Fanatical Debunkers VERSUS Woo-woo's

[btimsah]

After reading this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34364&page=1&pp=20&highlight=deconstructing

I feel we need (on this board) to discuss the war between those who support UFO'S and those who don't. I was never apart of the discussion above, and I can tell the thread really bugged a lot of the regulars here. I suppose I have a question, combined with a few points.

Why do some of you even try to debunk 1-50% of a story - and consider it completely debunked and wrong and ignore the rest of it? For example;

CrazyMikey, Rendlesham has been thoroughly debunked, digging up some of the testimony about it shows you haven't followed the case through.

It's a classic woowoo tactic, keep reposting the same 'evidence' even if later investigations have overturned it. It's a case of 'shouting long enough and hard enough' but it won't work here. Here's the debunking, from a reputable source (The BBC);

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/east...sham_ufos.shtml

As to me talking bullshit about my credentials, and you saying it's all bullshit I can't prove, well, you miss the point that that attitude goes for all of your posts too. So we are at an impass.

But the facts stand. You needed to be corrected with your physics, all you have is claims, and no evidence, and when pressed for your credentials, and asked direct questions, you avoid answering them, and are shifty. Meanwhile, I've got a bunch of other things to do, so I'll let you chew on the link for a while, and get back to you later.

To which the guy Crazy Mikey responds rather eloquently;

This is a single witness testimony. If you do not believe 400+ witness testimonies in favour of ETI and rule them out as liars. Then how can you believe a single witness testimony not in favour of ETI and pass it of as thorough debunking?

In addition to this, and this is very similar to the case of Roswll. How do you believe in a single witness testimony that is at odds with the circumstantial evidence and multiple witness testimonies:

1: Radiation levels showing 10 times higher
2: Depressions in the ground
3: Multiple witness testimony of a flying, glowing, metallic craft
4: Frenzy among animals
5: First-hand testimony of cover-up, and alien contact

Especially considering, that the testimony(confession) you quote, is of an event that is 20 years old; practical jokes that take 20 years to come to the fore, conveniantly appearing right after the MoD releases class A documents that have been covered-up all this time.

Therefore this single confession of a hoax is countered on 6 counts. Hence it's more likely the claim is false. Do you accept that possibility?

I assure you, if you were to shine red and blue lights into a forest at night, I would not think it is a flying, glowing, metallic craft, and if I was an official of the MoD, I would not cover it up for 20 years, as a class A document

Wow - Even worse, the debunker at the top never responds. Never say's, hey you know you're right. Why not? Does he or she not care about the truth? I don't think they do, because if they did this exchange would not happen without some kind of acknowlegement. Instead he/she just leaves the failed debunkery out there in hopes that nobody will notice it's useless and failed. I think the above exchange is incredibly illustrative into how fanatical debunkery is on this site. It also confirms what I suspected about some of you who like to post in the Pseudoscience area - while all the time claiming how much you hate pseudoscience. The fact is some of you love to debunk stuff like this.

So then we come to my question. Why? Can anyone explain why some of you are so fanatically "against" a UFO/ETI story?

What is it that makes you want to destroy evidence of such a thing? Why do you feel compelled to do that? What is it that you're afraid will happen if such a thing is allowed to be claimed, if it's not challenged?

I seriously want to figure out both sides, and figure out what makes us tick.

 

[phlogistician]

Didn't I respond to that one? Sorry, SciForums isn't my life, my sole pursuit, I do other stuff, and I forget threads. I'm not that fanatical, see.

Anyway, Rendlesham has been thoroughly debunked, and Mikey was just digging up the same old debunked story. The guy that perpetrated the hoax has admitted what he did, end of story.

But let's go over Mikey's points.

1, Radiation. Sounds like the claim made by Nick Pope, and this has been debunked, there was no more than background radiation present.

2, Depression in the ground. As the 'UFO' wasn't actually seen very well (and there are completely contradictory eye witness accounts of what it looked like as well) the discovery of any depressions was retro fitted to the experience. Any depressions discovered afterwards in daylight were pure coincidence.

3, Multiple witnesses. Yes, contradictory multiple witnesses. One stating they approached and touched the craft, and the other stating they only saw it from a distance. Hmm, hoaxers not getting their story straight? Carried away with the attention? Made up crap by the papers?

