The hatred of debunkers

Bull#e...
Speculation is speculation...when called for by the OP there is no need to then dismiss the whole subject because it doesn't fit your particular world views......
Calls for such skylarking are not calls for pseudo intellectual bashing of the entire subject with the generally accepted crap commonly held by those who wish to cling to science as if its God or something.....

Time and again Science has debunked itself only to change the story again with the next debunk......
Let me exemplify- www.abovetopsecret.com...

I posted a speculative question....are the ancient stone circles we see across the globe perhaps the result of the appearance of ancient crop circles?


The #storm of crop circle debunkers was soon to follow with their denial that crop circles may be formed by other than human forces......thread was DOA with the crap that flew about the reality of the circles instead of the discussion I was trying to promote.....nuff said....and im still pissed about it too.....

These people seem to want to brow beat the concept, shoot the messenger, and puff up their own smarmy self image as
some kind of genius rationalists....whist hiding behind the guise of being rationalists they try to disallow any speculative endeavours counter to their own paradigm......even to the point of ignoring the original OP.....

Now honest debunking is nessessary for the refinement of ideas but that's the crap one has to wade through to explore
novel concepts.....but dismissal out of hand seems to be the debunkers specialty along with the belittling of the poster if factys get bandied about.....
The debunkers follow the same proceedures as outlined by the UFO researcher and physicist who started the whole Roswell investigation.....(I forget his name atm)

When a premise is stated for discussion its a given the subject is experimental and the skylarking of ideas is called for not debunking with predjudice......
Why should debunkers be allowed this breach of T%C to derail discussion........?

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: network dude

Some of us don't have the time to be on ATS 24 hours a day trying to shoot down other peoples' ideas.

The fact that some of us have to go out and make money and can't reply to every nitpicking "debunker" makes us cowards,huh?

That's news to me.

Not at all. My point is to when someone asks a question in a thread, and another person takes the time to reply and puts thought into that reply, if you just ignore it, it's rude. And if you pop into a thread just to throw a jab, then run away, in my eye's, that's cowardly. Like a sucker punch or a drive by shooting. I fully understand some folks have work to do. Some of us don't have much these days.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

You can't have a discussion about the factual uses of a made-up phenomenon. This is the sort of thing anti-debunkers are defending.

I also think there are posts that dedunkers/disbelievers should just stay away from, and yours is a good example. If I had a post called "Tell me your real life ghost story" I do not think it is proper for someone to try to debunk every post in this case.

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

a reply to: network dude

Also-I keep hearing posters talk about paid shills (shillers?) going in and derailing threads.

How do we know that some of these "debunkers" aren't actually from gov entities trying to do the same thing when an op gets too close to the truth about things like alien life/encounters?

Something to think about.

(Oh-and before someone refers to my short responses as "cowardly"-I am the son of a career Marine and grew up around almost nothing but military personnel.My normal speech would get me banned for life from ATS-out of respect for the website and the fun posters-I have to shorten my posts.Sometimes I start to slip-like right now-so you guys are lucky to get two or three extremely self censored comments out of me.)

a reply to: stirling

This is generalizing a population. There are just as many believers who do the same things to debunkers. Not all debunking arguments are valid. Some really ARE nonsensical, and debunkers are human too. They will get emotional about things.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
How do we know that some of these "debunkers" aren't actually from gov entities trying to do the same thing when an op gets too close to the truth about things like alien life/encounters?

You'd think the government, if trying to cover something up, would be GLAD to have silly daydreams posted about it and not so much hard scrutiny of the data.

In which case, it's much more likely that the BUNKERS are the shills than the de-bunkers.

What are they paying you, FalcoFan?

a reply to: ATF1886

If you saw that as belittling you, I do apologize. Asking someone to prove a negative isn't really possible.
It was meant as information, not mean spirited. Again, sorry to have upset you.

One other point that gets ignored in debunking is that one can also debunk a real event that was witnessed and is what we are refering too as fact.

So often we forget that even without the debate the fact is that our acceptence of the pros and cons or how they are presented can not change the actual event itself even if at the end of the debate we are steered toward the wrong answer.

We really do not know much for sure.

