On Debunkers

Originally posted by FireMoon
You singularly fail to understand the term debunker is and always has been, a pejorative one that is used to classify a particular bunch of hard core fanatics

Heh, maybe here it is.

Everywhere else in the public circles/forums debunkers are welcome, and it is the "believer" crowd that get all the scrutiny - as they should. Well, as *both* should anyway.

Let's just ignore the labels for now, and try to find out if any actual or useful evidence for the ETH exists before getting ahead of everything or drawing lines in the sand. Truth doesn't choose sides.

reply to post by Adept_Zero


I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to say there. Yes, truth is blind and Klass was, at times, an outright liar and he was a debunker. Debunkers have only one interest in the truth, the truth as they demand it should be.

When Klass couldn't attack the message, ala Shag harbour and the Valentich disappearance, he'd just make up lies about the people involved.

What is unbelievably patronising is the idea that you need debunkers to counter the believers. it also completely wrong. Debunkers and believers do nothing but reinforce each other's extreme position because both have only one interest. The truth as they see it. The debunkers/believers debate is the equivalent of trench warfare in World War 1. A pointless confrontation that is going nowhere and wastes a huge amount of resources and time. Where progress is measured in inches at a completely pointless cost.

reply to post by Hitotsumami

To explain a bit further, I'll use an example. If someone posts a video of a light in the sky, a believer may claim that it is a UFO. Claiming it is a UFO (unidentified flying object, not alien related) is fine, since that's basically saying "I don't know what it is." That person is not making any particular claim. However, once a person gives a UFO further properties, as being government or alien in origin, then it can be questioned. A debunker may put forth that it's possibly a balloon.
Now, why is a balloon a more believable idea rather than an alien spacecraft? That should be common sense. We have indisputable proof that balloons exist and are let go to fly in the sky every day. We do not have that level of evidence to support aliens are flying around in our skies. Thus, if you choose to take a side, it is more appropriate to believe the one that is more possible rather than the other.

That is all true except, until the skeptics PROVE it was a ballon then it is still a UFO..

That is my issue with many skeptics..
Many put forward a theory without proof and expect it to be accepted as fact..

To me it remains a UFO (not ET) until proven otherwise.
Many skeptics find that hard to accept..

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
(snip)

A debunker is anyone that through efficient research has proven a claim to be false.

I'm a debunker but I'm primarily a skeptc. I don't debunk everything, only that which matters to me or is something I'm involved with. As an example, in 2009 I joined a thread showing a photo promoted by Hoagland with the claim that it contained "Crystal Towers" or "Crystalline Ruins". I didn't buy it and my research proved that the photo used was that of a lunar crater showing the crater walls with landslides. Hoagland had simply turned the photo upside down and claimed the landslides as being lunar towers.

Also in 2009 I debunked another photo being claimed as showing a Martian "opening" (from Filer's Files). Again, a little research proved the "opening" to be a pyramid-shaped mountain.

So, you see anyone can be a debunker if they come up against something they feel is not what it is claimed to be and devotes time to a litte revealing research. Debunking is not a job, it's just a temporary activity that results in satisfaction.

Originally posted by FireMoon
You singularly fail to understand the term debunker is and always has been, a pejorative one that is used to classify a particular bunch of hard core fanatics who are happy to dream up the most ridiculous explanations, that often make the ET hypothesis looks mainstream, in order to attempt to confirm a wholly biased closed loop, belief system.

You have no concept of what debunking is. Were Sagan and others "fanatics" when their research showed that the Betty Hill "star map" was not as claimed by Marjorie Fish? Debunking can be done by anyone if the need is recognized and the person is up to it mentally.

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
Thanks for the response!

You're welcome.

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
However, a believer might be convinced not because they want to be, but because of an actual experience.

That's a different category all together. Once you've seen something that can be classified as a UFO or a paranormal event, and you have enough integrity not to doubt yourself, or at least conclude that you're not crazier than anyone else in this (crazy) world, then it's no longer a question of belief. You know what you saw.

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
I thought a debunker is a person who debunks, attempts to show that a claim is false, or offers another more possible explanation. I also don't think a debunker is a debunker 100% of the time. Perhaps a particular case will prove to be unknowable, or absolutely true, and thus there is nothing to debunk.

No, that's what I explicitly pointed out to be not true (according to my opinion). Once you set out to disprove something that you have concluded to be not true, then you're not applying a scientific approach. You're as intellectually or emotionally biased as the person who sets out to prove something is true. As scientific approach is neutral and nothing else. "A more possible explanation"? The whole phrase reeks of intellectual bias.

