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.

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.

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.”

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.

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?

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?

[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.

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)

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" (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=debunk)

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?

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? :confused: 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! :D

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.

:D 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 :D

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?

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.

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.

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.

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. :o 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. :confused: 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.

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 :D , but that's what they claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The title of this thread is incorrect, "Fanatical Debunkers" is an oxymoron.

The title should read, "Debunkers VERSES Fanatical Woo-Woo's"

What's really funny about UFOlogists is that they bleat alien visitation assertions with no hard evidence whatsoever. They completely ignore the problems associated with space travel in favour of technologies far advanced than our own which apparently break the laws of physics. Of course, they ignore studying physics to begin with hence have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.

You poeple need to put a bit more thought into what I said. A guy can't use a simple simile to get a point across?

I'm not trying to bring politics into this.
And by facts, it doesn't have to be hard pysical evidence. World wide testimonys, contance government cover up. Sure some poeple make it up and even go to extream lengths to fake a UFO story. But when you've seen a UFO yourself, you suddenly turn into the village idiot.

phlogistician: Is it not a fact that governments massivly black line documents concerning UFOs, is it not a fact that poeple from all walks of life have reported UFOs? I wouldn't call it a religion... I've seen a UFO.... But I have not seen god... I do not worship dancing lights in the sky...

Lets just say, that I got crystal clear videos and pictures of a UFO whizzing throught the air, with 10 other eyewitnesses getting the same thing in differnt locations (Funny thing is, this HAS happened many times before). The majory of the world is still not going to belive what they see.

Denile. Ignorance.

And I feel the term "Woo Woo" is unfair, it automaticly defines us belivers to be wack jobs.

no decent theories.
Ehhhh, actually I don't think what they (the ufo fanatics) call theories actually qualify as a theory...

the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Most of the people announce their ideas (You know, the ones they call theories that don't quite meet the prerequisite involving the scientific method.) without giving it a second thought, or listening to anyone who they consider a skeptic, since skeptics clearly are just close minded people who won't listen to anyone... And if you honestly believe that skeptics are close minded people who wont listen to anyone elses ideas, then congratulations; You're a Hypocrite.

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.When someone says 'that isn't what I said'... and you still use them as a source, that isn't a 'minor problem'. It says that the list and quotes on the list aren't even verified with the people that supposedly said it. In other words, much of it could simply be ET mythos.

I also have some experience with running a website and understand why they make you pay.So do I... and 8 bucks for a list of names is insane. Especially when this is your 'evidence' and you hide it were nobody can see it without payinjg or cheating.
Unless there are too many gaps which make no sense and the entire story seem's completely full of shit. :o Then I'll toss it into the pile of Ed Walters sightings.Listen to the testimony. It's not internally consistent, generally not plausible, and much of it has nothing to do with UFOs or ET.
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.We ALL believe in UFOs. The problem is claiming that UFOs are flown by ETs. This is a leap of logic you can't just guess at....

But when you've seen a UFO yourself, you suddenly turn into the village idiot.No... you only turn into the village idiot when you take a picture of a UFO and claim it was ET.

No... you only turn into the village idiot when you take a picture of a UFO and claim it was ET.

You tell your own personal testimony and you are still a village idiot.
I told my friends about my sighting, they thought I was nuts, and they made fun of me. But geeeezzzzz, 2 of them saw their own UFO.

What bugs me is the hoaxers....
They make up stuff, fake pictures and videos.... which only leads other to belive that anything else someone says, is a hoax aswell.

I am more pissed off at the hoaxers than the debunkers really.

I'd also like to add to something phlogistician said about, believing in UFOs with ETs inside them, being a religion.

Religious beliefs bring a strong factor into the debunkers side of the story. Some religions have stories of ETs and Flying vessels and what not somewhere. But when it comes to the more main religions of North America. It says nothing about aliens. Thus, for a strong religious believer to think that god create other beings "in his own image???" to be completely false.

We used to think the earth was flat, we used to think witches where real... Both ideas where basically started by one man. Both we eventually proved them to be false. The idea of ETs and UFOs is pretty much vise versa. Our alien "friends?" have been around for quite some time.

There may not be DEFENATIVE PROOF that they do exist, but there is no PROOF that they do not.

