Fanatical Debunkers VERSUS Woo-woo's

[SkinWalker]

"Debunking" isn't a matter of disbelief so much as it is a matter of removing the "bunk" that might exist in a specific claim. For instance, if a traveling salesman were to come to town and claim that his elixer could remove stains, cure insomnia, remove warts, and restore lost hair, a "debunker" would question the claims and demand evidence prior to allowing this con-artist to fleece the willing and believing public of their money.

 

[Ophiolite]

OMG, you two are funny to watch.

Canadian: Aliens exist and have been visiting us for year's, why can't you see??

Ophiolite: Prove it.

Canadian: I have proven it, you just don't listen or debunk it. Get laid, now.

Ophiolite: None of the information you've given me has anything to do with aliens visiting us. You've proven nothing. I am smarter than you.

Canadian: There were no weapon's of mass destruction. I hate Bush.

Ophiolite: What? My IQ is bigger, so shutup.

Canadian: Did you ever get laid?

I'm delighted you found our exchanges amusing. Next time please use my words, not an interpretation of a paraphrase of what you think I might have thought about saying.
I responded to your request to explore the thought processes of debunkers and woo-wooos. I believe I did so in a calm and fair manner. I have persisted in this spirit in subsequent posts. I consider the above to be a travesty of the exchange between myself and Canadian. If your intent was to remove me from this discussion, you have suceeded.

 

[Persol]

will the clarification be ufo's piloted by et's?

The statement was "ufo/et". Everybody has seen a UFO. ETs are likely. The chance of a UFO being from an ET is unlikely.

if so, what is the parallel b/w a witch? perhaps you refer to broomsticks piloted by a witches?

When something was not understood, it was deemed withcraft. When someone doesn't know what a UFO is, it is deemed alien.

 

[A Canadian]

Wow what the hell happened here.... btimsah's post really screwed up the convo....

I have so many replys to differnt posts now, I won't even bother...

Mabey tommorow.

BTW: btimsah

Have you ever got it wrong.... you took works out of plogs mouth and used them to accuse ophies on what he/she said....

Thats wrong man....

Either you quote us or you don't. But I do not like having words and arguments twisted around.

 

[btimsah]

Did you two not see where I wrote, "You two crack me up"? I was merely writing a satirical version of the argument between you two.. I thought it was funny...

I really think this is much ado about nothing really. :m: Peace

(EDIT - It was not meant to be serious..)

 

[btimsah]

"Debunking" isn't a matter of disbelief so much as it is a matter of removing the "bunk" that might exist in a specific claim. For instance, if a traveling salesman were to come to town and claim that his elixer could remove stains, cure insomnia, remove warts, and restore lost hair, a "debunker" would question the claims and demand evidence prior to allowing this con-artist to fleece the willing and believing public of their money.

In some situations you are right. However, on here during the UFO/ETI argument's I've seen more than just questioning or demanding evidence. If a group of 15 people claim they saw an unidentified object doing amazing thing's, with some physical evidence such as impressions, burnt spots, radiation.. etc.. Then 1 person suggest's something different, typically on here a debunker would AUTOMATICALLY believe the 1 witness and dismiss the other 15 who counter it. Using this logic, in a group of 500 witnesses, if 1 witness suggest something more mundane took place the 500 are full of it and wrong.

That's probably my biggest "problem" with the "debunkers" on here. There's such a strong desire to debunk UFO'S that almost ANY explanation is accepted A.S.A.P, even if there's strong evidence to suggest otherwise or that we just don't know what happened. Has any debunker on here ever heard a UFO case they could not "debunk?

 

[SkinWalker]

I don't think that it is a matter of "any explanation" so much as it is a willingness to accept that more prosaic and/or simpler explanations are more probable. I don't exclude the possibility that ETI have visited our planet, but I certainly dismiss anything more than the most remote possibility based on available evidence. That's speaking for myself, but I'm sure that there are others whom you would consider "debunkers" that would agree with me.

As far as UFO cases that could not be debunked? Definately. And when they're brought up, I typically don't say much about them, primarily because I cannot explain them. But this isn't necessarily due to the reason that these cases are genuine ETI-UFOs. Often there simply isn't enough information or resources that are convenient to investigate. An example is the alleged UFO in Iran during the Cold War. The evidence that exists are epigraphical and anecdotal, physical evidence being absent. Any historian or archaeologist will tell you that both are types of evidence to be skeptical of, even though there is often something to be learned.