Don't hate the skeptics, hate the debunkers

Skeptics help ufologists remain honest & diligent with their research.

Skeptics may not believe but that is ok because their questions are valid & help ufo enthusiasts to decern between what is obviously a fraud cough...Bob Lazar, Billy Meier...cough.

You'll notice that when a skeptic encounters a more genuine ufo case they're arguments make good use of the word probably, this is good because probably doesn't add up to anything. Please be mindful of the skeptic & their value to ufology.

Debunkers are out & out scum cough...Philip J Klass R.I.P... They don't give well researched arguments for their disbelief they resort to mockery.

Skeptics use their minds, Debunkers use their mouths

Sincerely

Life long UFO interested Guy

Isn't this generalizing all debunkers? So, you're essentially saying that people should hate the debunkers that prove UFO cases to be frauds and falsified accounts?

There is nothing wrong with proving a fraud a fraud, but there are debunkers who make a living out of going into situations with their minds already made up & nothing they see dissuades them from that. That is not honest investigation or detective work.

To clarify my statement, debunkers who debunk for the sake of debunking are scum.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for proper investigations & investigators who expose the treacherous frauds in ufology

Well, thanks for clarifying And although I'm skeptic towards most UFO cases (I do believe some are genuine, but they're muddled in between all the lies and frauds), I do agree that debunking just to debunk is a bit pointless. If you're going to debunk something, at least do it to make a point, in this area of work, it would be to prove that UFO cases can, and often do, have natural and/or scientific explanations.

Thats very true, there is so much out there that can account for unidentified flying objects, a true ufologist needs to be systematic in proving why these objects cannot be accounted for by other means. It's the truth that counts with UFOs, theres no point basking in a really good clip if you know deep down it is probably a fraud, oil flares or something else. I want to know when something isn't genuine, if it's not a genuine ufo it's better to move on & keep searching. Without that in mind one may find themselves enrolled in a ufo cult, or purchasing ufo instruction seminars from Steven M Greer

We keep getting this ad hominem smear that skeptical writers are paid intellectual prostitutes who 'make a living' in dissing UFO stories and witnesses. Year after year, decade after decade....

I keep saying, I sure wish I knew who to send the invoices to, because I know I certainly am not being paid to have a prescribed opinion, and I don't know anybody else in ufology who ever has been -- much less 'making a living' off it. The people who make a living -- or a substantial supplemental income -- off the UFO topic are all believers, as far as I can see -- and they make a living off of not DEbunking, but often, off of 'bunking' defenseless readers and viewers.

I think people who believe that debunkers are on salary, and keep insisting on it as a bigotry to enforce blindness and closed-mindedness, are scum. Or at least, lichen. Maybe mugworts.

Fire, if you have so much respect for honest investigation and skepticism, list me a few skeptical investigation reports you have accepted as credible, please.

Did you raise your left hand before you said this?

Just the middle finger.

Ah yes, the skeptics vs debunker's spiel...
What I think is most amusing is the implication that people make a living debunking UFO stories. When it is patently clear that MANY people make up stories for monetary gain. It's like hating cops...if there were no crooks, we would need no cops. And no one likes a cop until they get saved by one, then all of a sudden they are a hero.



Who the hell picks that as a career path? Who the hell gets paid to debunk? Unless you wrap it up in some government conspiracy garbage. It's just silly.

was that saying that You, think lazars a fraud? or the debunkers do?

But there are UFO case files that have nothing to do with monetary gain. What would airline and military pilots gain for filing a UFO report? In such cases, you are talking, lack of monetary gain. One such case involved a Japanese pilot who lost his job after filing a UFO report, and that is one reason why many commercial pilots are afraid to file UFO reports.



Are you familiar with the Colorado Study and Dr. E. U. Condon?



Blame the government for the government conspiracy. After all, even Congressman Steve Schiff (R-NM) agreed after the Air Force impeded his own investigation into the Roswell incident and to him, that was more astounding than the Roswell incident itself. You can read all about it in the Washington Post, January 14, 1994.

You can find many government UFO documents that involved military personnel that have nothing to do with monetary gain. The reason why Roswell was thrust into the UFO limelight, was because the military reported that it had recovered a flying saucer, and Roswell is just reaping in the benefits of the Air Force's own report that it had captured a flying saucer.

