Fanatical Debunkers VERSUS Woo-woo's

[Ophiolite]

Claiming a UFO must be Experimental aircraft is an easy out for a debunker hellbent on proving EVERY UFO is not alien. It's the last option of a debunker. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if you claim it's a top secret experimental craft you need extraordinary evidence. Not just a claim.

Please re-read my last post. I have demonsrated that the claim a UFO is an experimental craft is unusual - and OK, I'll let you call it extraordinary for the moment - but which is more extraordinary [I can't believe it. You have me so demented I am qualifying absolutes!], alien craft or experimental secret? One which we know examples of exist and one which we do not know with certainty exists? The greater burden of proof lies with the more [may Fowler forgive me] extraordinary.

Next, returning to your description of the sighting of an experimental craft as extraordinary, how can you claim this.
We know experimental craft exist.
We know they fly secretly.
We know that occasionally people see them.
It is unusual, uncommon, rare, of limited frequency, but it is not extraordinary, unless in the sense that I might say, "that was an extraordinary meal we had last night". You have either deliberately misunderstood Sagan's meaning, which is a cheap debating tactic, or you do not grasp what is meant by an extraordinary claim.

 

[Stryder]

Actually there are alot of "Commercial" experimental craft, it's not all the military. There are many airshows that occur around the world that attempt to sell new prototypes to Commercial Aerospace Companies for better economy/ergonomics even just for fun like novalty Helium/Ammonia balloons.

Heck even some of the Millionaire/Billionaire playboys have their own prototype designs like hover-cars and jet designs. (Seems the secret to being a Millionaire/Billionaire is getting a pilots licence)

 

[Ophiolite]

Agreed, but I'm not clear of the significance of the observation. Would you clarify.

 

[Stryder]

It's just an addition to an explaination on what UFO's can be. Although admittedly not on topic with the posts original topic heading, If I was to stay on topic with that I might as well state:

"It's six of one and half a dozen of the other"-Unknown

although the actual mathematics would have to include a subset that classify themselves as debunkers but are actually just "Trolls".

 

[Persol]

btimsah, you seem to be missing the point.

UFOs driven by ET is supported by no more proof than the lochness monster, angels and mind readers. I suppose you are willing to believe these things as well?

More over, something unexplained in the sky is not the sign of an alien visit. It could by terrestrial technology, it could be some odd atmospheric disurbance, it could be a hoax, it could be a pissed off lightning bug in from of the camera... etc etc. The default answer of "we do not know what it is, so it must be ET" is complete hogwash.

As for the list of 400, what do you want people to do with it? As far as I could tell most just saw UFOs... and those might as well be thrown out since nobody is arguing that UFOs exist. The only stories of actual interest are those who claim they've seen proof of ET involvement. None of these are 'high ranking government officials' as claimed. Give us a list of who is left and what their stories are.

I have no trust in the veracity of this list because the site owner is less than honest about what he puts on it. Don't expect us to waste our time weeding out all of the chaffe from this list.

 

[Persol]

(Seems the secret to being a Millionaire/Billionaire is getting a pilots licence)

After looking at the cost, I think it's the other way around

 

[A Canadian]

As always, woowoos think they are better than others because they believe some bunk theory. Well, no, that's not the case. My IQ scores say I'm a freaking genius, as it happens, which is perhaps, why I've got a good academic record, and not some gullible woowoo?

Well, in that case. Everything you say MUST be true, correct?
All hail the mighty phlogistician.

You are a condescending jerk. Nuff' said.

 

[Persol]

You are a condescending jerk. Nuff' said.

You told him that he was a fool and needed to get laid. If anything phlogistician's response was a way of saying "whatever idiot" without giving into your flame.

 

[A Canadian]

If you're going to talk about ignorance, you'd better learn how to spell 'denial' first kid.

He threw the first punch.

 

[Ophiolite]

A Canadian, apart from existing, what have I done to offend you. btsimah began this post in order to conduct a reasoned debate on the differences that exist in thinking betweendebunkers and woo-woos. I responded with a measured and hearfelt exposition.

You stated the twofold characteristics of a debunker to be:
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.

Twice I have asked if you would read my first post (I think number seven on page 1) and comment in what way I match either or both of these criteria.

Why will you not do so?

 

[Persol]

Because he's living in a bubble. The statement that
"People don't want to belive truth because of the harsh reality of the world. Better known as denile."
is simply BS, which is the reason I didn't bother to respond to it the first time. It's one of the most used and illused arguments by psuedoscientists... "you can't handle the truth".

What he fails to realize is that ET's visiting Earth is VERY far from a proven reality. Aliens are simply the witches and vampires of our society... a collective myth supported by people who decide to believe without asking for evidence.

 

[A Canadian]

How did I offend you? Ophiolite.

I did read your post, it is a good one. I simply had nothing to say about it.

My post was directed to WHY poeple debunk, not Debunkers in general. by all means debunk. They are trying to prove something doesn't exist while we are trying to something does. Again, I'd like to use America as an example. Whats been going on in America for the past few years pretty much boils down to true human nature. Mr. Bush said there was wepons of mass destruction, when of course there was none. People belived it to be true becuase he said so. When no Wepons of mass destruction where found, even at the cost of countless lives. Was Bush impeched? Clinton had sex with another woman... this is what we consider enough to impech someone? But the countless loss of life isn't? Granted, Bush did free the Iraq poeple, but I am not here to discuss that.