Thing about ETs is that, as our technology improves, so will theirs.
Making it harder and harder for us to find the truth.
You think that if there is another species(s) of beings out there, that they won't advance their technology as well?


UFO may mean unidentified flying object, but, some of the stuff out there... not even a super powers TOP military secrets can even come close to compare to it.

When someone says 'that isn't what I said'... and you still use them as a source, that isn't a 'minor problem'. It says that the list and quotes on the list aren't even verified with the people that supposedly said it. In other words, much of it could simply be ET mythos.

So do I... and 8 bucks for a list of names is insane. Especially when this is your 'evidence' and you hide it were nobody can see it without payinjg or cheating.
Listen to the testimony. It's not internally consistent, generally not plausible, and much of it has nothing to do with UFOs or ET.
We ALL believe in UFOs. The problem is claiming that UFOs are flown by ETs. This is a leap of logic you can't just guess at....

Well again, Persol. The hundred's of witnesses and their claims still stand untouched by you or me.

I am not sure what you're talking about, with the list. Is there a problem with the list? Even so, it does not in anyway erase the entire testimony of every witness. I am really only interested in each individual witness, and this program just happens to gather them together. These people are in industries which are very important to the UFO/ETI subject. FAA/Air controllers. Navy, Airforce, Military... etc.

I also have no clue what you mean by, internally consistant. These are extremely different people, reporting extremely different circumstances about extremely different subjects. Why would they be "internally consistant"?

See, again I feel you just created some reason to claim they were false without actually realizing that it does not pertain to the substance to any of the claims. Why?

Several claim UFO'S which they saw were driven by ETI.

But when you've seen a UFO yourself, you suddenly turn into the village idiot.


This is a great point, really. A-CANADIAN, when our government records a UFO on video according to John Callahan in 1986 he tells of the Japanese UFO incident in which a UFO is recorded trailing an airplane for like 31 minutes. Ground, air and radar conformation.

As he explains, the Reagan scientific staff was;

"They were very, very excited about the data. They had said that this was the only time a UFO was ever recorded on radar for any length of time where it is 30 some minutes."

Now, they did not analyze the shit out of it to make up unrealistic excuses for it not be alien or ETI. They studied it and assumed it was an incredible technological insight into ETI. This is what he claims, and I believe he has a lot of evidence to prove it. You can read his story below.

So - not everyone takes UFO'S and debunks or dismisses them immediately And they are certainly not kooks. Reagan talked about an "alien threat", perhaps this is why? He stated; "Perhaps we need some outside alien threat to unite us all".

http://extraterrestrial-life.net/John_Callahan.htm

In some way's I do fear that if they have, and are still hiding the complete truth about ETI, that it would be a bad thing.

In other words - they arent pretty. They are not nice. Their technology much supperior than our's and would make us litterally scared. Why else would it work? If they were loving adorable little aliens who love everyone and throw up peace signs - what would the threat be?

I am leaning toward the assumption that some aliens are hostile, or unfriendly. Why else hide it? This of course assumes they are. :D

- In more detail here are some quotes from President Reagan over the years.

June 1982:

Following a private White House screening of Spielberg's film "E.T", the President quietly commented to Mr. Spielberg. "You know, there aren't six people in this room who know just how true that really is." Unfortunately, a press of people coming forward to congratulate him prevented Spielberg from pursuing the point further. Spielberg reportedly told this to Jamie Shandera shortly after it happened.

December 4th, 1985:

While addressing a group of high school students in Fallston Maryland..." I couldn't help but say to Gorbachev, just think how easy his task and mine might be...if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences ....between our countries....and find out once and for all that we really are all human."

September 21st, 1987:

Before the United Nations General Assembly: " In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment," said Reagan, "we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask you," he went on, "is not an alien threat already among us ? What could be more alien to universal aspirations of our peoples than war and the threat of war?"

May 5th, 1988:

As President Reagan leaves the White House on the way to Chicago. Talking about the importance of frankness; for a desire for peaceful solutions and wars he goes on to say..."But, I've often wondered what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer--a power from another planet." Reagan said. "Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular threat?" The president said.

phlogistician: Is it not a fact that governments massivly black line documents concerning UFOs,

No, not really. The govt blackline documents that woowoos say concern UFOs, and then use the blacklining as 'evidence' of some sort of conspiracy. Maybe, the report covers stuff which is secret, terrestrial military technology, and not for public consumption? Whether secret or not, names will often be blacked out. Either way, you can't use what you don't have as proof of anything, that's absurd.


is it not a fact that poeple from all walks of life have reported UFOs?