I wonder how much money was paid for the Colorado Study, which was used to debunk UFOs, and the Air Force's 1994 and 1997 Roswell Reports, which were used to continue the government cover-up and "bunking" the defenseless public?

I have witnessed UFO's but I consider myself still a debunker.

When it comes to this taboo subject all UFO sightings need to be examined and most can be debunked.

The best way to prove or disprove a piece of footage is in fact to try and debunk it. Attempting to prove if something is man made or natural before jumping to conclusions is the best way.

Debunkers= opportunists who seek out some stories that can be dismissed and then apply those few to ALL UFO reports and attempt to get quoted by as many media outlets as possible.

Skeptics= Those who doubt that people see such things as UFO's or can't believe that any other species could possibly be more advanced than mankind.

Yet both know more than the millions of eyewitnesses and readily spout their disbelief in what the millions have seen. Seething with jealousy and feeling somewhat inadequate they lash out at something that they cannot begin to comprehend. Do UFO's only show themselves to people that are of a certain mindset? Or could it just be a case of being in the right place at the right time? What makes a skeptic so jealous as to lash out with such disbelief? What makes the debunker always think that they have it all figured out and can seemingly apply their cookie cutter theories to all cases?

Do skeptics or debunkers think that millions of people are totally invalid in what they have witnessed?

Let us get down to the reality of the situation.

Believers have seen. Believers do not always understand what they have seen. Believers tell their stories, to the best of their ability in most cases to share something unusual that they have witnessed. Millions of reports come out, and yet millions more never report anything! Why do so many NOT report it? It is for fear of ridicule from both of the aforementioned parties! "Well people will think I am crazy" ! So, even though there may be cases out there that rival the Travis Walton case, or top it, we won't hear about it because of fear of ridicule! Imagine if everyone at least took the time to listen without labeling or scoffing at everyone with a story to tell. How many hundreds of thousands of good cases have we not heard of because of fear of being ridiculed? I shudder to think of the great stories that have never been told.. The self righteous all knowing debunker squad is just waiting and foaming at the mouth to jump on you like a leopard waiting in the dark to devour it's next victim. They wait in the wings to throw out their generic ridicule bullets at anyone at any moment. Physics and science though good, are not infallible. We claim to know so much, but usually end up finding more questions than answers no matter where we look in scientific matters. So, give mankind some credit where credit is due however, we are still mental infants when it comes to the universe and all of it's workings, yet debunkers use that limited knowledge to spout out how impossible it is to travel between the stars, or inter-dimensionally through time or space, with the same reverence that the church used to preach on how the sun revolved around the earth. So we believers are supposed to believe in swamp gas, and known anomalies to explain things that have been seen? And we are supposed to believe the rhetoric that is used time and time again by those that just won't open their eyes to the skies? Hmmm.

I suppose that those who have seen take pity on those who have not. It is very frustrating more than anything else. I guess a good analogy would be on the first person to find Niagra Falls, and then go back and describe it to someone else.. "Wow, folks you should see these falls that we saw! They were like huge falls! They are so big that I can't even tell ya, you gotta go see them!" Imagine the other person on the other end of this! What do they visualize in their mind? They most likely see some ordinary falls, slightly larger than some they had seen before.. Now, our explorer can't begin to describe them to where they even get a close picture of the falls. He may hold his arms out and or say, that they are about a mile wide and that they are really amazing. So the people that he describes them to, just won't ever understand fully until they go look and behold the splendor for themselves! This is what believers deal with. They have seen the falls for themselves. Whether they can describe the events well or not, the fact remains that they have seen what they have seen and no one can tell them otherwise. If the other person never makes it to see Niagra Falls, they will never get it! The picture that they painted in their minds eye will remain. The falls will just be a larger than usual falls, nothing spectacular at all. Yet our explorer has a whole different picture in his minds eye, because he was there. He cannot begin to explain the splendor or magnificence of what he has seen. Therein lies the problem between skeptics, debunkers, and believers! Those that have seen, don't really need to discuss what they have seen with anyone else in all reality. I think that believers could do without skeptics and debunkers just fine. I'm sure that there are some that want to make others believe, but it is really not necessary, and I sometimes wonder why they do. I write on the subject quite often, and I'm not out to convince any skeptic or debunker of anything. I already know that they are stuck in a quagmire of their own creation. Sure, I'd love to throw them a rope, but I love to watch them dig themselves deeper and deeper into their quagmire. It makes for great comedic moments to listen to them try to weasel their non belief onto the whole of humanity with their self righteous tones.

