I'd Like To See Your Debunker Credentials, Please.

a reply to: Tangerine

There is no evidence only speculation. Am I egotistic enough to believe there isn't life elsewhere? No I'm not. I wouldn't come here if I was from an advanced civilization either. I hope we get our act together so the Orion women come and take me to their pleasure palace in the stars.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Here's my pic, its genuine, can any ats experts find fault?

It looks like maybe a tripod wasn't used, was it?

On topic, I think Carl Sagan summed it up when he said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That doesn't mean I don't believe aliens might be visiting Earth, it just means I need more than someone saying they saw something to qualify for "extraordinary evidence".

If you see something , that might be sufficient evidence for you, but I'm not sure even that should be the case, given what we know about how we are tricked by optical illusions. For example we've had entire threads debating about whether a photo was a contrail or a missile launch, and everyone was looking at exactly the same thing. Parties on both sides were convinced they were right and this should tell us to not even trust our own observations too much, and I admit my first impression wasn't accurate in that case.

If you haven't seen this explanation of human perception problems as well as extraordinary evidence needs as they relate to UFOs by Niel DeGrasse Tyson, it's worth watching:

Basically he says what I just said...you might have seen something, but that's not really good enough evidence. He suggests stealing the ashtray or something from the alien spaceship you boarded, so you will have a real piece of evidence to back up your abduction experience. If I'm ever abducted, I'll try to do that.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: artistpoet

If anyone wants to try to debunk me, i am all for it. Come visit me and il summon an alien in front of said individual.

I can't garentee they won't get PTSD from the experience tho.

Make a YouTube video!

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
Half of the debunkers are on some gov payroll. It only makes sense to have a team of people offering "explanations" for the phenomena you're trying to cover up/perpetuate.

Are they now? Which half? And how, pray tell, do you know this? The answer is: You don't. In fact, there is no evidence you have ANY credible information AT ALL on this subject. That's why we need debunkers, to "expose BS one turd at a time," like the one you just laid on us.

The problem is more that no one knows what they're doing in debating the subject matter.

www.nizkor.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

And oh my!
there is much more to this!!
Currently we're at the point that the whole UFO topic kinda falls into the "unknowable" category. What we're left with is anecdotal evidence, some alleged physical evidence, observers whose experiences were subjective "absent hard physical evidencee" etc.....

We also have a lack of information as to ALL manmade projects that we need to know, to sort out what could have been not-manmade.

Are most of the debunkers guilty of debating incorrectly? You bet!
Are most believers debating incorrectly? You bet!!

Before pointing fingers maybe EVERYONE needs to learn a little bit about the correct way to debate?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's easier to say this is hard science VS soft science. 98% of the people are asking for hard science, or Exact science, the rest are OK with
less, and believe it or not that's OK.
en.wikipedia.org...

caveat.....there are many more pieces to my argument but it's late and I'm tired.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Here's my pic, its genuine, can any ats experts find fault?

It looks like maybe a tripod wasn't used, was it?

On topic, I think Carl Sagan summed it up when he said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That doesn't mean I don't believe aliens might be visiting Earth, it just means I need more than someone saying they saw something to qualify for "extraordinary evidence".

^^^ This.

That is exactly my position yet I've been accused of being a debunker or even a disinformation agent. I mean really? How juvenile is that?

a reply to: JadeStar
Same kind of picture was posted in this thread. The OP was still convinced it wasn't something ordinary but they had the date set wrong on the camera so trying to check Stellarium for astronomical objects was useless with an inaccurate date, but they admitted the exposure was pretty long and the camera may have moved.

I sold high end consumer cameras part time to pay for college and used them quite a bit myself so I'm very familiar with this effect. Even if a tripod was used, I'd say it was bumped during the exposure, or if you don't use a special cable or other remote shutter release, just the act of pressing the shutter release button can do something like this, even if the camera IS on a tripod.

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: Puppytoven

We should all be debunkers, shouldn't we? That should be our default position, especially in the age of Photoshop, et al.

Only when there is bunk.

a reply to: AnuTyr

I don't even think E.T even know what the white house is to be honest. Every structure is filled with humans almost and that's about as much as they need to know lol. I don't think they care or even understand our politics.

This is simply false. A fleet of flying saucers hovered over the white house and capitol building for three days in 1953. It was very widely reported, witnessed, and photographed. Our military jets pursued them repeatedly.