Well, I'd love to see the demographic, and see if there is a category of person more likely to witness UFOs than others. So until we have that demographic, I can't agree with your statement. I'd say it was a fairly specific portion of the populace who were more likely to think what they saw was a UFO, people without much scientific background, or people prone to believe in the mysterious/religious/spiritual side of things. But I don't have data for that either.

I wouldn't call it a religion...

Hmm, staunchly believing things which have been proven almost impossible is dogma. Dogma is a trademark of religion!

I've seen a UFO.... But I have not seen god... I do not worship dancing lights in the sky...

Not everybody who believes in god indulges in formal worship either. UFOlogy fills a void in your life, as does religion in others. You embrace it without evidence, and on subjective experience.

Lets just say, that I got crystal clear videos and pictures of a UFO whizzing throught the air, with 10 other eyewitnesses getting the same thing in differnt locations

Let's say you did. I'd love to see that footage. Sad thing is, all I've seen offered, it out of focus, tight zoomed, camera shaken, and completely out of context with it's surroundings, so impossible to determine size, or flight characteristics. But yes, say you did manage to get that footage, and good, independant witnesses. I'd listen, I'd watch, and I'd try to find an explanation.


(Funny thing is, this HAS happened many times before). The majory of the world is still not going to belive what they see.

Show us the footage then. Because I've _never_ seen good quality footage. Well, not of UFOs. I've seen a good quality film of an alien autopsy, but that was proven to be a fake, albeit a very well staged one.

Denile. Ignorance.

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

And I feel the term "Woo Woo" is unfair, it automaticly defines us belivers to be wack jobs.

So? To believe some of this stuff requires suspension of belief of the laws of physics. That's like saying gravity doesn't exist. That makes folks whack jobs.

phlogistician bit of advice for you.

Go out and get laid.

or at the very least watch a UFO documentry once in a while.

Do more research before you even attempt to debunk. I am not going to waste my time replying to each one of thoes quotes. I am not going to waste my time with you.

You are clearly a fool.

A Canadian
I would still welcome a reply to my earlier post in which I said
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.
To remind other readers your criteria were:
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.

[In passing, I always thought denile was a big river that went through de country of Egypt. :) ]

If a debunker got ahold of a "clear UFO" video or photograph they would still debunk it or claim it was a secret government craft and possibly fake. As I've argued on other boards like this one, no image or video will ever be accepted as hard evidence by debunkers. The perfect video will be claimed to be fake and the bad video is too BAD to make such a claim. ;)

The best UFO video I've seen would be the STS 101 clip. After I watched debunker's debunk that video I realized how they would never conclude anything is alien. Apperently our government, according to many witnesses, consider's UFO'S to be ETI. Yet, debunker's do not, and consider ME and other's crazy if we do. :D

If a debunker got ahold of a "clear UFO" video or photograph they would still debunk it or claim it was a secret government craft and possibly fake.
We know there are secret government craft. No one disputes this.
We do not know that UFO's belong to ET's.
If we obtain a video of what could be a secret, experimental craft (which we know exist), or an ET UFO (whose existence is speculative), scientific logic requires that we favour the more likely explanation.

The best UFO video I've seen would be the STS 101 clip. After I watched debunker's debunk that video I realized how they would never conclude anything is alien.

Why would anyone believe something so far-fetched in favor of something far more prosaic such as some particulate effect in relation to the shuttle? An effect, by the way, that is well-documented and even expected on shuttle flights, particularly after thruster burns, which was the case in the SS Atlantis flight above.

Apperently our government, according to many witnesses, consider's UFO'S to be ETI.

Apparently, our government, according to many witnesses, accepts that a Jewish hippy killed over two-thousand years ago will return to take them to another world... Hell, I know of a government official that believes in Santaria. Government officials in several West African nations believe that there are witches that can harm them. Government officials in PNG think that there is a volcano that is a god to be fed. More at home, our government believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruciton that could hit the United States. I think the "government" believes a lot of shit, but I don't think that the government, as an entity, believes that there are alien ETI. There just isn't any evidence to support that hypothesis, the so-called "Disclosure Project" notwithstanding.