4, Frenzy among animals. Eh? Who said that? It was an airforce base, where they try and scare birds away, so they don't get sucked into jet engines. So what animals were in a 'frenzy' they coul dbe seen, in the woods, after dark? Spurious retro fitted nonsense.

5, First hand testimony. Or just plain lies. People lie all the time to get their name in the papers. Nick Pope, Bob Lazar, Ray Santilli, all clamouring for attention, peddling lies.

btw, I don't want to 'destroy evidence' either, I'd love to see some, but all we ever get is badly hoaxed crap, and it's really disappointing when flimsy assertions convince people. Get us some real evidence, and see how we react. Wave garbage under our noses, and we'll point out the smell, however.

 

[shaman_]

In the beginning I thought CrazyMikey was a fairly intelligent person who was just too eager to believe. However he seemed to become more deluded over time.
In that thread he produces ‘evidence' in quantity not quality. He dismissed any criticism of his posts and would not accept any explanation other than the alien one.
Those that debunked the evidence were often insulted or ignored.

It looks to me like most of his claims were addressed in that thread but it did move along pretty quickly.

I like this estimate.
“There is an 86% chance that the claim of ETI is true.”

 

[Tiassa]

The problem is simple:

• Event A occurs
• Ufo enthusiast B claims what A must be
• Skeptic C acknowledges event, disputes claim that A must be what B says
• We are left with "something happened here" versus "this is what happened here"
• Exploring what Event A is, as opposed to presuming it must be aliens, is apparently narrow-minded​

If Ufo enthusiasts want their theories to be given any sort of credibility, that credibility must to a certain point be earned. How can scientists validate what bears no marks of the scientific process? Without that validation, how can the scientific community take the hypothesis seriously?

Apparently, asking someone to follow the scientific method in order to establish the scientific validity of a hypothesis is narrow-minded and unfair.

 

[btimsah]

Didn't I respond to that one? Sorry, SciForums isn't my life, my sole pursuit, I do other stuff, and I forget threads. I'm not that fanatical, see.

Anyway, Rendlesham has been thoroughly debunked, and Mikey was just digging up the same old debunked story. The guy that perpetrated the hoax has admitted what he did, end of story.

But let's go over Mikey's points.

1, Radiation. Sounds like the claim made by Nick Pope, and this has been debunked, there was no more than background radiation present.

2, Depression in the ground. As the 'UFO' wasn't actually seen very well (and there are completely contradictory eye witness accounts of what it looked like as well) the discovery of any depressions was retro fitted to the experience. Any depressions discovered afterwards in daylight were pure coincidence.

3, Multiple witnesses. Yes, contradictory multiple witnesses. One stating they approached and touched the craft, and the other stating they only saw it from a distance. Hmm, hoaxers not getting their story straight? Carried away with the attention? Made up crap by the papers?

4, Frenzy among animals. Eh? Who said that? It was an airforce base, where they try and scare birds away, so they don't get sucked into jet engines. So what animals were in a 'frenzy' they coul dbe seen, in the woods, after dark? Spurious retro fitted nonsense.

5, First hand testimony. Or just plain lies. People lie all the time to get their name in the papers. Nick Pope, Bob Lazar, Ray Santilli, all clamouring for attention, peddling lies.

btw, I don't want to 'destroy evidence' either, I'd love to see some, but all we ever get is badly hoaxed crap, and it's really disappointing when flimsy assertions convince people. Get us some real evidence, and see how we react. Wave garbage under our noses, and we'll point out the smell, however.

Yes, but the contradiction is that you believe the sole witness who contradict's everyone elses. You seem to selectively choose which TYPE of witness you believe.

Why? Are you now suggesting Rendelsham was a hoax? That those witnesses made it up? What if I suggested you're famous single witness made up his story and that it had NOTHING to do with the entire case?

What I would like to know is what drives you to support this single witness and hold up his testimony and trash the other's who don't support a more mundane explanation?