In that sense debunking could be used to present an altered version of reality to us.

a reply to: FalcoFan

It makes more sense that the paid shills would try to plant as many different stories out there to distract from the real truth by burying it in BS. Clearly, blatant denialism is obvious.

originally posted by: stirling
Bull#e...
Speculation is speculation...when called for by the OP there is no need to then dismiss the whole subject because it doesn't fit your particular world views......
Calls for such skylarking are not calls for pseudo intellectual bashing of the entire subject with the generally accepted crap commonly held by those who wish to cling to science as if its God or something.....

Time and again Science has debunked itself only to change the story again with the next debunk......
Let me exemplify.....

I posted a speculative question....are the ancient stone circles we see across the globe perhaps the result of the appearance of ancient crop circles?

The #storm of crop circle debunkers was soon to follow with their denial that crop circles may be formed by other than human forces......thread was DOA with the crap that flew about the reality of the circles instead of the discussion I was trying to promote.....nuff said....and im still pissed about it too.....

These people seem to want to brow beat the concept, shoot the messenger, and puff up their own smarmy self image as
some kind of genius rationalists....whist hiding behind the guise of being rationalists.

Now honest debunking is nessessary for the refinement of ideas but that's the crap one has to wade through to explore
novel concepts.....but dismissal out of hand seems to be the debunkers specialty along with the belittling of the poster if factys get bandied about.....
The debunkers follow the same proceedures as outlined by the UFO researcher and physicist who started the whole Roswell investigation.....(I forget his name atm)

When a premise is stated for discussion its a given the subject is experimental and the skylarking of ideas is called for not debunking with predjudice......
Why should debunkers be allowed this breach of T%C to derail discussion........?

If there is a fiction forum on this site, that is where one should be posting things that are purely speculative and/or based in no way in reality. Your wholesale rejection of science in this post either puts you firmly in the category of delusional, or novelist. If you want to have a conversation about fantasy, that remains in fantasy, then the realm of fiction is what you're looking for. Otherwise, don't be surprised when someone holds your toes to the fire when you make highly speculative claims.

originally posted by: intrptr
Half the time I am like, should I even bother posting? Because if somebody doesn't cut through the BS then next time a thread will appear that begins, "Now that we have established the veracity of Pyramid Power…"

and down the road the multiple threads on it are used as "proof" of Pyramid Power and oh, by the way where were you?

Now guess who's ignorant?

But on the other side how does one debunk something like faith? I drives me crazy when people get into those debates to debunk


Here is another one...

The Earth is a lot older than 6000-10,000 years, get over it!

If one is a debunker this is an extremely ignorant statement to create a post about.

In a similar post I put forth this and it seems most did not get my point that none of these theories can be proved or disproved..

There is no such thing as contradiction when dealing with something not in the present.


Last Thursdayism (sometimes Last Tuesdayism or Last Wednesdayism) refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older. It forms both a philosophical point about how our observations may not match with "reality" and a reductio ad absurdum of some young-Earth creationist ideas; if the world was created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being made billions of years ago, what stops us simply claiming it was made last Thursday in the same manner?

Last Thursdayism can not be proven as false, so there is no contradictions.

originally posted by: Nyiah
EDIT: Stupid quote system glitching...

ATF, refer to the edit in my previous post. In the thread you linked, attempting to back yourself here, you made a claim and refused to provide proof of said claim. You failed Claim Making 101 right there, and you're ripping the OP for it? The OP's post is more than valid in this context.

And like I said the original issue was not me and op it was me and another poster if op would have never
thrown in his two cents then it would be me and the guitar guy it had nothing to do with network dude.

Now if I made a statement and the original woulda Ben network dude I would provided him the proper info so no I'm not wrong when network dude jumped in as a third party and with an insult at that I did the same in return.

I'm not going to refute this point less circle with you or dude I stand on what I said like it or not.

a reply to: network dude

There's nothing wrong with debunkers except when they regurgitate supposed facts that have been proven false, or pick and choose just one portion of an event and ignore the other facts of the case. For every article debunking an event, I can find the same number of articles debunking skeptic claims. You will never have definite proof. You're either a believer or a non-believer.

Deny ignorance is fine as long as it clearly explains away a hoaxed video or sighting. Saying it's CGI or a lens flare is sometimes an easy way out to call a video a hoax. If you want to deny ignorance, line your ducks up in a row and prove your case, but don't leave no stone upturned.