And last and least.. They are always quick to dismiss everything, but yet offer no plausible explanations to most any account. They are so shallow and they have no real armor. They are bringing a knife to a gunfight in most cases. Let's go over their brilliant theories.
1. Meteors 2. Comets 3. Space shuttle or space station going overhead 4. Satellites going over 5. Swamp gas 6. Military craft 7. Mass hallucinations
8. Jet aircraft 9. Weather balloons 10. Ball Lightning 11. Earth lights 12. Car headlights 13. Hot air balloons 14. Blimps 15. Fireworks
So when a metallic object is hovering right above you, making no noise whatsoever, and it zips away at a blinding speed clear out of the earth's atmosphere in the blink of an eye, which of the above standard explanations are we supposed to use? And if it zig zags (showing off it's capabilites for your amusement) at full speed on it's way out, which of the above cookie cutter explanations would it fit into? Y'all need to go see Niagra Falls, I hear it's really spectacular to see!

Gtars said it..

It always amazes me to see people redefine terms in order to suit their needs at the time.

Let's see how these terms are really defined...from Websters online.






Hmm...sounds a bit different from gtars definitions.





Err...maybe they aren't so much jealous as they are simply not convinced? Now, some people are overly dismissive and close minded (one could say this about a variety of subject areas not just UFOs), but being skeptical and unwilling to accept that which is 'bunk' (aka, nonsense) isn't quite the same thing.



Ok, but if 'believers' see something that they don't always understand what is it that they believe? I mean, if one sees a UFO that one is completely baffled about, what next? Should one just up and conclude (without direct evidence) that it simply 'has to be aliens'?




Well, no one knows if it's possible to travel the vast distances between the stars. Frankly, no one knows if there's an ET race doing this or not. The question of whether or not advanced ETs exist is simply unkown at this time. As for the 'anomalies' issue...perhaps we're dealing with unknown anomalies as regards UFOs? Since we don't really know what UFOs are, it's best not to dismiss any possibilities (including ET, but not exclusively focusing upon ET).



Interesting piece of reasoning. You see, I, too, have seen a UFO. However, since I don't know exactly what this object was I'm not going to jump to any particular conclusion without conclusive evidence. So, I guess this makes me a 'skeptical believer'? And, as far as those who promote 'bunk' as being evidence (for example, Billy Meiers rather 'out there' UFO photos and stories) guess my dismissal of that stuff makes me a 'debunking believer' perhaps?





Some UFOs do fit into conventional (aka known) explanations...some simply do not. Those that do not are the true unknowns.

So, if "a metallic object is hovering right above you, making no noise whatsoever, and it zips away at a blinding speed clear out of the earth's atmosphere in the blink of an eye, which of the above standard explanations are we supposed to use? And if it zig zags (showing off it's capabilites for your amusement) at full speed on it's way out, which of the above cookie cutter explanations would it fit into?", the answer here is that you don't shove an unknown into any explanation that doesn't fit. What you do is to suspend judgement, and continue to look for evidence. What you don't do is just jump to the conclusion that it 'has to be aliens' at the exclusion of any and all other possibilities. This is the rational scientific approach.

First of all, I wouldn't talk about millions (have you calculated?), rather that thousands:) Eyewitnesse's stories fly around the internet (such a den of iniquity) like mosquitos in the woods, and I'm sure the most of that stories are not worth an old song. Why? Because, any proof of non-existant UFO-ET would destroy fanatic believer's beliefs (cornerstone of their life), knock the bottom out (tell muslim, that Allah don't exist). Professional ufologists (and mass media) just pour oil on the flame to keep their profits.
BTW I've met few people, who wouldn't confess their mistakes in any circumstances - its just their nature - they get angry, call you names, when you try to convince them.

There are other ways to make that determination, especially since NORAD has been tracking them with their space surveillance assets for years. To further add, saucer-shaped flying objects, some larger than ships, and confirmed by radar, have been tracked by dissimilar ground-based and airborne radar and other optical and electronic tracking systems, which obviously exclude conventional aircraft. The question is; what aircraft do we possess with equal performance characteristics as real flying saucers?