 

[btimsah]

The problem is simple:

• Event A occurs
• Ufo enthusiast B claims what A must be
• Skeptic C acknowledges event, disputes claim that A must be what B says
• We are left with "something happened here" versus "this is what happened here"
• Exploring what Event A is, as opposed to presuming it must be aliens, is apparently narrow-minded​

If Ufo enthusiasts want their theories to be given any sort of credibility, that credibility must to a certain point be earned. How can scientists validate what bears no marks of the scientific process? Without that validation, how can the scientific community take the hypothesis seriously?

Apparently, asking someone to follow the scientific method in order to establish the scientific validity of a hypothesis is narrow-minded and unfair.

Why do debunker's feel they need to remove credibility from ALL ufo stories? Why? I could debunk the crap out of anything, and most of you could too but I know it would not mean a damn thing. Debunking is not the same as investigating. Investigating would mean taking the entire case as a whole and then investigating the claims or events based on testimony, physical evidence or whatever. What I see with debunkers/woo-woo is "Grab point A" break point A down by suggestion that it's false because of "point c" and then claim the whole story is debunked. The flipside with the woo-woo really does not seem to be interested in investigating it. They automatically leap to a conclusion that every UFO is an alien craft.

I tend to rarely believe any UFO image, unless it has some other information with it. For instance.. 3 people witness a UFO while driving down the road. They pull over and as it passes the heat from the UFO caused one of the people's hands to melt into the dashboard. The driver get's out and walks toward the craft. They all three then hear multiple army helicopters comming from the distance and driver gets back in car.

Next day, all three are sick and eventually test positive for radiation poisening. In particular the driver who remains sick for a long time.

The story above is just one "UFO" story that I've heard of that actually did seem important to me. First of all you have 3 witnesses. Secondly you have the radiation exposure.

Now - how do you look at that story? Do you want to remove testimony from it? Or do you want to automatically believe it's true the moment they see a UFO?

My point in all of this is that we should all have the ability to think critically regarding UFO cases. However, what I see on here is merely fanatical skeptisicm followed by skeptical woo-wooism.

I want to know why some have chose to be a fanatical debunker, instead of a fanatical woo-woo? Why the two extremes?

 

[Ophiolite]

[

So then we come to my question. Why? Can anyone explain why some of you are so fanatically "against" a UFO/ETI story?
What is it that makes you want to destroy evidence of such a thing? Why do you feel compelled to do that? What is it that you're afraid will happen if such a thing is allowed to be claimed, if it's not challenged?
I seriously want to figure out both sides, and figure out what makes us tick.

This is a fair question or suite of questions and deserves a fair response. Keep in mind that the motivations of those ‘opposing’ the evidence may vary, but I believe the following is a reasonable summary.

The debunkers or anti-UFO contingent are in the main scientists or persons with a scientific background. Their approach to the issue is therefore from a scientific perspective.

What is this scientific perspective? Let us set to one side for the moment the methodology of science and look instead at the passion of the scientist. It may seem odd to speak of emotion and logic in the same context, but remember that science is conducted by scientists who are decidedly human.

Why do scientists choose a career in the field of science? Ignoring those who fall into the career, or are mistakenly of the belief that scientists are highly paid, there is a single reason: curiosity. Good scientists much of the time, and great scientists perhaps almost all the time, are devoutly and vigorously curious. They observe something, anything, and they want to know the why and the when and the how of it. This can be a mild curiosity, over a minor event or phenomena that can be addressed by reference to the work of earlier scientists; or, it could be something that captures them for life; or, anything in between.

In pursuing that curiosity they are interested in one thing above all else – truth. They may have favourites among the hypotheses they first put forward by way of explanation, but the good scientist, the true scientist, will abandon these if the evidence weighs against them. And their readiness to do so is determined by two things: that passionate commitment to truth and the application of the scientific method.

There is a multiplicity of definitions of the scientific method. This description should be adequate for our purposes. Observe a phenomenon; consider possible explanations for it, formulate a hypothesis to account for it; make predictions based upon this hypothesis that may be tested by further observation, or experiment; proceed in this fashion until either the hypothesis is shown to be faulty, or is repeatedly and convincingly shown to match observations.

