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

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Puppytoven

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

All right, let me try again.

The Bible says 'judge not', but you cannot go through life safely without making judgements. If you refuse to make moral judgements, you could end up doing wrong. If you refuse to judge the reliability of other people, you could end up bamboozled and penniless (or raped, or dead). If you refuse to judge whether a statement is likely to be true or not, you will waste your whole life investigating lies and trivia, accomplishing nothing.

So, for excellent survival- and sanity-related reasons, we learn to judge the claims other people make. Does a statement make logical sense? Does it fit in well with everything else I know, or believe I know? Is there evidence to support it? Is it evidence I can test for myself, or will I have to take the claimant's word for it? Is there an independent authority I can consult? If I have to go by somebody's word, do they seem trustworthy? Knowledgeable in the subject? Could they have a hidden agenda? Be trying to trick me somehow?

Such, my friend, are the bases on which sensible (and successful) people decide, not only whether a claim is true or not, but even whether it is worth considering or not. Only someone who does not realize this would be foolish enough to ask me what my 'debunking credentials' are. You don't need credentials. You need common sense and a decent survival instinct. As LiveForever8 said, we are all debunkers, or sceptics at least — and Heaven help us if we are not.

Patronizing? Arrogant? Judgemental? Hostile? Only from where you're sitting. Sorry, lad (or lass); the world is a hard place and facts are stubborn. If there was any justice in the world, you'd thank me for my advice and follow in my footsteps.

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you."

An admitted skeptic quoting a book of Faith. I love it.

But if you want to go there...another word for skeptic is doubter. How did the Serpent get Eve? By placing doubt in her.

James 7:1 "6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind."

a reply to: Puppytoven

An admitted skeptic quoting a book of Faith. I love it.

I quoted it, only to show that the advice was not practicable. Don't excite yourself unduly. Did you understand me better this time round, and do you dare admit it if you did? Let's see how closely you cleave to the precepts of your Good Book.

a reply to: Tangerine

(Rolls eyes) Yes. That's exactly what I am implying.

Dude. Stop. Taking yourself (and this forum) so seriously will give you grey hairs.

Testable evidence? By who's standards? Yours? Who are you? Brings me back to my point. I don't owe you anything. I don't need to convince you it happened because I don't care if you believe me. I don't owe the people on this site anything because they have proven to be more interested in arguing than being productive.

I don't come here for validation -- I actually go to experts directly

This thread was about respecting opinions without ridicule. None of us are entitled to anything so this, you-need-to-convince-us crap is just that. I don't need to convince anyone. Because I don't expect help to come from here. I did initially, but that was a long time ago.

A majority of this site is opinion. Opinions are all right and all wrong.

originally posted by: Puppytoven
a reply to: Tangerine

(Rolls eyes) Yes. That's exactly what I am implying.

Dude. Stop. Taking yourself (and this forum) so seriously will give you grey hairs.

Testable evidence? By who's standards? Yours? Who are you? Brings me back to my point. I don't owe you anything. I don't need to convince you it happened because I don't care if you believe me. I don't owe the people on this site anything because they have proven to be more interested in arguing than being productive.

I don't come here for validation -- I actually go to experts directly

This thread was about respecting opinions without ridicule. None of us are entitled to anything so this, you-need-to-convince-us crap is just that. I don't need to convince anyone. Because I don't expect help to come from here. I did initially, but that was a long time ago.

A majority of this site is opinion. Opinions are all right and all wrong.

Testable evidence by scientific standards, of course. Fact is the purview of science and when someone makes a claim of fact they are, defacto, subjecting their claim to the scientific method. No threads are about respecting other people's opinions. You go to church to pretend that you do that sort of thing. On the internet, we know better.

Which experts gave you validation for your opinions about UFOs/alien abductions? Or are you talking about 911?

How would you propose that people be productive on a thread about UFOs/Aliens? That's a serious question.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Puppytoven
a reply to: Tangerine

(Rolls eyes) Yes. That's exactly what I am implying.

Dude. Stop. Taking yourself (and this forum) so seriously will give you grey hairs.

Testable evidence? By who's standards? Yours? Who are you? Brings me back to my point. I don't owe you anything. I don't need to convince you it happened because I don't care if you believe me. I don't owe the people on this site anything because they have proven to be more interested in arguing than being productive.

