in 1933. That was a lie and Pierre Jarnac cannot be trusted.

3. Don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to the Louis Lawrence Tomb being the "Poussin Tomb" outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

4. The parchments are genuine - don't worry if you cannot find any independent references to them outside of Pierre Plantard and Philippe de Cherisey.

5. None of Jean-Luc Chaumeil's documented archive relating to the "parchments" can be trusted because he once tried to pull Henry Lincoln's leg over a Rumanian treasure.

6. Believing that the Louis Lawrence tomb was a "Poussin tomb" without any evidence and ignoring the testimony of Adrien Bourrel is sensible and is not to be deemed pseudo-history

7. Believing that the "parchments" are genuine without providing any evidence and ignoring the archive of Jean-Luc Chaumeil is sensible and not to be deemed pseudo-history.

8. Quote the spurious and questionable statements made by people like Dan Brown, Henry Lincoln and Picknett & Prince as if they were historical facts. When their spurious statements are challenged and seen to be discredited, begin to rubbish the nature of debunking.

9. There is a Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. The source of Sauniere's wealth cannot be explained. The evidence of Sauniere's notebooks is to be ignored because it is impossible that he acquired his wealth from the selling of masses. It does not matter about the Trial between Berenger Sauniere and the Carcassonne Bishopric and what evidence that produced.

10. Keep repeating points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 always rubbishing debunking in the process.

This is Jim Beck's continuous agenda on this Messageboard in a nutshell.
There is no longer any need to read any of his messages ever again.
Just keep looking this up for reference.