Just because we don't know, doesn't exclude anyone else, especially beings who are milliions of years more advanced than mankind! After all, there were those who once claimed that space and air travel were impossible, and today, reality has proven them wrong. Never say it can't be done based on what we currently know because we haven't crossed the bridge yet.



There are those who do know, which includes those in the military and intelligence services.



Not to those who know much more than has been revealed! And, I can safely say that you do not know what goes on behind closed-doors if you truly believe that the existence of ET is unknown at this time.



What saucer-shaped aircraft do we have that are capable of the performance capabilities that have been demonstrated time after time both visually through the centuries, and recorded by many tracking and surveillance assets as well? What other forms of life are capable of building such advanced spaceships?



There are tons of evidence that proves beyond any doubt that the UFOs in question, are artificial flying objects, and their performance capabilities exclude any conventional aircraft, so who built those exotic spacecrafts?



I have been on the case of Billy Meiers as well, but that didn't change my view on what the "UFOs in question" are, because I have seen one in action and know beyond any doubt that Billy Meier had nothing to do with the UFO that overflew my base.



True, and why I tend to focus on those, where there are no conventional explanations, and remember, I am on the record as stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained, but there are those that cannot.



A balloon can do that as long as there is no wind or if it is tethered.



Well, we know that balloons can't zip away in a flash, nor can aircraft zoom off at hypersonic speeds within seconds from basically a standing start, but that is what has been reported by the military and recorded on radar systems, that corroborated the visual accounts of artificial flying objects in the shape of a saucer, not to mention other shapes as well.



If it zig-zags in the manner as reported, than we can use the process-of-elimination to exlude our conventional aircraft.




I must add that there are scientist who are believers based on what they have observed, tracked, and know.

UFOlogist have poured over lots of UFO reports, many of which were documented by intelligence and military services around the globe, of flying saucers and other objects whose advanced performance characteries obviously exclude conventional aircraft by far, so in that regard, ET will be firmly with us from now, and beyond.

Just to make a point, have you heard of the "Amazing Randi." All he does for a living is debunk stuff that he doesn't believe in; UFOs, ghosts, psychics (especially, I think this is how he started), high end audio (i'm not joking at all. apparently, randi believes that no human being can possibly tell the difference between a $50 audio cable and a $50,000 audio cable).

Anyway, this guy has made TV show appearances and written books (such as "The Truth About Uri Geller") where he just debunks stuff. So yes, there really are people out there that make a living as a debunker.

And you know this how exactly?

That's a stretch. Weren't we talking about UFOs?

...and secret gummint payoffs?

while I believe because of first hand account there is more in our skies than we can account for and that it does show intelligence/control .

it's the ones out there with stories of being abducted for years on end but can't seem to set up a camera(s) , video equipment , sensors to trigger the latter to gain proof.

pure fantasy. and it hurts the honest inquiry and study.

As you may note in my article, there never was any mention of the word "aliens" or "ET's" anywhere in the text.
I think you have another case of jumping conclusions as to what you were inferring me to have said.

Since I wrote the definition of my opinions of skeptics and debunkers that you took issue with, I can only say that these in fact were MY definitions, and not taken from any book of reference, other than the gtars manual for truth, justice, and the American way chronicles. The gtars chronicles also state for the following term that you used "skeptical believer" as: not willing to make a qualified judgment for fear of ridicule; Unable or unwilling to take a stance.


And a special note to Dearest Lillie: We have been round and round on this topic several times to which you have
described your UFO incident. I know of your stance as I'm sure you know of mine as well. I can see with your single incident, how you can take the position of "skeptical believer". What you saw, could probably be explained by conventional mis-identification of a known object syndrome. Since you have only had one sighting of something that you would like to be able to explain away in your own mind, it is easy to be a skeptic. To those of us that have seen close up (not far away as yours was), we don't have such an easy brush off as you do. So, it would be best to not dog us for our positions either. As stated earlier, I never said the word "alien" at all, nor did I use the term "ET". You injected that into what I was saying yourself. I also think that you should embrace the use of the UFO term in a different light. You seem to act like UFO and ALIENS go hand in hand, and then you shy away from describing your own sighting as a UFO. It is allowed in the Gtars Reference Manual, to see a UFO without saying you saw Aliens! Here is why! The Gtars Reference Manual defines UFO as ; unidentified flying object. The manual does not add any preconceived notions to those three words. It simply means to you, that it is OK to refer to your sighting as UFO. Since YOU don't know what it is, it is therefore unidentified, YOU said it was flying, or hovering. And you did say it was an object of some sort.
So, it is OK Lillie to call your sighting a UFO sighting, and I promise not to infer that you saw aliens. I will close with respect for your position. We both know through multiple ping pong sessions how we feel on this subject. One thing that I realize is how you will not go outside of your box on this. I am not out to convince you of anything, so when you see a gtars post, go on to the next one and read it instead. PLEASE consider my posts as the ramblings of a madman and don't read them, or reply to them. Just as you will hold your position, I have more reasons for my positions than you do for yours. Nothing you can say will ever change my mindset, so continued posturing back and forth will never gain either one of us any ground against the other. While, I read your posts with respect, and keeping in mind that you have a limited experience base to draw your conclusions on, I will not hold it against you in any manner. We will both just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Kudos and respect for you!