The good scientist, when passionately pursuing his ‘pet theory’ will attempt to prove it false, perhaps being more vigorous and rigorous in this pursuit than detractors of the theory. He will welcome attacks upon it for one of two reasons – they will fail because the evidence fails adequately to support them, or they will succeed for the opposite reason. In the latter case his theory is in tatters, but he can now resume his pursuit of truth in a new direction.

So how do these scientists or educated laymen with a scientific background approach UFO claims? An apposite question here is, “do they believe in alien extra-terrestrial intelligences?” There are likely to be a range of answers, but I would expect all to agree to the possibility of such life. Some will suspect that it is common, others, such as myself, that it is almost vanishingly rare.

Allow me to diverge to discuss my own view on ET’s for a moment. I am fifty six. For close to fifty of those years I have been fascinated by the possibility of alien life. I have read volume after volume at both ends of the spectrum, from Daniken to Sagan. You will understand, because I suspect you share these emotions with me, that I am desperate for us to get evidence of life out there. Microbes on Mars would be the biggest thing outwith my personal life I have experienced. Intelligent aliens would, to employ a cliché, blow my mind. I want this so badly I can smell it.

But I only want it if it is true. And to determine its truth I have to apply the scientific method. I have to be skeptical. I have to question. I have to accept simple explanations over complex.(You are probably tired of hearing of Occam’s razor.). I have to agree with Carl Sagan, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Tired of hearing that one too, I imagine.)

That’s why the skeptics, or at least this sceptic, give you such a hard time. Not because we don’t want to believe, but because we do want to, but beyond that we want the truth, unvarnished and unaffected by how we would write the truth. Because we don’t write it, we only observe and interpret it. That is a grave responsibility and deserves to be treated as such.

 

[JoojooSpaceape]

Why do debunker's feel they need to remove credibility from ALL ufo stories? Why? I could debunk the crap out of anything, and most of you could too but I know it would not mean a damn thing. Debunking is not the same as investigating. Investigating would mean taking the entire case as a whole and then investigating the claims or events based on testimony, physical evidence or whatever. What I see with debunkers/woo-woo is "Grab point A" break point A down by suggestion that it's false because of "point c" and then claim the whole story is debunked. The flipside with the woo-woo really does not seem to be interested in investigating it. They automatically leap to a conclusion that every UFO is an alien craft.

I tend to rarely believe any UFO image, unless it has some other information with it. For instance.. 3 people witness a UFO while driving down the road. They pull over and as it passes the heat from the UFO caused one of the people's hands to melt into the dashboard. The driver get's out and walks toward the craft. They all three then hear multiple army helicopters comming from the distance and driver gets back in car.

Next day, all three are sick and eventually test positive for radiation poisening. In particular the driver who remains sick for a long time.

The story above is just one "UFO" story that I've heard of that actually did seem important to me. First of all you have 3 witnesses. Secondly you have the radiation exposure.

Now - how do you look at that story? Do you want to remove testimony from it? Or do you want to automatically believe it's true the moment they see a UFO?

My point in all of this is that we should all have the ability to think critically regarding UFO cases. However, what I see on here is merely fanatical skeptisicm followed by skeptical woo-wooism.

I want to know why some have chose to be a fanatical debunker, instead of a fanatical woo-woo? Why the two extremes?

You must understand, that it is not a choice given but a path taken in a metaphorical sense. In most cases someone wants to believe so much that they always look at the positives, kind of like being a child at christmas early on, and believing santa clause is bringing you presents, it seems so fantastic and amazing that you must believe it and anyone else is positively wrong. As for the debunkers, it usually becomes the case that they are the guidelines, they are there to bring the people down to a reasonable point of view by showing them that they are, or may possibly be wrong by showing them what they missed, or giving them a reasonable explanation. I usually post (when I do post) as a debunker, Its not because I don't want to believe in aliens, or ufo's or any of that, its that often times people don't think when they post things, like the crater chains, or even the Solog fiascos (from upwards in the range of 2 to 3 years ago) and other such ideas that have popped up; things that are easily debunked by a reasonable answer, but yet the person wants to believe in their fantastic story so much that they have the unending urge to follow it fanatically. Keep in mind that it is a mutual benefit here, or at least, that the debunkers are needed, as much as a lot of people like to think of them as assholes. If the debunkers are not around then groups of people form before they even think about the "what ifs" or the fact about these things, and dangerous things can happen, such as the formation of cults which may end in a horrible ending (suicide) or even someone believing the aliens will save them if they jump off a cliff, or even that they are immortal (An example would be the physicist who believe he found a theory proving what he called "Divine physics"). The debunkers need someone to make them feel superior to, or someone to make them feel smarter, and the believers need someone to burst their balloon so they dont go off and do something that they might regret (Not to say that debunkers are smarter than believers, just a little more sensible possibly)