Some ATS members have clearly proven hoaxes, but others clearly want to deny every possibility that's presented without facts. Skeptics and even scientists don't have all the answers. Mysteries of this physical world and the universe are constantly being discovered with no concrete scientific answers. Heck, the jury is still out on how or who built the pyramids.

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: network dude

Also-I keep hearing posters talk about paid shills (shillers?) going in and derailing threads.

How do we know that some of these "debunkers" aren't actually from gov entities trying to do the same thing when an op gets too close to the truth about things like alien life/encounters?

Something to think about.

(Oh-and before someone refers to my short responses as "cowardly"-I am the son of a career Marine and grew up around almost nothing but military personnel.My normal speech would get me banned for life from ATS-out of respect for the website and the fun posters-I have to shorten my posts.Sometimes I start to slip-like right now-so you guys are lucky to get two or three extremely self censored comments out of me.)

Not sure why you took offence to my post, but it sure wasn't meant for you.

Even if the debunker was a highly paid government shill who makes 236,000 a year to post on ATS, ignore that fact and focus on what they say. Can you dispute it? Is it garbage? Don't make it personal. And please tell your father Semper Fi. I have a lot of respect for marines.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
So questioning if that lady the person saw in the window was really just a malfunctioning light or something? Or maybe that disembodied voice was the wind traveling down a unique section of hallway creating interesting acoustics? Those aren't valid things to ask after hearing a personal ghost story?

We should all just go "Cool story bro! Here's a star!"?

I call it hijacking the original intent of the what the OP is wanting to do. I'm not saying all situations are black or white, I'm suggesting that one should look at the intent and if you want to take it a different direction then start your own OP about how ghost are not real.

a reply to: AshOnMyTomatoes
Did you read the introduction to the thread? Are you seriously saying the grey area is not the place to post the speculative ? get lost....You are dismissing out of hand with NO knowledge of your subject....
Just exactly what is complained about.....

a reply to: Xtrozero

Questioning someone's shaky story is hijacking the thread? So you really do want to just tell ghost stories and have an echo chamber of back slaps and stars.

originally posted by: ATF1886

originally posted by: Nyiah
EDIT: Stupid quote system glitching...

ATF, refer to the edit in my previous post. In the thread you linked, attempting to back yourself here, you made a claim and refused to provide proof of said claim. You failed Claim Making 101 right there, and you're ripping the OP for it? The OP's post is more than valid in this context.

And like I said the original issue was not me and op it was me and another poster if op would have never
thrown in his two cents then it would be me and the guitar guy it had nothing to do with network dude.

Now if I made a statement and the original woulda Ben network dude I would provided him the proper info so no I'm not wrong when network dude jumped in as a third party and with an insult at that I did the same in return.

I'm not going to refute this point less circle with you or dude I stand on what I said like it or not.

GuitarPlayer did ask if you had stats to back your claim up. You asked if he had stats of his own to disprove it. NetworkGuy asked you to not be the Negative Proof guy. Your very next post afterward was you acting cocky & jerky about it. Your final posts in the thread had no proof whatsoever. So if you are trying to say you would have given GuitarPlayer the statistical proof he asked for, you would have? When? Next year?

You have no leg to stand on, period. You were an ass, even when the same person you claim to be willing to provide proof to had ASKED for it. You're digging yourself a nice hole, keep at it.

a reply to: network dude

My signature speaks volumes , i will argue black was white all day long

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

Why is it not proper for someone to try and help explain what happened to someone when they thought they saw a ghost? Why shouldn't a paranormal experience be subject to scrutiny?

Why is it proper? I'm sure there is a proper way to do it, but that is not always the case. How does a atheist properly go into the Religious forum and tell everyone that there is no God, when it is all based on faith anyways?

There are two separate issues here. 1. The person relating the story (presumably) DID experience a thing. Fine. But 2. Just because they experienced a thing, does not make them correct about the assumptions they made about the thing they experienced.

And they experienced it, not you, so kind of hard for you to put facts into it all. As I said, there is a way to help them, or there is a way to just debate that one does not believe in ghost and so one will attack every post.