Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Always try to debunk before getting excited


Paramys

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, toast said:

FTB = flammable true believers.

How the heck do feel correct in yr position to judge about another person, who does not agree on you or on a claim given, made his decision without checking realistic possibilities? Thats a stupid and arrogant attitude. And its the FTBs who follow preconceived notions and not the realists. If someone post a pic of his left shoe and claims it to be a pic of a mothership, there is no reason to think about other possibilities and thats not called preconceived notion.

 

 

Like a$$holes I debated about Hessdalen-lights for example, who claim that all the sightings and recordings are false and fake. And if they were real they were just reflections from truck-headlights or Venus. That kind of a$$hole-debunkers I mean. They hadn't considered other possibilities. Regarding preconceived notions; you might find them in any camp - and you just proved yours with the quote below;

Quote

History has shown that all phenomenon have found their answers later on and not one single answer out of these billions has ever been connected to something paranormal and I will continue to remind of the fact that ppl who claim otherwise are uneducated morons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, EllJay said:

I should have written `debunker´ instead of `skeptic´ True skeptics don't accept claims without evidence to support, but are willing to look at every angle of a claim, and willing to reconsider their position when proven so - or concede that they; ´dont know´, regarding claims that are unexplainable. But `debunkers´ (false skeptics) generally say that an experiencer/witness/researcher lie, cheat, or are crazy when they cant explain or dismiss a claim on other grounds. It has nothing with me being shown to be incorrect on something, but it has to do with dismissive bull**** from debunkers, as I said.

I believe that the term debunker is a derogatory term used by those that have no evidence to support their stance or wish to avoid the evidence that shows their position in wrong. It is used in awkward attempts to change the dialog from a discussion of the evidence to an ad hominem on those bring evidence to the discussion. More often than not I find it is used by close minded people making the laughable claim that they are being open minded.

I don't mind being called a debunker when I debunk the nonsense of crop circles, chem trails, doom porn purveyors, homeopathic medicines, Bosnian pyramids, Greenland is Atlantis and other blather. People taken in by such obvious nonsense don't want to hear any point of view. They have swallowed the codswallop hook, line, and sinker. These folks need to sit down, count to 10, and reevaluate their position.

You have referred to "lie, cheat, or are crazy" a few times. Some people make living doing that. Scott Waring does that. Calleman does that. Wilcock does that. The wacko from the rabbit's hole does that. Icke and EVD and .... do that. There are also people that simply don't understand. Unlike the liars and cheaters some people have no idea that what they are espousing is nonsensical and the evidence exists that shows their position to be incorrect. Not sure what you repeat "lie, cheat, or are crazy" since I do  not see that applied in general, but reserved for those people that know better yet continue to push nonsense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, EllJay said:

Like a$$holes I debated about Hessdalen-lights for example, who claim that all the sightings and recordings are false and fake. And if they were real they were just reflections from truck-headlights or Venus. That kind of a$$hole-debunkers I mean. They hadn't considered other possibilities

I dont know the material your are talking about. But it is fact that a lot of CT idiots jumped on the train and published a lot of idiotic material that has nothing to do with, and is not backed by, the Project Hessdalen scientists work. And yes, there a lot of vids showing reflections from truck-headlights or Venus, but again, these have nothing to do with the original project.

Quote

Regarding preconceived notions; you might find them in any camp - and you just proved yours with the quote below;

My statement was based on facts so I dont understand where you see any kind of preconceived notion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, EllJay said:

 

Like a$$holes I debated about Hessdalen-lights for example, who claim that all the sightings and recordings are false and fake. And if they were real they were just reflections from truck-headlights or Venus. That kind of a$$hole-debunkers I mean. They hadn't considered other possibilities. Regarding preconceived notions; you might find them in any camp - and you just proved yours with the quote below;

 

Wow. I see you don't like other points of view.

Does that make you a debunker? Just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, EllJay said:

Yeah, jumping to conclusions (E.T) on very little support of a claim (a light in the sky) is the wrong way to go. But I don't agree that `extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof´. Extraordinary claims requires ordinary proof - just as any other claims. A proof doesn't have to be extraordinary.