 

[SkinWalker]

Bravo Ophiolite. Wonderfully written post. I found myself in the unconscious act of nodding my head as I read it. In fact, I'm bookmarking it.

I think that's one of the things that many of the so-called "woo-woo's" don't get when they encounter skeptics. I know that I had a hard time understanding the motivations of those that ridiculed and "debunked" the efforts of UFO-ETI believers and proponents when I was a bit younger -and satisfied with the speculations of people like Tim Good and the credibility of people like Stanton Friedman. As time went on and my readings expanded to include Sagan, Casti, Parks, Shermer, Feynman, and many others, I realized that mere speculation isn't enough and the mutual encouragement that is pushed so eagerly among the UFO-ETI crowd interferes with their efforts.

As you said, the method of science just isn't common within the UFO-ETI community and the awe that is so readily placed on the extraordinary claims of eye-witnesses is self-defeating. Their culture (which I was once a part of) appears comprised of many who desire the satisfaction of evoking that sense of awe in others... perhaps it is a contagious condition.

As an anthropology major, what interests me in the UFO-ETI culture is the power of belief and what it can tell us about other cultures with other beliefs. We can all suspend disbelief momentarily while viewing an episode of Stargate or reading the latest Terry Pratchett novel, but mankind seems eager to accept or put blame on the supernatural or paranormal. Witches, oracles, and mystics have been a part of human culture since before the advent of writing... gods and goddesses have come and gone (where are Enlil and Marduk keeping themselves these days?)... Housewives turn to psychics on 1-900 numbers to find out if their husbands are cheating (or if they should)... Presidents consult astrologers. Etcetera.

Bitumsah, I actually understand your frustration when encountering skeptical arguments. Some of us are a bit brutal when refuting and questioning claims that are made by UFO-ETI proponents on this board (and others), and that is the danger I think that we need consider when debunking others.

Wordnet 2.0 defines Debunk as: expose while ridiculing; especially of pretentious or false claims and ideas; "The physicist debunked the psychic's claims"

I admit to ridiculing some of what you were presenting (mostly because I actually thought you were fluid...), but I've also subscribed to the notion that there are some for whom it is one's duty to offend. Perhaps that isn't the best course of action in your case, however. But I would also contend that you might be confusing the questioning nature of some with debunking. Whether it was "debunking" (replete with ridicule) or "questioning," you have to admit that such actions might be expected from those that regularly post on a Science board like sciforums.

Granted, there are many on sciforums who post in the hard sciences sections who believe that the pseudoscience forum is the place to dump the crackpot, woo-woo claims that frequently get posted by one-post wonders. In some ways it is, but it is also a place that a few of us have found to discuss the subject of pseudoscience. Of course we'll criticize those claims that get dropped in our lap from the other forums or from those that are looking for a place to discuss them.

The only real annoyance I get from the non-skeptics is that are generally over offended at questions and criticisms from skeptics. Often there is a complaint of a lack of "open-mindedness" or an unwillingness to "think out of the box." Ironically, this is exactly the thing that I think non-skeptics are guilty of in many cases. They refuse to believe any hypothesis that does not support their favored hypothesis. Often these hypotheses are dismissed outright as "debunking" attempts without critically evaluating them.

The last thing I'd like you to consider, Bitumsah, is that having someone question and criticise your work is a good thing. Its a hard thing. But its a good thing. I recently wrote a paper for my Near Eastern Archaeology class and my professor told me in an email that it earned an "A." He even commented that it was well-written. The pat on the back was nice, but it was the criticisms of the paper that I was interested in, so today when I picked it up, the first thing that I started looking for were the little red marks and comments in the margin. I want to improve my method.