I don't come here for validation -- I actually go to experts directly

This thread was about respecting opinions without ridicule. None of us are entitled to anything so this, you-need-to-convince-us crap is just that. I don't need to convince anyone. Because I don't expect help to come from here. I did initially, but that was a long time ago.

A majority of this site is opinion. Opinions are all right and all wrong.

Testable evidence by scientific standards, of course. Fact is the purview of science and when someone makes a claim of fact they are, defacto, subjecting their claim to the scientific method. No threads are about respecting other people's opinions. You go to church to pretend that you do that sort of thing. On the internet, we know better.

Which experts gave you validation for your opinions about UFOs/alien abductions? Or are you talking about 911?

How would you propose that people be productive on a thread about UFOs/Aliens? That's a serious question.

This thread is about respecting others opinions. I wrote it.

Which experts are none of your business.

I would propose that we let go of what our science has proven or our technology has achieved. Because there is so much that our science can't explain yet, and there's also a lot that our science has proven but hasn't been made public because of the implications. But if you have a bunch of people only willing to consider a flying saucer, then there is so much they're going to miss.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: amazing
There are quite a few people on ATS that will yell "Rocks!" or tell yell fake, fraud or scammer, before even looking at any of the evidence.

I always get a chuckle out of those people. To debunk something without taking a real look at the evidence is the essence of stupidity.

Perhaps you'd care to cite the actual evidence (not claims, but actual evidence) and exactly what it proves.

Rocks on mars are the best, they'll say...here's an anomaly and then the debunker will yell rock. Sure it could be a rock or a fossil or some mineral that could help future colonists or mining missions...but to yell rock? LOL My response is how much fun these debunkers are a at Geological conferences or events. You can imagine.

Then we'll talk about the possiblity of Aliens coming to Earth and the first response is always, that it's impossible. But that is based on our technology. Going to the moon was impossible a century ago. What might be possible a century from now, a million years from now?

Let's deny ignorance shall we?

Actually, if someone claims there's a coffin, or a jet engine, or a kettle, or whatever, I think 'yelling rock' is quite simply the only viable answer. If one was to accept many of the claims laid out, it would seem that Mars is a junkyard for cast-off Earth crap, or there was an Earthlike civilisation on Mars that has left detritus just about everywhere.

However, some are looking at these 'rocks' in a scientific context, and there may just be the possibility that there is/has been microbial life on Mars. There was a news article today, and I authored a thread regarding just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, this is from photos, which seems to contradict your claims.

a reply to: Puppytoven

If you want to try to match wits and all that then fine. I've got about 8.5 inches.

Eight and a half inches of wits. Well, that explains it, I guess.

Not the biggest, but it's thick.

Your wit is thick? Well, if you say so.

I am not afraid to be judged.

But apparently terrified to answer my question. Did you, or did you not understand what I was trying to explain to you?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Puppytoven

If you want to try to match wits and all that then fine. I've got about 8.5 inches.

Eight and a half inches of wits. Well, that explains it, I guess.

Not the biggest, but it's thick.

Your wit is thick? Well, if you say so.

I am not afraid to be judged.

But apparently terrified to answer my question. Did you, or did you not understand what I was trying to explain to you?

Yes. Thats it exactly. I dont get it. Explain it again please. Make sure you use as many big words as you can because that impresses people.

a reply to: Puppytoven

Have to commend you for that statement. "People on the internet."

"Anonymous user is in a twist and insults me? Big deal!" Exactly, who cares.

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: amazing
There are quite a few people on ATS that will yell "Rocks!" or tell yell fake, fraud or scammer, before even looking at any of the evidence.

I always get a chuckle out of those people. To debunk something without taking a real look at the evidence is the essence of stupidity.

Perhaps you'd care to cite the actual evidence (not claims, but actual evidence) and exactly what it proves.

Rocks on mars are the best, they'll say...here's an anomaly and then the debunker will yell rock. Sure it could be a rock or a fossil or some mineral that could help future colonists or mining missions...but to yell rock? LOL My response is how much fun these debunkers are a at Geological conferences or events. You can imagine.

Then we'll talk about the possiblity of Aliens coming to Earth and the first response is always, that it's impossible. But that is based on our technology. Going to the moon was impossible a century ago. What might be possible a century from now, a million years from now?

Let's deny ignorance shall we?