In other words, It is all about "Belive it or not".
Even the best of us can be wrong sometimes. But human nature has shown us that when we realize we are wrong, we still continue to act as if nothing happened.

My question is why do debunkers FEEL they need to debunk? Belivers only want to share, debunkers want to disprove.

I too have a high IQ, but I also have so much brain damage. The Ideas are in my head, that perfect paragraph is urning to come out... but its stuck in there like a tounge on a frozen metal pole. As above... I havn't a clue as to what my point was or why I even wrote it.... but I said it anyways. Even if I am wrong.


In other words, yes I am lazy, I sometimes misread, mispost and even skip posts sometimes.

Belive me, if I wanted to sound like a "Big Man", I'd quote every line in someones post and add my own witty remarks in attempt to take a stab at your ego. (No offence phlogistician )

Sorry, can't help myself. *Runs and hides*

 

[SkinWalker]

Just to make sure, we are talking about this video:
http://members.cox.net/borobbie2/VIDEO/UFO_STS_101.mpeg

Perhaps you were referring to the "war" video everyone talks about.

I don't know anything about a "war" video... but after looking at the video you linked to, which I had never seen, it fit exactly what I was referring to as an "expected effect" related to fuel ice particles following a thruster burn.

Question: did this so-called UFO occur following a thruster burn? If so, how long after?

I contend that this is not an unknown object at all, but one that is simply a result of the shuttle's thrusters. These particles will happen during and following burn quite often. They're nothing to get excited over.

 

[Persol]

Again, I'd like to use America as an example. Whats been going on in America for the past few years pretty much boils down to true human nature. Mr. Bush said there was wepons of mass destruction, when of course there was none. People belived it to be true becuase he said so.

Which is one of the reasons people debunk. It just isn't good for people have unrealistic beliefs as part of their way of living.

But human nature has shown us that when we realize we are wrong, we still continue to act as if nothing happened.

And you'll notice that all over this forum. Woowoos will post something, people point out that it is far from conclusive and could be ANYTHING, woowoo posts the same thing again still claiming it is proof.

My question is why do debunkers FEEL they need to debunk? Belivers only want to share, debunkers want to disprove.

No, debunkers want to look at things scientifically. That means not just taking somebody's word for it when they claim cold fussion, perpetual motion, or alien visitors.

I too have a high IQ, but I also have so much brain damage.

I used to work with disabled kids... as gulliable as you may be, any brain damage is negligable.

Belive me, if I wanted to sound like a "Big Man", I'd quote every line in someones post and add my own witty remarks in attempt to take a stab at your ego. (No offence phlogistician )

It's called debate, and is one of the things woowoos try and avoid. If someone makes a point, you need to break it down to it's individual components and explain what is wrong. Woowoos generally tend to just say 'I am right' without giving any details, let alone sentance by sentance responses.

Sorry, can't help myself. *Runs and hides*

Just remembers 'the know when you are sleeping, they know when your awake'. After all some woowoo previously claimed that the Claus story was based on alien visits....

 

[A Canadian]

stop saying woowoo, it makes you sound like a doodoo.

That term is unjustified.

The term believer has been working out just fine. Lets stick with it shall we? Or else I shall come up with a new name for debunkers that will sound just as ridiculous.

Like… gollywoggles.

 

[Persol]

That term is unjustified.

No, it clearly isn't. This thread isn't about 'believers' but 'woowoos'. Just using his terminology.

Rather than attempt to be a armchair mod, why don't you contribute something intelligent?

 

[A Canadian]

A word made up to describe people who do not follow there same theories , or ideology?

I pointed out that it is a stupid word to classify someone...

And I added my own example to boot?

Not intelligent enough for you?

Want me to write it to you in crayon?

No offence… but come on… I assumed that making up words was only a Elementary School Phase….

This “word” was clearly conjured up in attempt to insult the other side…

If you are going to make up words… at least come up with something with more meaning…

Do you find the word debunker offensive? I do not see how you could… It is a coherent word…. Unlike “Woo Woo” which sounds like something a Hawaiian bird would use for it’s mating call.

 

[Ophiolite]

How did I offend you? Ophiolite.

I did read your post, it is a good one. I simply had nothing to say about it.

My post was directed to WHY poeple debunk, not Debunkers in general. by all means debunk. They are trying to prove something doesn't exist while we are trying to something does.

I'll try again. My post clearly establishes that your view of debunkers is wrong. If you 'had nothing to say about it' that suggests you found the arguments irrefutable, or you didn't understand them. Which was it?

 

[(Q)]

My question is why do debunkers FEEL they need to debunk? Belivers only want to share, debunkers want to disprove.

Believers propagate disinformation. Debunkers propagate information.

See the difference?

 

[Gustav]

What he fails to realize is that ET's visiting Earth is VERY far from a proven reality. Aliens are simply the witches and vampires of our society... a collective myth supported by people who decide to believe without asking for evidence.

how far is "VERY" far? is it fair to assume your issue is with visitations not with the existence of et's?
regardless. it seems strange that phenomenon that has yet to be thoroughly investigated is so quickly relegated to the realms of myth and legend

trifle pathological perhaps. hmm, i recall......

THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones. If you suggest, for example, that Sasquatch can't be completely ruled out from the available evidence, the skeptic will then facetiously suggest that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny can't be "completely" ruled out either. "