This is what I think can benefit you the most in a board like this. Crazymikey did, indeed, begin with a very level head and was a pleasure to debate and discuss UFO-ETI with. Initially at least. It was toward the end of his time here at sciforums that he began to resort to ad hominem comments and remarks, accusations of bias -mostly unfounded, but gradually more and more grounded as he continued his rants to moderators and Porfiry. Sure, you can find a home at a UFO/Paranormal message board, but what good will it do you to continually have everyone nod their head and tell you you're right or that they can see your clothes after all?

I really didn't mean to type all that... I only wanted to say, "bravo, Ophiolite!"

By the way, Ophiolite, your writing style is familiar... do you write for a living?

 

[btimsah]

Thank's for the replies, you are all being very helpfull

To summarize, basically you guy's debunk things on this board so as to make sure science does not become abused. Too make sure crap like this does not get mistaken as real science. Now I understand where everyone is comming from.

I would like to know a debunkers' opinion on "the Disclosure Project", and their hundreds of government eye witnesses. This is a great example of the divide. Woo-woo's allready believe everything they say, and debunker's appear to find the entire group of witnesses to be full of it. Why? For example I believe some of their witnesses. How many of their witnesses need to be debunked, to completely debunk the entire project? When you hear about this group, do you cringe? I get the feeling a lot of skeptics or debunkers have written off this entire group and I was wondering why? What piece of information, or story could really debunk an entire group this size, and why would you want to? Is it that hard to believe that our government has covered-up something? It has been proven that we have top-secret programs and there's no reason why they would not be doing it today. I am not saying because, we can therefore we must. What I am saying is that because these witnesses are saying, therefore we have in the past and could cover it up.

What I am trying to do is find an area where debunking/woo-woo thinking is put aside, and logic and investigative reasoning are used instead. I will try to as well. Acting like a woo-woo or a debunker serve little purpose, and in my mind end up canceling eachother out. Debunker's and woo-woo's both have some use. However, both go to far. Both are too fanatical and ideologically driven to come to a fair conclusion. Doing investigative work and logical reasoning to figure out the truth in a fair manner should be the end goal. I certainly have my biases. We all do, and to be fair need to recognize those and compensate for them when we find ourselves heatedly arguing for or against something.

I know I have a tendency to be a woo-woo, but I can also be very skeptical. For example I don't believe there is a face on Mars, though I do think it possibly could be something important and won't attack those who do. In my humble opinion there are many more interesting thing's on Mars than some large mountain that under certain lighting conditions can look like a face. That's the woo-woo and skeptic in me talking. The entire Cydonia region is rather interesting to me, forget the damn mythical face!

 

[btimsah]

1, Radiation. Sounds like the claim made by Nick Pope, and this has been debunked, there was no more than background radiation present.

The radiation level was ten times higher than the background radiation. Right? That's how I read it online.

2, Depression in the ground. As the 'UFO' wasn't actually seen very well (and there are completely contradictory eye witness accounts of what it looked like as well) the discovery of any depressions was retro fitted to the experience. Any depressions discovered afterwards in daylight were pure coincidence.

You are assuming the depression was coincidence. Being fair, I can't assume that because there is no need to jump to that conclusion. If I made such a jump I would be trying to hard to get rid of this story, or end it. Also, the depressions were all described as "radioactive".

3, Multiple witnesses. Yes, contradictory multiple witnesses. One stating they approached and touched the craft, and the other stating they only saw it from a distance. Hmm, hoaxers not getting their story straight? Carried away with the attention? Made up crap by the papers?

The contradictions can possibly be explained by the fact that there were seperate witnesses who saw seperate object's in seperate area's. The only hoaxer so far is the Kevin Conde who litterally claimed he was trying to hoax them.

4, Frenzy among animals. Eh? Who said that? It was an airforce base, where they try and scare birds away, so they don't get sucked into jet engines. So what animals were in a 'frenzy' they coul dbe seen, in the woods, after dark? Spurious retro fitted nonsense.

Could discard this as far as Im concerned. Don't care that the dogs were barking really. I mean it's interesting but really doesnt help solve anything.

5, First hand testimony. Or just plain lies. People lie all the time to get their name in the papers. Nick Pope, Bob Lazar, Ray Santilli, all clamouring for attention, peddling lies.