Agreed in a manner of speaking. I saw a story last week that since one man in South America tried several times to use a camcorder to record an ongoing event happening over several nights, that all electronic equipment seems to fail in close up encounters, that he tricked them by using an old film wind up non-electronic camera. At the time of the article, he had sent the film off to have it developed. I wonder what that film will show? I thought that it was clever for him to use a camera with no electronics at all, since they seem to lose power so conveniently. If this guy gets it developed and it ever gets posted on the web, I will try to come back to this message post and provide a link to it.
The odds are slim though, as his film will mysteriously disappear before he ever gets it.

Yes, I used the term millions for a specific reason. Just taking a simple calculation of personal family members and friends, and doing the math would indicate millions. Just taking an easy slice of 25 people in the categories above and how many out of the 25 I know have experienced something, this phenomenon may be more widespread than you may be comfortable with. Just in my close family alone, every single one of them have had multiple sightings. Friends that I know almost half of them have seen something at one time or another. Also the millions applies to worldwide and over the past fifty years of time, millions have seen. Just take the famous Mexico sightings during the eclipse, there were millions that saw that event alone! I think it was NBC during a story from the 90's did a survey and found that something like 36 percent of people believe in UFO's (at the time of the story). Usually most have to see something to get onto the believer bandwagon, but I will digress on that point, for the skeptics. Let us assume that out of the 36 percent, that maybe less than half actually saw something in order to get them on the believer bandwagon, do the math! Let's say that only 1/8th of them saw anything.. do the math.
That survey was Americans only. Now take a look at all of the other countries and take them into account. I'd say millions more accurately describes it than thousands! I stand by my millions!

Absolutely, and I'll leave it there!

Thanks to the United States Air Force, my nose was pointed in the direction that proved there were no Project Mogul balloon train that accounted for the Roswell incident. My advice on what to look for in regards to UFO reality, look at the "clues of deception," fomented by the U.S. government, and ask the question; why?

To sum it up, the clues are screaming, but who is listening? The words are written all over the wall, but who's reading?

Gee, it was you who said (right at the beginning):



This lead me to think you were supporting the UFOs equal ET hypothesis. BTW, what exactly is your hypothesis as regards UFOs?




Ok, but just keep in mind that others may be thinking more along the Websters Dictionary definition of these terms.




1) My name is spelled *Lilly*.

2) I'm not "explaining away in my own mind" any aspect of what I saw, neither am I "brushing off" anything.




Generally speaking, people post on discussions forums because they want to actually discuss a subject. This leads me to wonder who is hesitant to go "outside of their box"?




Wow, I never thought anything like that at all, simply thought you were jumping to conclusions a bit prematurely.



Really, you think you have "more reasons" than I for your opinion? Frankly, I have a great deal of reasoning in support of my position...that's what I thought I was discussing.




Well, if you don't desire any further discussion, then I guess you're quite correct.

Randi began as a magician. He (his organization - JREF) debunks many things. The organization is not-for-profit.

From the JREF website-

Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society.

As for debunking - it's basically put up or shut up.

If Randi has stopped one nice old lady from giving up her savings to a charlatan then he is worth whatever he is making from lectures and such. IMHO

Regarding the audio challenge - if you feel you can do this you should contact Randi. (You should also read the details of this challenge. It's not quite as you are saying.) There is a million dollars riding on it.



HN

So, the over feel of the thread seems like it's a case of "Don't hate the player, hate the game"?

haha