Actually, if someone claims there's a coffin, or a jet engine, or a kettle, or whatever, I think 'yelling rock' is quite simply the only viable answer. If one was to accept many of the claims laid out, it would seem that Mars is a junkyard for cast-off Earth crap, or there was an Earthlike civilisation on Mars that has left detritus just about everywhere.

However, some are looking at these 'rocks' in a scientific context, and there may just be the possibility that there is/has been microbial life on Mars. There was a news article today, and I authored a thread regarding just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, this is from photos, which seems to contradict your claims.

This is actually something I've been interested in for awhile. I agree with you. They are very interesting, these rocks.

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Am I egotistic enough to believe there isn't life elsewhere? No I'm not.

It doesn't have anything to do with ego or arrogance, as has been repeated a hundred thousand times on this site. It has to do with recognizing the available evidence and trying to objectively assess its quantity and quality.

At this point in history, how many alien species of any kind have we confirmed? Zero. That's not ego or arrogance. That's just a fact. It's not even debunking, unless somebody claims to have proof of that ET life, and they really don't.

Could there be other life in the universe? Since we're here, we could say that it's possible. Could we be the only planet with life on it? That is also possible, since there are singular and unique things in the universe.

originally posted by: Puppytoven

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Puppytoven
a reply to: Tangerine

(Rolls eyes) Yes. That's exactly what I am implying.

Dude. Stop. Taking yourself (and this forum) so seriously will give you grey hairs.

Testable evidence? By who's standards? Yours? Who are you? Brings me back to my point. I don't owe you anything. I don't need to convince you it happened because I don't care if you believe me. I don't owe the people on this site anything because they have proven to be more interested in arguing than being productive.

I don't come here for validation -- I actually go to experts directly

This thread was about respecting opinions without ridicule. None of us are entitled to anything so this, you-need-to-convince-us crap is just that. I don't need to convince anyone. Because I don't expect help to come from here. I did initially, but that was a long time ago.

A majority of this site is opinion. Opinions are all right and all wrong.

Testable evidence by scientific standards, of course. Fact is the purview of science and when someone makes a claim of fact they are, defacto, subjecting their claim to the scientific method. No threads are about respecting other people's opinions. You go to church to pretend that you do that sort of thing. On the internet, we know better.

Which experts gave you validation for your opinions about UFOs/alien abductions? Or are you talking about 911?

How would you propose that people be productive on a thread about UFOs/Aliens? That's a serious question.

This thread is about respecting others opinions. I wrote it.

Which experts are none of your business.

I would propose that we let go of what our science has proven or our technology has achieved. Because there is so much that our science can't explain yet, and there's also a lot that our science has proven but hasn't been made public because of the implications. But if you have a bunch of people only willing to consider a flying saucer, then there is so much they're going to miss.

That's not a very respectful response. Your last sentence makes no sense, but I guess that's your opinion so you're welcome to it. Clearly, you are not interested in conversation which seems to be the intended purpose of these threads, but that's OK, too because we can always choose to not make an attempt to converse with those who don't want their posts discussed.

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: amazing
There are quite a few people on ATS that will yell "Rocks!" or tell yell fake, fraud or scammer, before even looking at any of the evidence.

I always get a chuckle out of those people. To debunk something without taking a real look at the evidence is the essence of stupidity.

Perhaps you'd care to cite the actual evidence (not claims, but actual evidence) and exactly what it proves.

Rocks on mars are the best, they'll say...here's an anomaly and then the debunker will yell rock. Sure it could be a rock or a fossil or some mineral that could help future colonists or mining missions...but to yell rock? LOL My response is how much fun these debunkers are a at Geological conferences or events. You can imagine.

Then we'll talk about the possiblity of Aliens coming to Earth and the first response is always, that it's impossible. But that is based on our technology. Going to the moon was impossible a century ago. What might be possible a century from now, a million years from now?

Let's deny ignorance shall we?

Actually, if someone claims there's a coffin, or a jet engine, or a kettle, or whatever, I think 'yelling rock' is quite simply the only viable answer. If one was to accept many of the claims laid out, it would seem that Mars is a junkyard for cast-off Earth crap, or there was an Earthlike civilisation on Mars that has left detritus just about everywhere.

However, some are looking at these 'rocks' in a scientific context, and there may just be the possibility that there is/has been microbial life on Mars. There was a news article today, and I authored a thread regarding just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, this is from photos, which seems to contradict your claims.