Imagine if the nuclear physicists at CERN set out to prove that the Higgs boson does not exist, then related only to the data that supported the non-existence, and ignored any data that indicated the contrary. They would automatically disqualify themselves for the job.

A debunker is simply someone that sets out to prove something is wrong.

Originally posted by Hitotsumami
Is the best way to figure out something to say what something is not based on evidence, or to say what something is based on the evidence? If I have a red cup, do I prove it is a red cup by showing it's not an elephant, a planet, a blade of grass, and so on? Or do I prove it is a red cup by demonstrating it is so by letting your sense observe it?

If approaching an unexplained phenomenon (which science often is about), then the best method of approach (to my knowledge) is the process of elimination, yes.

You can use a working hypothesis if you think you know what you're dealing with, and if you turn out to be right you've gained time, whereas if you turn out to be wrong, you will have lost time.

Let me give you a tangible example from daily life. At the university where I work, we have two technicians serving our equipment. Let's call them Mr. X and Mr. Y. Whenever there's a problem with the equipment, we call in one or the other.

Mr. X generally takes a quick look at the problem, then says "I know what that is, I've had that problem before." He fixes it in ten minutes and then goes off to do something else. Later we often have to call him back, because we still have the same problem with the equipment. He thought he fixed it but he didn't, because his understanding of the problem was wrong.

Mr. Y has a different approach. When we ask him what the problem is, he says "I don't know, let's see". He starts tinkering with the equipment. A while later he mumbles "Hm, I might be on to something", but half an hour later, he goes "Nope it wasn't that, then what can it be?". He changes his approach, but another half an hour later he says "Damn, it wasn't that either, I need a cup of coffee to figure this one out!".

Mr. Y is much slower in his work and he sometimes drives me insane, but the thing is, when he finally gets the job done it stays done, whereas Mr. X gets it wrong one out of two times and often creates a bigger mess than he set out to fix.

Originally posted by FireMoon

What is unbelievably patronising is the idea that you need debunkers to counter the believers.

A very naive statement to say the least.

If it wasn't for the debunkers of the past we'd still think the Earth was the centre of the universe, we'd still think the Earth was flat. If it wasn't for debunkers on ATS we'd still think that Greer's moth and Joshua tree branch were extraterrestrials (though I'm sure some ATS Believers still think they are!), we'd think that CARET was the real deal, we'd think that Dr Jonathan Reed was a real doctor who had beat and alien to death with a stick.

Debunkers put time and effort into evaluating claims and analysing videos with the intention of finding out their true nature. Believers attempt to prevent this finding of the truth because it will contradict their belief system. So, for example, when someone posts a Youtube video that quite clearly shows balloons or flares the debunkers who point this out are accused of being trolls, paid government agents, dis-info agents etc.

The debunker will study maps and documents to assess the terrain where the video was shot to perhaps reveal an airfield or military training ground.

The Believer will say, "you must be a paid disinfo-agent!"

The debunker will request and examine the exif data on a submitted photo to check its veracity.

The Believer will respond, "you're a troll!"

The debunker will access and analyse flight path data to determine if an aircraft was there at the given time and place a particular video was shot.

The Believer will retaliate, "you're a government shill!"

We've lost many valuable contributors here on ATS because of the irrational stance and abusive nature of some of the Believers. It has an effect of dumbing down the forum and making discussion pointless.

In the past the Believers burned the debunkers alive in order to maintain their irrational dogma, today they harass them on Internet forums.

Originally posted by torsion
Debunkers put time and effort into evaluating claims and analysing videos with the intention of finding out their true nature. Believers attempt to prevent this finding of the truth because it will contradict their belief system. So, for example, when someone posts a Youtube video that quite clearly shows balloons or flares the debunkers who point this out are accused of being trolls, paid government agents, dis-info agents etc.

You're extrapolating.

You made the error I was trying to point out that people do ever so often. You assume the word "debunker" means a skeptic who's taking a rational, scientific approach, which it does not.

There are plenty of people who takes the UFO phenomenon seriously and put enormous amounts of hours into studying it, while sticking to a skeptical approach, while there are plenty of people who denies it based on half-baked misconceptions they haven't even bothered to check.