Here is why I disagree, think of it this way:  An extraordinary claim is something that is highly improbable which you are claiming to be true or highly probable.  To support this claim you need more than ordinary proof because you are trying to change a highly improbable something into a highly probable something.   Rational wiki has a good example and even a formula backing up why extraordinary proof is required.  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence  but if you don't want to bother here is an analogy they have posted at that link:

Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends but wouldn't require much more evidence than that to believe her. If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests.

Another example is if I told you I could guess which way a coin toss will go how many times in a row would you require me to guess right?  If I guessed 9 out of 10 would you believe my claim?   How about 90 out of 100?  90% correct is pretty solid evidence but wouldn't you also require proof that I am not cheating in some way?  Why?  Because you know, mathematically, that it is nearly impossible to guess a coin toss 90% of the time yet I am doing it so wouldn't you require extraordinary proof of my claim?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A simple situation involves me. I work along the coast at a place where I am locked in a room without windows to do my work. I like to go outside and eat lunch at a spot overlooking a quiet inlet. Here I see things like osprey and bald eagles, water snakes, turtles, egrets and sometimes rays and crabs. One day I saw an animal swim across the water that had a rather thick tail or so I thought. I decided from my rather brief observation that I had spotted a nutria in the water. When I asked if others had seen nutria in the area I was told it was more likely that I had seen a woodchuck. Although I was watching for color top and bottom, length and shape of tail, head size relative to body, and such I am not sure about my identification. I did search the area for signs of beaver and did not find any recent signs. I did scan the banks for signs of burrows and found a number. I continue to look for more evidence and have seen woodchucks nearby but not another nutria sighting. I am leaning towards nutria due to length of tail, but for now I don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Venus hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of appearing in an image with those settings, plus, once you orient the photo properly (it's on its side in the OP), that's not where Venus would be - it would be out of shot to the left.  That little blob is almost certainly a lens flare - there's a significant clue in the fact that you will note the flare is directly diagonally opposite to the brightest light source.. Eg:
1zcmqk_annotatedj.jpg

OP, you can check this for yourself, indeed I invite you to do so - take several similar shots at different angles into the Sun (although don't point the thing at the sun for more than about 30 seconds as it is possible to damage the sensor.  You can probably even watch the little flare move around as you pan the camera around.

 

To Elljay....

On ‎2016‎-‎08‎-‎18 at 0:21 AM, EllJay said:

Like a$$holes I debated about Hessdalen-lights for example, who claim that all the sightings and recordings are false and fake.

Frankly, I'm sick to death of that sort of silly generalisation.

Elljay, would you be kind enough to QUOTE just one of these expletive-deleted persons and where they said that?

On ‎2016‎-‎08‎-‎18 at 0:21 AM, EllJay said:

And if they were real they were just reflections from truck-headlights or Venus.

Again, where was this claim and was it debated properly, or do you just pull this stuff out of .. somewhere?

Anyone dumb enough to make that claim when it clearly didn't apply would be run out of a forum like this - or weren't you able to point out where they were wrong?

On ‎2016‎-‎08‎-‎18 at 0:21 AM, EllJay said:

That kind of a$$hole-debunkers I mean. They hadn't considered other possibilities. Regarding preconceived notions; you might find them in any camp - and you just proved yours with the quote below;

It's a real pity, Elljay, isn't it, when some (probably most) of these a$$holes actually know what they are talking about.. 

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TheBIHLover said:

Without discussions, science is nothing. 

???  Ummm, okay..    Without elaboration, some posts are confusing...

Are you applauding this discussion?  If so, that's very nice.

Or are you suggesting it wasn't fully covered? If so, be part of the solution and ask questions or post better or correcting information.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

???  Ummm, okay..    Without elaboration, some posts are confusing...

Are you applauding this discussion?  If so, that's very nice.

Or are you suggesting it wasn't fully covered? If so, be part of the solution and ask questions or post better or correcting information.