But you should also be open to some of the opposing views and theories. If there was microbial life on mars, billions of years ago, and Mars was full of water and had an atmosphere and a reasonable temperature, you could theorize that intelligent life evolved on Mars. The testable part of that theory, entails looking closely at some of these anomalies, just as an archaeologist would here on earth but without the hands on the ground, only the pictures...that's all we have.

That's the problem with the "...All I see is Rocks!" crowd. You wouldn't yell that at an archaeological dig sight, here on earth would you?

originally posted by: Puppytoven
...I would propose that we let go of what our science has proven or our technology has achieved. Because there is so much that our science can't explain yet, and there's also a lot that our science has proven but hasn't been made public because of the implications. But if you have a bunch of people only willing to consider a flying saucer, then there is so much they're going to miss.

For me, being skeptical isn't about "does it fit our understanding of the world as we know it", but rather being skeptical about a UFO sighting necessarily NOT having any mundane or earthly explanation.

Most of the skepticism of a UFO sightings being anything "extraordinary" (I mean literally something not explainable) has nothing whatsoever to do with not believing the technology exists. Skeptics usually would question a statement such as "that sighting can't possibly be explained in any way other than saying it is ET".

So, Puppytoven, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Skepticism is a necessary part of UFOlogy. Before anyu sighting can be claimed to be unexplained, we must first try to explain it -- and that's where the skeptical critical thinking comes in.

Put it this way -- We should strive to use the scientific method on UFO sightings. A person may make the hypothesis "that sighting may not have an earthly explanation", but then the scientific method should take effect, and that hypothesis needs to be tested. In this case, testing the hypothesis would mean attempting to find all explanations that fit the sighting, and see which of those explanations can withstand scrutiny.

That's what the scientific method does. Science scrutinizing itself and being skeptical about itself, trying to verify or disprove scientific claims being made by other scientists. UFOlogy should not be immune to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: cuckooold

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: amazing
There are quite a few people on ATS that will yell "Rocks!" or tell yell fake, fraud or scammer, before even looking at any of the evidence.

I always get a chuckle out of those people. To debunk something without taking a real look at the evidence is the essence of stupidity.

Perhaps you'd care to cite the actual evidence (not claims, but actual evidence) and exactly what it proves.

Rocks on mars are the best, they'll say...here's an anomaly and then the debunker will yell rock. Sure it could be a rock or a fossil or some mineral that could help future colonists or mining missions...but to yell rock? LOL My response is how much fun these debunkers are a at Geological conferences or events. You can imagine.

Then we'll talk about the possiblity of Aliens coming to Earth and the first response is always, that it's impossible. But that is based on our technology. Going to the moon was impossible a century ago. What might be possible a century from now, a million years from now?

Let's deny ignorance shall we?

Actually, if someone claims there's a coffin, or a jet engine, or a kettle, or whatever, I think 'yelling rock' is quite simply the only viable answer. If one was to accept many of the claims laid out, it would seem that Mars is a junkyard for cast-off Earth crap, or there was an Earthlike civilisation on Mars that has left detritus just about everywhere.

However, some are looking at these 'rocks' in a scientific context, and there may just be the possibility that there is/has been microbial life on Mars. There was a news article today, and I authored a thread regarding just that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yes, this is from photos, which seems to contradict your claims.

But you should also be open to some of the opposing views and theories. If there was microbial life on mars, billions of years ago, and Mars was full of water and had an atmosphere and a reasonable temperature, you could theorize that intelligent life evolved on Mars. The testable part of that theory, entails looking closely at some of these anomalies, just as an archaeologist would here on earth but without the hands on the ground, only the pictures...that's all we have.

That's the problem with the "...All I see is Rocks!" crowd. You wouldn't yell that at an archaeological dig sight, here on earth would you?

Microbial life would have little reason to emulate Egyptian architecture.

And when you look closely at some of those "anomalies" they are not so anomalous. Case in point, the face, cydonia pyramids. Doesn't take hands on the ground to conclude that there isn't a single dead terrestrial rat or bigfoot on the surface, or a "Celtic Cross" the size of a phillips head screw on a rock. The anomaly hunters see everything from human legs to iguanas in the rubble. It's little wonder they are met with instant skepticism.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
Am I egotistic enough to believe there isn't life elsewhere? No I'm not.