Yet, debunker's do not, and consider ME and other's crazy if we do. :D

As a skeptic of the UFO-ETI connection, I wouldn't call you crazy... gullible, but not crazy.

phlogistician bit of advice for you.

Go out and get laid.

Ha! That's rich, coming from you, a guy who was wringing his wrists and bleating about the fact he couldn't get a girlfriend in another thread! I don't need to go out to get laid, thanks, I have a long established satisfying domestic arrangement, but you know what? I don't think having sex with a stranger is suddenly going to make me think more like you.

or at the very least watch a UFO documentry once in a while.

Why do you think I'm a skeptic? Could it be that I've watched a fair few UFO documentaries, and never seen evidence that stands scrutiny?

Do more research before you even attempt to debunk.

Again, that's quite funny. I studied a degree in physics, thanks, so I think I've put in a fair amount of time there. I've watched a fair few documentaries, and read a fair number of websites. And you know what? I don't attempt to debunk, I _do_ debunk.

I am not going to waste my time replying to each one of thoes quotes. I am not going to waste my time with you.

Because you've got nothing to come back with.

You are clearly a fool.

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?

We know there are secret government craft. No one disputes this.
We do not know that UFO's belong to ET's.
If we obtain a video of what could be a secret, experimental craft (which we know exist), or an ET UFO (whose existence is speculative), scientific logic requires that we favour the more likely explanation.

Yes, I know. That was what I just said.

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.

Why would anyone believe something so far-fetched in favor of something far more prosaic such as some particulate effect in relation to the shuttle? An effect, by the way, that is well-documented and even expected on shuttle flights, particularly after thruster burns, which was the case in the SS Atlantis flight above.

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. While I do think that one is interesting, I find STS 101 much more problematic for debunkers. They only have one logical explanation, one highly unlikely explanation. The idea that some UFO'S are ETI is not far-fetched to anyone but a debunker in my opinion.

Apparently, our government, according to many witnesses, accepts that a Jewish hippy killed over two-thousand years ago will return to take them to another world... Hell, I know of a government official that believes in Santaria. Government officials in several West African nations believe that there are witches that can harm them. Government officials in PNG think that there is a volcano that is a god to be fed. More at home, our government believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruciton that could hit the United States. I think the "government" believes a lot of shit, but I don't think that the government, as an entity, believes that there are alien ETI. There just isn't any evidence to support that hypothesis, the so-called "Disclosure Project" notwithstanding.

There are witnesses from inside our governement, and witnesses from outside it for the last 60 year's who have all said essentially the same thing. If you wish to ignore their claims and positions, in light of the UFO phenomon seen around the world for thousands of years - fine. I won't, it's unreasonable to.

As a skeptic of the UFO-ETI connection, I wouldn't call you crazy... gullible, but not crazy.

You fail to consider that the governement has covered up some of the UFO-ETI connection, yet call me gullible? :D That's funny..

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?

You think you are better than other's because of "My IQ score", so in the end you and Canadian are a match made in heaven! :D :m:

I think Canadian could have addressed what you said instead of just name calling. It's more of a sign of laziness, and not wanting to deal with you than anything though. You know, illustrate where someone is being a fool instead of calling them one! :)

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.

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)

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

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".

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.

(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;)

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.

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.

[QUOTE=phlogistician]
If you're going to talk about ignorance, you'd better learn how to spell 'denial' first kid.
[QUOTE]


He threw the first punch. ;)

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?

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.

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*

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.

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....

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.

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 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.

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?

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?

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. "

how far is "VERY" far?... regardless. it seems strange that phenomenon that has yet to be thoroughly investigated is so quickly relegated to the realms of myth and legendUm, it has been investigated for a good while. Maybe one day they'll find something... but they haven't yet... hence the reason it is VERY far from proven reality.
is it fair to assume your issue is with visitations not with the existence of et's?Absolutely. None of us really have a very educated clue about the number of probable ET species. But then even assuming you have a large number of alien planets, you still need to average in the chance opf them being intelligent, the chance of lasting long enough to develop technology to reach us, how much of the galaxy they can actually reach (population basically), the chance that they are 'exploring' at this point in time, and that they are actually interested in us. Each one of these can only be guessed at, and with any reasonable guesses the chance of them visisting is pretty small... even if you have tons of planets.
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. "It is a completely valid point that nothing can be completely ruled out. What it is meant to tell you is that a lack of evidence against something doesn't mean it is true. Something that doesn't exist doesn't leave evidence of it's non-existance.