Research is good.

a reply to: Puppytoven

If you are a debunker, are you able to provide us with reasons why we should believe your conclusions? Can you prove you don't have mental illnesses that might alter your perceptions of reality?

One believes what makes logical sense and is borne out by the evidence. That applies equally to everybody.

Your question ('why should we believe?') suggests that you are unused to analyzing what you are told and weighing the evidence for it. Learn how to assess the statements of others correctly and your question disappears.

Of course, if you did that, you'd be what you call a 'debunker', too...

a reply to: JadeStar

You have a private message.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Puppytoven

OP -- I don't get it what you are asking...

Shouldn't we all strive to NOT take something at face value? Shouldn't we all strive to ask questions about a alleged "fact" before we actually believe it to be a fact? Shouldn't we all be skeptical about what is being presented to us on this forum?

Then again, maybe by "debunker" you mean something else rather than merely "skeptic". A person who automatically debunks things out-of-hand just because they don't believe in (say for example) alien visitation is just as wrong as the blind UFO believer who will believe any and all UFO reports simply becasue they have a pre-existing belief in alien visitation

BOTH of those types of people (automatic debunkers AND blind believers) are equally closed-minded. They believe only what they already a predisposed to believe, and nothing else.

However, if you simply mean a person who expresses a skepticism, and then attempts to use critical thinking, logic, and existing common knowledge of science and nature when looking at a particular UFO report, then I'm not sure why you would need their credentials....

....I mean, anybody can use critical thinking, logic, and common knowledge of science and nature to ask questions about something -- there's no reason to be credentialed to do so.


What I do expect from skeptics/debunkers is that any reason they give for being skeptical should be backed up by sound logic and/or sound science. If they have an issue with a piece of evidence, then they need to give a valid explanation as to why they have and issue with it. Then again, I expect the people who believe a sighting is real to be held to the same level of scrutiny.

Then let me put it this way. To go into the unknown as a skeptic is in a way already forming an opinion about something before even knowing the details or viewing the "proof". Personally, I try to go into unknowns with an open mind to be objective and fair. But to each his own. Obviously there is nothing wrong with asking for things to back up a story or video, but that's not debunking to me. That is gathering more data to reach a conclusion. What I am talking about are the people who like to derail the topic by making it into a "you need help" thread. I'm just saying that if the have the attitude of , why should I believe you, then I think they should be more willing to give us credentials as to why we should believe them? And before anyone wants to say burden of proof and all that, keep in mind that while the burden of proof is on the OP, everyone is also innocent until proven guilty.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Puppytoven

If you are a debunker, are you able to provide us with reasons why we should believe your conclusions? Can you prove you don't have mental illnesses that might alter your perceptions of reality?

One believes what makes logical sense and is borne out by the evidence. That applies equally to everybody.

Your question ('why should we believe?') suggests that you are unused to analyzing what you are told and weighing the evidence for it. Learn how to assess the statements of others correctly and your question disappears.

Of course, if you did that, you'd be what you call a 'debunker', too...

This is a perfect example. Patronizing with an undertone of arrogant hostility. Unnecessarily judgemental and doesn't even explain himself thoroughly.

On matters of 9/11 and building 7, etc.

30 years of commercial construction, many of them with high rise buildings.
Bachelors degree in construction management.
Associates drafting and design.

a reply to: Puppytoven

Only you are seeong that.
He is right.

a reply to: Puppytoven

No credentials are needed, just embrace scientific method and keep your wits about you.

I've had one unidentified object sighting, was more of an unusual flash in the sky, but I didn't know what it was, so the first thing I did was note down every pertinent detail, time, date, location, direction, azimuth, etc etc.

I can go back to that and reference it if I ever need to.

Taking a photo or filming something is all well and good but what use is it if you don't know when it was taken?

in my time on ATS there have only been a handful of sightings that were documented scientifically by members.

You wanna be taken seriously, I suggest you lot up your game.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Puppytoven

Only you are seeong that.
He is right.

Are you saying you can see what everyone else reading this can see? Sounds like mental illness. And if you are mentally ill, then what exactly is he right about?

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: AnuTyr

I don't even think E.T even know what the white house is to be honest. Every structure is filled with humans almost and that's about as much as they need to know lol. I don't think they care or even understand our politics.

This is simply false. A fleet of flying saucers hovered over the white house and capitol building for three days in 1953. It was very widely reported, witnessed, and photographed. Our military jets pursued them repeatedly.

Research is good.

How does a group of unidentified flying objects translate to extraterrestrials?