It doesn't have anything to do with ego or arrogance, as has been repeated a hundred thousand times on this site. It has to do with recognizing the available evidence and trying to objectively assess its quantity and quality.

At this point in history, how many alien species of any kind have we confirmed? Zero. That's not ego or arrogance. That's just a fact. It's not even debunking, unless somebody claims to have proof of that ET life, and they really don't.

Could there be other life in the universe? Since we're here, we could say that it's possible. Could we be the only planet with life on it? That is also possible, since there are singular and unique things in the universe.

Okay, confirmed? Give me a break.

What is valid proof for you? More importantly, what does the word "fact" mean to you?

It seem that everything is either opinion, a hoax, or the person who relates proof is not credible. Show them cave paintings and they will agree with depictions, until there's any reference of alien life. Then everything is a hoax. "How do we know what the person is drawing?" Well, why is it accepted as historical until they start drawing alien craft? Then the entire translation and it gets bigger each time. First the drawing is in question then the person who made the translation is in question, then the entire method of recording history is in question, then archaeology in general is in questioned. And all these people who have published work or discovered artifacts are hacks.

"Well, if you can provide me with credible proof then blah blah blah." WHO ARE YOU?!? That's my point. These people don't have to convince you. These people are distinguished academics and scientists in some cases who have published work. Those who have made some of the greatest discoveries were first laughed at and made fun of. In some cases locked up. And all this, "that's the way the world is" crap -- it's pretty much a cop out. That's like saying get with the program because everyone else is doing it.

Comedian Russel Brand sums it up by saying, "My cat doesn't believe in the internet. That doesn't mean there is no internet."

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Puppytoven
...I would propose that we let go of what our science has proven or our technology has achieved. Because there is so much that our science can't explain yet, and there's also a lot that our science has proven but hasn't been made public because of the implications. But if you have a bunch of people only willing to consider a flying saucer, then there is so much they're going to miss.

For me, being skeptical isn't about "does it fit our understanding of the world as we know it", but rather being skeptical about a UFO sighting necessarily NOT having any mundane or earthly explanation.

Most of the skepticism of a UFO sightings being anything "extraordinary" (I mean literally something not explainable) has nothing whatsoever to do with not believing the technology exists. Skeptics usually would question a statement such as "that sighting can't possibly be explained in any way other than saying it is ET".

So, Puppytoven, I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Skepticism is a necessary part of UFOlogy. Before anyu sighting can be claimed to be unexplained, we must first try to explain it -- and that's where the skeptical critical thinking comes in.

Put it this way -- We should strive to use the scientific method on UFO sightings. A person may make the hypothesis "that sighting may not have an earthly explanation", but then the scientific method should take effect, and that hypothesis needs to be tested. In this case, testing the hypothesis would mean attempting to find all explanations that fit the sighting, and see which of those explanations can withstand scrutiny.

That's what the scientific method does. Science scrutinizing itself and being skeptical about itself, trying to verify or disprove scientific claims being made by other scientists. UFOlogy should not be immune to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

I very much agree but the problem is that most of the people seriously interested in UFOs belong to the Church of ET and approach the topic like religion. They do not want their beliefs questioned or challenged and demand that their beliefs be accepted as fact. When they get a response that doesn't fall in line with that, they don't have the benefit of threatening to have their god hurl lightning bolts at us or roast us in Hell for eternity so they pitch hissy fits. I predict that, at some point, as the Church of ET evolves into a fully-formed religion they will start threatening us with retribution from their favorite aliens and accuse those who don't knuckle under to being agents of the Reptoids or whatever.

a reply to: Puppytoven

"How do we know what the person is drawing?" Well, why is it accepted as historical until they start drawing alien craft?

what does an alien craft look like?

originally posted by: amazing
...That's the problem with the "...All I see is Rocks!" crowd. You wouldn't yell that at an archaeological dig sight, here on earth would you?

It depends on the claim being made about the picture. An Astrobiologist wouldn't claim "Definitely Life!" just by looking at the pictures of rocks from Mars that look ostensibly like skulls or bones, or pictures where people say "that is too square/straight/right angular to be natural"

However, more mundane-looking pictures, such as this one that looks like it may possible have signs of an ancient microbial mat, may raise interesting questions among scientists, but be something that most ATSers never even gave much thought to (maybe because it doesn't look like a monster skull, helmet, statue, thigh bone, or have straight lines that they claim could have only been artificially made):