In science lack of evidence against something doesn't make something true. You actually need evidence to support it.

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.
So in 600 years there will be greasy teenagers pretending to be aliens and give themselves names like Yog-Sothoth, Zeratul or Mulder?

I take it you slept through Halloween this year...

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?

All your post is telling me the difference between skeptics and debunkers....

Stuff I already knew...

And I still find your post faulty in some areas.

I did not reply because you did not ask me a question directly. If that offends you... I'm sorry?

And if I have nothing to say I am not going to say it.

"Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something."

Unless you had some hidden point to your post, the next time I want to know the difference between skeptic and debunker... I will look in the dictionary.

And for my additional comment: A debunker does not necessarily have to have any scientific background what so ever. A skeptic, debunker, believer or non-believer, can be from any walk of life with any type of education. There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.

Happy?

Merry X-mass.

There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.Once again, stop confusing the issue by talking about UFOs and not ET. Nobody can rightfully claim that they can identify every object in the sky. So for your sentance to actually have any meaning you'd have to have said:There are pretty much the same number of scientific minds believing in alien UFOs, then there are people who try to debunk them.This is just plain wrong. As far as science is concerned the ET explanation is a myth. It's almost as bad as saying 'god did it' because you don't know what it is.

Once again, stop confusing the issue by talking about UFOs and not ET.

It was not meant to confuse anyone. Just a simple mistake.

Thanks for the correction comrade.

Something that doesn't exist doesn't leave evidence of it's non-existance.

how about if i insist if my cat is not in your room? would a thorough search of your room utilizing all available tech, convince you of my cat's non-existence in your room?

It is a completely valid point that nothing can be completely ruled out. What it is meant to tell you is that a lack of evidence against something doesn't mean it is true.

am i to then infer that anything that could be mentally constructed thru the exercise of ones imagination, for instance, a invisible, pink bitemesaurus, can possibly be proved to actually exist?

imo, that is extreme and utterly nonsensical claim that has no other purpose but to ridicule.

lets contrast with...

July 20: mid-evening.
Air Force radar operators at Andrews AFB weather tower tracked 10 UFOs for 15-20 minutes. * Objects approached runway, scattered, made sharp turns and reversals of direction. * (UFOE, p.160, based on detailed report to NICAP from AF weather observer.)

July 26: 2115 EDT (to 0020 EDT July 27).
Sharp UFO targets on ARTC radar at National Airport.* Civilian pilots saw glowing white objects on four occasions, including a United Airlines pilot near Herndon, Va., and two CAA pilots over Maryland. * National Airlines pilot near Andrews AFB at 1700 ft. saw a UFO "flying directly over the airliner." * (AFOSI;* AF Int; * UFOE, p. 159-162;* Ruppelt, p. 218-221.)

July 1952 - Washington, D.C., Area Radar-Visual Sightings and Related Events. (http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm)

it is quite a reach to extend and delegate these reports to the realms of mythology simply because a definitive conclusion could not be reached with regards to the nature of the aerial phenomena

why?

why is witchcraft (mental phenomena) lumped with ufo's and et (physical phenomena). could et really be the devil? ;)

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?

If all UFO sightings are experimental air crafts:

1: Why haven’t these experimental air crafts been used to aid in the capture of known terrorists? Such as Osama. Why would these crafts even be detectable by the human eye in the night sky? Does not seem like a smart way to go about making a secret high tech air craft.

2: Why is the phenomenon still world wide?

The large majority of UFO witnesses are unskilled obervers.
The large majority of UFO sightings are misinterpreted planes, birds, planets, lightning, aurora, etc.


And how would you use a stealth bomber to capture a terrorist?

I wouldn't use a stealth bomber, I would use my flying saucer that is faster, silent, better maneuverability and comes equipped with various high tech equipment.

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.

I agree that saying it's an alien craft is more extraordinary, however, you still have provided NO extraordinary evidence to suggest it is a top-secret experimental craft. You can't have it both ways. I would call that a cheap debating tactic. Claiming something is a top secret aircraft requires evidence, if not extraordinary amounts of it. Hell, provide me with any evidence. I would listen.