Go back to the Wikipedia definition, they got it right :

A debunker is an individual who discredits and contradicts claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Arbitrageur, thats a fair point -here´s the best definition of a true sceptic I´ve come across:

Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity

Unfortunately, it seems this type of mindset is something of as rarity when it comes to objective research into the UFO subject - NASA´s Bernard Haisch makes a good point below:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f350ba959054.gif[/atsimg]

"I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic.
One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism.
If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well. That kind of approach is also pseudo-science. Moreover just being a scientist confers neither necessary expertise nor sufficient knowledge.
Any scientist who has not read a few serious books and articles presenting actual UFO evidence should out of intellectual honesty refrain from making scientific pronouncements. To look at the evidence and go away unconvinced is one thing. To not look at the evidence and be convinced against it nonetheless is another. That is not science."

Dr. Bernard Haisch
Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics

link

Cheers.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
You assume the word "debunker" means a skeptic who's taking a rational, scientific approach, which it does not.

Of course it does.

To de-bunk is to remove the "bunk" (ie- nonsense, absurdity, gibberish, drivel) and replace it with rational thinking in order to ascertain the truth or likely truth of any out of the ordinary scenario.

As an example: ATS sceptics rationally studied Greer's Moth photo and effectively debunked the absurd claim that it was an extraterrestrial.

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by Heliocentric
You assume the word "debunker" means a skeptic who's taking a rational, scientific approach, which it does not.

Of course it does.

Thank you Torsion, I find the use of the word debunker to be grossly misunderstood by a few people posting in this thread, and I'm glad to see it's not misunderstood by folks like you.

@Heliocentric, I think the word that you are looking for, if there is such a word at all, would be "pseudoskeptic". Debunker simply does not mean what you and a few others posting here seem to think it means.

Isn't posting a link to the flare hoax in response to News reports of the 5 UFOs seen in Morristown NJ debunking?

How We Staged The Morristown UFO Hoax - Part 2: The Launch

And isn't it rational and scientific to debunk the sighting with this evidence?

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by Heliocentric
You assume the word "debunker" means a skeptic who's taking a rational, scientific approach, which it does not.

Of course it does.

To de-bunk is to remove the "bunk" (ie- nonsense, absurdity, gibberish, drivel) and replace it with rational thinking in order to ascertain the truth or likely truth of any out of the ordinary scenario.

As an example: ATS sceptics rationally studied Greer's Moth photo and effectively debunked the absurd claim that it was an extraterrestrial.

Of course it doesn't.

I suppose you are the one that decides what is bunk, based on your own set of values? Like for instance the moth photo that you mentioned, that you knew was an "absurd claim" right from the start, because you are the one that sets the standards for what is absurd or not? You then go about to "debunk" what you consider bunk, which means that you've failed to apply a scientific approach.

That photo could very well be fake or a misunderstanding, that's not the point. The point is, only the ones that give the photo a chance to prove itself genuine or not have applied a scientific approach.

Originally posted by torsion
We've lost many valuable contributors here on ATS because of the irrational stance and abusive nature of some of the Believers. It has an effect of dumbing down the forum and making discussion pointless.

Unfortunetly even the "good" Believers make many discussions pointless. Its all a big circle jerk. Even if a thread is comprehensibly debunked you can bet that someone will post "Aww... Well maybe that aint real. But this other thread must be!". And in that thread, which has probably been debunked on page 2 out of 50 or something, the discussion carry on to another thread, and then another, until everyone is so confused that they're using debunked threads to valide truly strange threads and truly strange threads to validate debunked threads.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

I suppose you are the one that decides what is bunk, based on your own set of values?

Not just me. Anyone who applies rational thought and common sense.

Like for instance the moth photo that you mentioned, that you knew was an "absurd claim" right from the start,

No, I didn't know right from the start. I had to look at and study the photo which CSETI claimed was an extraterrerstrial, well "Light Being/Loved One" to be more accurate. It was quite easily identifiable as a moth and comparison photos of known species where provided to prove the point. You may want to do a search as it's quite an old post.

because you are the one that sets the standards for what is absurd or not?

No. Greer's organisation made the absurd claim. Mothra, as it came to be known, established itself as a benchmark in absurdity surpassed only by Greer's even more outrageous Joshua tree incident.

You then go about to "debunk" what you consider bunk

Kind of, but only what is evidently bunk - for example, stating that a moth is a Light Being or a Joshua tree branch is an extraterrestrial wearing boots and vision augmentation goggles.

which means that you've failed to apply a scientific approach.