Kevin Conde could be nothing but lies because his story contradicts everyone elses. He is, as Mikey said a single witness. You can't rule the other's out and accept Conde's testimony because you are a debunker. Right? Why assume everyone but Kevin Conde is lying or mistaken? I can't make that leap, without a reason or evidence of it. Right? Also, witnesses say a pencil thin beam of light was shot down at their feet. How would that be explained by what Condone say's he was doing? Must have been a crazy night

btw, I don't want to 'destroy evidence' either, I'd love to see some, but all we ever get is badly hoaxed crap, and it's really disappointing when flimsy assertions convince people. Get us some real evidence, and see how we react. Wave garbage under our noses, and we'll point out the smell, however.

Again, the proven hoax here is Kevin Conde. In order for this story to be SOLVED you would need to account for everything. Debunking this is not enough and again, sorely misses what our end goal should be. Using you're debunking techniques, nothing can be proven. If you ever thought about, you could debunk ANYTHING this way. Right?

 

[Ophiolite]

I really didn't mean to type all that... I only wanted to say, "bravo, Ophiolite!"

By the way, Ophiolite, your writing style is familiar... do you write for a living?

This is an off topic reply, which I'm posting rather than pm'ing, since I believe public praise should be publicly acknowledged. Thank you SkinWalker for your kind comments. Show me someone who says they are indifferent to praise and I'll show you a corpse or a liar. This is all the more so when the comments are unlooked for and unexpected.

I was about to say that I do not write for a living, but am a humble bit peddler. (This is what we call those in the oil and gas industry involved in the sale of drill bits.) Then it occured to me that I am called upon to write explanations to clients as to why our $48,000 drill bit failed and cost him $500,000 in lost rig time. That sort of situation fosters the development of writing and presentation skills. (I'm told I give pretty memorable lectures!)

Thank's again.

Back on topic.
btsimah, I've ignored the UFO scene for a while. I am ignorant of the "Disclosure Project" you refer to. Can you give me some links please.

 

[Persol]

I would like to know a debunkers' opinion on "the Disclosure Project", and their hundreds of government eye witnesses.

Well, the site's claim is 'hundreds of high ranking government eye witnesses'. There are at best a few dozen. More so, he requires you to pay to actually see this list, which doesn't contain what he claims. More over he still has people on his list who claim to have never said what the site shows, or that it was taken out of context. He hasn't removed these people from the list, so I don't have much faith in it as anything besides a way to make a buck and push an agenda. If you look around you'll see that much of his site is devoted to saying 'protect the enviroment because aliens say so'. (Luckily his security is poor, so 'mistyping' your credit card number will get you in for free.) So yes, when I here the Disclosure Project put forth as proof, I cringe.

That said, it shouldn't be used as proof. It's a bunch of unrelated eyewitness testimonies, none of which have actually been investigated... most of which are based on no evidence besides eyewitness testimony. We all agree that people claim to see ET flying through the air... but that's not really evidence that it is ET (just a UFO). Likewise, listing 400 people doesn't suddenly make it true.

 

[Persol]

The radiation level was ten times higher than the background radiation.

Also, the depressions were all described as "radioactive".

Sources?

The most annoying thing about UFO/ET stories is that people make scientific claims and others repeat them as gospel.... even if they are completely made up or unsupported.

 

[btimsah]

Well, the site's claim is 'hundreds of high ranking government eye witnesses'. There are at best a few dozen. More so, he requires you to pay to actually see this list, which doesn't contain what he claims. More over he still has people on his list who claim to have never said what the site shows, or that it was taken out of context. He hasn't removed these people from the list, so I don't have much faith in it as anything besides a way to make a buck and push an agenda. If you look around you'll see that much of his site is devoted to saying 'protect the enviroment because aliens say so'. (Luckily his security is poor, so 'mistyping' your credit card number will get you in for free.) So yes, when I here the Disclosure Project put forth as proof, I cringe.

That said, it shouldn't be used as proof. It's a bunch of unrelated eyewitness testimonies, none of which have actually been investigated... most of which are based on no evidence besides eyewitness testimony. We all agree that people claim to see ET flying through the air... but that's not really evidence that it is ET (just a UFO). Likewise, listing 400 people doesn't suddenly make it true.