There seem's to be an interesting double standard here. When you need to use a top secret experimental aircraft theory to debunk a UFO story as non-alien it's completely plausable. However, when I or someone else suggest's that the existance of ETI is top-secret and covered up, you don't "buy" it.

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.


No, it does not fit that ridiculous answer you tried to give. I see no light from a thruster burn, furthermore the object pulsates in a sequential manner. This, is, I believe from a isolated camera on the Hubble Telescope. My only problem with this video is the lack of information I can find about it. I think this illustrates the seperation between me and a debunker, I just do not understand you're response at all. :(

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?

No, not really.

Believers and debunker's BOTH selectively use or ignore information. They are just opposite in which story, claim or explanation they wish to believe or prove. Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming. The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

Before everyone goes crazy thinking believers are crazy, in reality almost everyone of us are believers. Even debunker's believe in God. Which is the ultimate of belief without evidence. I only use the term's woo-woo's and debunker's because that's how we identify with them.

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?

OMG, you two are funny to watch. :D

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?

:D

BTW, Mr Canadian guy.

I, or most American's did not support the war because "Bush told us they had weapon's". He was not personally flying over Iraq gathering intelligence. The military, CIA and other org's were. As every President, he used the intelligence he had to remove Saddam on that intelligence. Maybe the intelligence stunk or was mislead, as of now we do not know for sure. Maybe we will never know. However, in the end Saddam could have simply proven it. He never did so now he's gone.

When it comes to the evidence that Iraq was trying to build WMD'S our intelligence at the time suggested he was. Do you have other intelligence which suggested otherwise?

Yes, I have to agree that the "tactics" that are being used here at scifoolems forum are highly questionsble. :D

Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming.

Unfortunately, the serious flaw in that statement that also makes your argument invalid is the fact that no such evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, exists.

The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

The debunker has not been convinced simply because no evidence exists. Debunkers know only to well that believers have leapt to conclusions of ETI based on their own want to believe and not something even remotely tangible.

Even debunker's believe in God.

Yet another bold statement that you want to believe.

am i to then infer that anything that could be mentally constructed thru the exercise of ones imagination, for instance, a invisible, pink bitemesaurus, can possibly be proved to actually exist?

imo, that is extreme and utterly nonsensical claim that has no other purpose but to ridicule.

lets contrast with...Problem here is that there IS proof of UFOs. There is NOT proof of UFOs flown by ET (or invisible pink elephants).
If all UFO sightings are experimental air craftsUm, nobody say they all are.... I'm not quite sure where you got that. Some UFOs are planets, some are clouds, and some are probably an odd atmospheric condition.

But then we are left with a bunch we can't explain. You wish to simply say 'ET did it'? That's the most unscientific thing you could do. Is ET a possibility; absolutely. Is ET likely; absolutely not.

Your ONLY argument right now is that we don't know what all UFOs are, so some must be ET. This is a load of BS, and is the same logic that was used with witches and vampires.

A better example would be vampires and witches in the past. The UFO/ET phenomena mirrors it almost exactly.

i infer that ufo phenomenon is a myth as is the et phenom

Problem here is that there IS proof of UFOs.

i infer that the ufo phenom is NOT a myth

will the clarification be ufo's piloted by et's? if so, what is the parallel b/w a witch? perhaps you refer to broomsticks piloted by a witches?

heh

Typically, the believer disregards information which lead's to a more mundane explanation - even when the evidence is overwealming.

Unfortunately, the serious flaw in that statement that also makes your argument invalid is the fact that no such evidence, overwhelming or otherwise, exists.

The debunker on the other hand will lean toward a more mundane explanation, or non-ETI explanation - even when the evidence is lacking.

The debunker has not been convinced simply because no evidence exists. Debunkers know only to well that believers have leapt to conclusions of ETI based on their own want to believe and not something even remotely tangible.

Even debunker's believe in God.

Yet another bold statement that you want to believe.

Though I do not understand much of anything you wrote above, I was not trying to say all debunker's believe in God. Merely that some who would call themselves debunker's can also be believers.

"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.

OMG, you two are funny to watch. :D

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?

:D
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.

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.

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.

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..)

"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. :confused:

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?

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.