Incorrect. Reasonable scientific rationality is applied which may include photographic and scientific evidence (such as with the moth)

That photo could very well be fake or a misunderstanding,

Exactly the reason debunking is essential.

that's not the point.

Yes it is.

The point is, only the ones that give the photo a chance to prove itself genuine or not have applied a scientific approach.

I always give the photo/video a chance to prove itself. That's why I look at them.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by torsion
Debunkers put time and effort into evaluating claims and analysing videos with the intention of finding out their true nature. Believers attempt to prevent this finding of the truth because it will contradict their belief system. So, for example, when someone posts a Youtube video that quite clearly shows balloons or flares the debunkers who point this out are accused of being trolls, paid government agents, dis-info agents etc.

You're extrapolating.

You made the error I was trying to point out that people do ever so often. You assume the word "debunker" means a skeptic who's taking a rational, scientific approach, which it does not.

There are plenty of people who takes the UFO phenomenon seriously and put enormous amounts of hours into studying it, while sticking to a skeptical approach, while there are plenty of people who denies it based on half-baked misconceptions they haven't even bothered to check.

Go back to the Wikipedia definition, they got it right :

A debunker is an individual who discredits and contradicts claims as being false, exaggerated or pretentious.

How about this for a more politically-correct definition of debunker (my creation):
"A debunker is an individual who exposes unsupported claims as being false, exxagerated or pretentious."

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
"Debunkers" and "skeptics" are sorely needed within every topic that appears on ATS. The primary problem we often encounter is that some in these "viewpoint groups" engage in over-zealous opposition to the point of being insulting, impertinent, and outright rude. And the often-seen result is that they become unconvinced their impudent behavior is unwarranted.

You're welcome for my response!

He's talking about me, or could be.

This "rudeness" comes mainly from making the same arguments over and over, even sometimes to the same people, and being completely ignored, despite the facts that have been presented.

It's unnerving to encounter people so wedded to their fantasy that they refuse to even look at the evidence before them.

This is the sort of behavior that elicits rudeness from skeptics.

Harte

reply to post by The Shrike


That isn't a debunk. That was their claims as they saw it. it wasn't delivered in a condescending tone that questioned the right of a person to have any sort of view that is credible based on their backing of a particular instance.

Debunking is..... Nothing to see here... move on..... it is.... case closed cos i say so and you're tool if you think otherwise... it is Ridpath carefully and quite deliberately ignoring Gerry Harris's report of the Rendlesham incident, cos it totally contradicts what he has decided is the truth and treating everyone who disagrees with him as "needy and lame".

In short debunking , to give it its' proper definition, which comes from the English public school tradition is, in part, about an attempt at a very public humiliation. The mentality that goes with many debunking efforts is that of the bully and in some cases it is nothing but an attempt to bully. There people on here who phrase their posts in such a manner as to give a wholly false impression they are *experts" in certain fields, when the truth is they know nothing save that they have googled. and they do that in a clear attempt to discredit any further discussion of a possible sighting. They do this knowing full well that, a person who really doesn't have a clue about what they have seen is liable, to defer to them simply because they know no better. Since the mods clampdown several of those people have virtually (sic) vanished from this part of the forum. I'd suggest, because they can no longer employ the tactics they previously did.

You want a bit of conspiracy to add some spice to this discussion here's some. I dated a person who worked for a huge PR firm. That person was themselves a total sceptic about UFOs and over the time i dated them i discovered that self same PR firm acted on behalf of some of the biggest debunkers around. That same PR firm also had several large government and political contracts....... coincidence?

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by The Shrike
(snip)

I'm not out to defend everyone. All I know is that sometimes I'll engage in proving a claim erroenous. I call that debunking. Sometimes, as with Hoagland, or Lear, or high-profile hoaxers, it is a an adrenaline-boost to prove the loudmouths hoaxers. They know upfront that their claims are baseless and they count on their believer supporters to keep the mystique going. Not all skeptics are debunkers, they just might not care. I'm a natural skeptic and I'll debunk every chance I get when I have sufficient evidence on my side. Misperceptions and misconceptions aren't deserving of debunking but outright fakery and hoaxing is. The difference is separating one from the other.

Debunkers: people that dismount bunk beds.

I ran across this video of physicist Richard Feynman talking about the likelihood of flying saucers.

It's very short, only about a minute long.

Feynman Chaser - The Likelihood of Flying Saucers

Would you call him a pseudoskeptic?

I don't think that debunks all sightings, but it probably applies to a percentage of them that are explainable as manmade objects or natural phenomena.