See, now I analyzed what you wrote. Again, trying to be fair to everyone involved I see no reason to dump the entire project simply because of a few minor problems you have with how they run thing's. That seem's unreasonable to me. I also have some experience with running a website and understand why they make you pay. Or, well I could understand it. Especially the audio. There's no money to be made in the "alien biz", ask anyone in it. Yes, the Disclosure project is virtually nothing but testimony, but a big part of their testimony is that they can't provide us with physical evidence because they were told it was top secret. In my attempt to be fair, I try to fill in the gaps with logical conclusions instead of just dumping the entire claim or story because of those gaps. EDIT - Unless there are too many gaps which make no sense and the entire story seem's completely full of shit. Then I'll toss it into the pile of Ed Walters sightings.

I think what seem's to be the problem is this; Some of you are looking for physcial evidence, and won't believe these UFO stories untill you see some. So, every UFO story is immedietly debunked abit and then "dismissed" because they NEVER have physical evidence. At least that's how I take some of it. I'm trying to understand the mindset of both a woo-woo and a debunker. I think I pretty much get the woo-woo. They want to believe with no boundaries or level of evidence needed. Debunker's confuse me more because they often seem to believe in the existance of Alien's but claim you're nuts if you find UFO'S interesting. That's not all debunker's but you get varying types of people who love to go around and debunk things in an unfair manner.

 

[btimsah]

Sources?

The most annoying thing about UFO/ET stories is that people make scientific claims and others repeat them as gospel.... even if they are completely made up or unsupported.

From the sci-fi channel/Bryant Gumbel show where it used the phrase "Radioactive depressions". http://www.scifi.com/rendlesham/

It's really all over the net, of course on WOO-WOO sites , but that's what they claim.

 

[A Canadian]

People Debunk UFOs and Aliens the same reason most poeple voted for Bush again.
A: They don't have all the facts.
and
B: People don't want to belive truth because of the harsh reality of the world. Better known as denile.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you care to read my first post on this thread (I think it is the seventh) could you then explain in what way I meet your criteria for alien debunkers.

 

[phlogistician]

People Debunk UFOs and Aliens the same reason most poeple voted for Bush again.
A: They don't have all the facts.

Riiight. Facts. There's an interesting word to use. Facts. I'm well versed in the scientific method, and the discovery of facts, thanks to a background in physics. The fact is that it is takes a really long time to cross the vast distances across space, and those that think UFOs are piloted by aliens have no way of explaining how this is solved.

B: People don't want to belive truth because of the harsh reality of the world. Better known as denile.

The truth is you have no facts, no proof, and no consistent hypothesis. UFOlogy is nothing more than a religion, with just as many schizms. You have no testable models, no equations, no decent theories, and more importantly, not a shred of data. So who is in 'denile' (sic). Skeptics and debunkers, who know you need to break the established laws of physics to make your claims come true, ... or woowoos, who cling to their theories when they have been shot to pieces by science?

I firmly believe there is life on other planets. Don't get me wrong, but to assume they visit earth, in such numbers, and do what they are reported to do is completely absurd.

If following this religion of yours keeps you happy, then fair enough, just don't try and sell us that it's true, or has any merit.

 

[btimsah]

People Debunk UFOs and Aliens the same reason most poeple voted for Bush again.
A: They don't have all the facts.
and
B: People don't want to belive truth because of the harsh reality of the world. Better known as denile.

I am not quite sure why you would turn this discussion into politics. You seem to assume fact's decide who we vote for. They really don't. Personalities do. Charisma does. I can understand you did not support Bush, and anyone who did not. However, to assume that those who vote for Bush are in denial about something is pretty unfair to just about everyone.

Of course, the Bush voter think's you would be in denial for voting for Kerry. Even if you did not, apperently you would have.

To completely throw away this - I voted for Bush and don't debunk much of anything really.

EDIT - I don't think anyone is in denile on this board. I do think debunkers can have a tendency to ignore the entire story or claim, and instead focus only on the parts they feel they can debunk. They almost seem to get no use out of a story unless they can debunk it.