I support all discussions regarding science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amazing that you captured Venus during the day so close to the sun. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Amazing that you captured Venus during the day so close to the sun. :tu:

He didnt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Always try to debunk before getting excited

That's good.  But if you run out of explanations, don't religiously believe "it never happened!" in preference to admitting there might be something mysterious about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

That's good.

Yes, it is.  Really good, common sense.

6 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

But if you run out of explanations

We didn't.  In fact several knowledgeable people not only suggested possibilities, but also pointed out the extremely likely and obvious one (a simple lens flare).  AND even explained how to verify it - lens flares are quite easy to create when you point a lens into the Sun.  The laws of physics / optics demand it!

6 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

don't religiously believe "it never happened!" in preference to admitting there might be something mysterious about it.

As the first part of that sentence does NOT apply, it sure seems a bit pointless in this case.  You may as well suggest it could have been a large piece of fairy dust deposited by a flying unicorn rider..  But that would be silly and a waste of time, no...?

 

Ssilhouette, do you have any particular dispute with the information presented in the thread, especially that where I showed a simple method to find the centre of any given image (two diagonal lines as shown above) and that the lens flare is 'mirrored' to appear directly opposite to the Sun, just as the most common lens flares usually are..?  Please elaborate.

It looks exactly like a lens flare.

It's where a lens flare would be.

It's not mysterious, except in an "I refuse to learn anything about photography" way....

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

 

It looks exactly like a lens flare.

It's where a lens flare would be.

It's not mysterious, except in an "I refuse to learn anything about photography" way....

Sure, in this case maybe.  But not in all cases of all paranormal events.  Some, but not all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that Ssilhouette edited out and refused to answer this question, which was the key here:
 

Quote

Ssilhouette, do you have any particular dispute with the information presented in the thread..?

 ..and then continues to dispute it as being resolved..

3 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

Sure, in this case maybe.  But not in all cases of all paranormal events.  Some, but not all.

.. well, I think it's pretty clear there is an agenda to this - otherwise it should be posted on the alleged 'other' threads - the 'real' paranormal ones...  Ones where Ssilhouette is willing to properly dispute the explanation.

 

..ftr, don't worry, I won't be back to continue this derail.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2016 at 6:19 PM, SSilhouette said:

Always try to debunk before getting excited

That's good.  But if you run out of explanations, don't religiously believe "it never happened!" in preference to admitting there might be something mysterious about it.

A problem with Ufology and other fringe beliefs is that so many people jump to the conclusion of mysterious when they see something mundane, thus the endless parade of photos of lens flares, digital artefacts, lights reflected in windows, etc. being paraded as evidence of the paranormal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JesseCuster said:

A problem with Ufology and other fringe beliefs is that so many people jump to the conclusion of mysterious when they see something mundane, thus the endless parade of photos of lens flares, digital artefacts, lights reflected in windows, etc. being paraded as evidence of the paranormal.

Agreed and that is, logically, the exact wrong way to approach these things.  Look for the simplest explanation and then work your way to the fantastical and you'll most likely never get past the first or second mundane causal factor (bug or bird flying by, empty trash bag blowing in the wind, drone, etc.)  If we're all lucky then maybe one day, while we are still breathing, we'll scratch all the "mundane" off the list and be left with something extraordinary that changes how we view our world and the universe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SSilhouette said:

But not in all cases of all paranormal events.  Some, but not all.

There are no paranormal events at all. Science even does not use that wording for events that are not explainable yet. Until elucidation, such events are labeled unexplained. History has shown that all such events got explained later on and history has also shown that there is not a single case were science labeled a case as to be "paranormal".

A lot of events are called "paranormal events" by the woo-woo heads only just because of their lack in understanding and knowledge in physics, astronomy, photography and other relevant disciplines. A very same and specific event thats called "paranormal" by the woo-woo heads, is an event that gets (easily) explained by ppl with knowledge and understanding in, e.g., astronomy and photography and this thread here is a very good example for such an explanation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.