Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

Skeptics and debunkers are not seeing it from the same perspective, ultimately, as far as I can tell - I disagree with you on that point and here is why: Debunkers have blinders on, just like believers. This isn't about "are there aliens or not" or jumping on bandwagons (that is the other extreme), from my perspective - this is about the approach to the topic, and only that.

Skeptics, while wanting to seek out objective truth that can be verified scientifically, are not so closed minded, in my opinion, as someone whose agenda is simply to throw a blanket over the elephant in the room, stick their fingers in their ears and sing "lalalalala" whenever something is outside of their box.

Debunkers deny the elephant entirely. That is the difference. Skeptics seek the truth, not to obfuscate what is uncomfortable, and there are varying degrees of how skeptical people are in their search for truth. Believers see an elephant and call it an alien (possibly with a whole backstory) and then deny that its an elephant even when every evidence is given that, yes, indeed, it is an elephant and not an alien.

On the other side of it, If you've ever seen a perfect glowing circle skim silently across the sky under a grey cloud cover in the middle of the day, then suddenly speed up to a blur and completely vanish into thin air, then you will have your personal proof that there is something up there that defies the science we have been taught to believe in, and is mind-blowingly different than any tech we are told exists.

Seeing it would not be proof for anyone else, of course, and it could not be "scientifically verified" and some people might even think you are full of it, dreaming or simply nuts...but who cares? To see something like that, even once in a lifetime, is a revelation. It may not change ones approach to the material, but it would plant a rather large seed of knowing that something one is looking at COULD be real. The "reality box" after all, was greatly expanded.

And, yes, I have seen it, whatever it was. To this day, it remains an unknown. (Aliens? Heck if I know! I'm not claiming it was 'aliens.') I only know exactly what I saw, nothing else.

But because of the strangeness of it - the total break from everything "known," I am left with some form of otherworldly visitor as a possibility, along with a handful of other possibilities, which include earthly ones. Being willing to give weight to potential "otherworldliness" is a direct result of witnessing something that defied my understanding of what was possible.

In any case, I appreciate you wanting to have a firm, scientific footing on which to stand, and approaching it from that point of view is certainly not a bad thing to do at all - it is a good thing, lest we all dissolve into myth-making. I wish I had solid, scientific, or at least indisputable evidence for what I saw, myself!

I certainly applaud the effort to find that kind of "real" evidence and hope that we actually do before I die. There are people who say they have found ground traces left behind from sightings of landed craft, etc., but I can't vouch for the veracity of those claims. If true, that is a start, for sure, towards verifying that people actually are seeing something physical. I'm certainly not arguing about this desire and search for physical/material evidence.

peace,
AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

I can't agree with your assessments. In a general sense, issues of level of belief or doubt would apply to skeptic. Debunking is more about facts.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Semantics? How to define the spectrum of "Belief" versus "Fact Finding?"

Skeptic - definition from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

skep·tic noun \ˈskep-tik\
: a person who questions or doubts something (such as a claim or statement) : a person who often questions or doubts things

Full Definition of SKEPTIC

1: an adherent or advocate of skepticism
2: a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles

Skeptics have pointed out flaws in the researchers' methods.
You can believe in ghosts if you like, but I'm still a skeptic.
He is a skeptic and a cynic.

I was using Stanton Friedman's definition of the term "Debunker" as a negative. His definition is sometimes more sinister, implying intentional obfuscation, but also includes ignorance and fear of mockery.

Stanton Friedman - article defining "debunker"

So, while it is true that the technical definition of "debunk" is simply to "show as false" (like a belief or theory), Friedman has repeatedly established a definition of "Debunker" in ufology as a particular type of person that obfuscates, mocks, etc. You can dislike him or his definition - that's no skin off my back.

The process of "debunking" is fairly neutral if it is simply based in fact-finding, so I totally give you that.

Shall we use new terms?

"Truth (or Fact) Seekers' - these can be skeptical people who look critically at evidence, including the full spectrum of 'gray,' with no ultimate agenda but finding the truth. They are also willing to be critical of skeptical evidence if it doesn't hold up.

'Belief Promoters' - whether 'believers' or 'non-believers' in UFO's, aliens, etc. these folks are promoting their preconceived conclusions, who want to be the first to call BS (as if it is a contest and that will gain them points) or who want to insist on their particular, strongly held belief, who may even mock those who see things differently. These can also be folks who wish to obfuscate truth and/or facts to fit their agenda, or to make money or whatever. Someone can be doing this unwittingly, btw.

Semantics aside, (put whatever words you want in for 'skeptic' and 'debunker' - find better ones than I have, please) do you still disagree?

Thanks,
AB

originally posted by: PHDIKOULAS
so whats the consensus?hoax-senile old man or an honest man being fed false data?

2nd

The conclusion based on the cumulative examination of evidence in this thread, shows that Boyd Bushman's 'evidence' has been debunked. Why he presented it or whether or not he believed it himself cannot be determined.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: AboveBoard

I can't agree with your assessments. In a general sense, issues of level of belief or doubt would apply to skeptic. Debunking is more about facts.

I can't agree with your assessments.

Skepticism would be more about the quality of evidence [facts] while "debunking" can be agenda driven - case in point, Hynek, the most famous debunker of all. A debunker need not offer facts, but rather just suggest alternative explanations, no matter how likely. This is why I dislike the term - it has come to imply a half-hearted attempt to explain something away as opposed to proving a more likely explanation, or completely disproving the claimed explanation.

Debunking is active... skepticism is passive.

a reply to: draknoir2

Thank you for saying that more concisely than I ever could. My posts are beginning to feel like books... lol!

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: draknoir2

Thank you for saying that more concisely than I ever could. My posts are beginning to feel like books... lol!

Gives me something to read. :-)

Please take the trouble to look at the rest of my stuff on the outpost forum this what i have just posted..

Have a quick look at this it's 7mins. It was produced by Nick Cook for Lockheed Martin very recently. It is basically a promo for Lockheed.
In it they are keen to mention new tech but two technologies in particular you may find very interesting. The Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Program @5.21 and graphene @3.15. What have these got to do with Boyd Bushman you may ask? Well…..
Remember how Mr Bushman mentioned Telluride. Well, Bismuth Telluride[BiTe] and Lead Telluride [PbTe]are a thermoelectric materials. BiTe is used in some spacecraft to turn heat in electrical power and of course one of these is used to get energy from isothermal layers in the oceans. Being developed by Lockheed and the US NAvy
Graphene is another amazing material. How is that linked to Tellurides? Well. remember one the properties of Mercury Cadium Telluride, Mercury Telluride and Bismuth Telluride is that they part of the incredibly rare materials which are called topological insulators.
en.wikipedia.org...
Guess what has been discovered to be another topological insulators –graphene
www.sciencemag.org...
www.physics.upenn.edu...

It all ties in even better with what Mr Bushman said, ‘I do because of some very good reasons, keep things within control but I don’t want us to fall behind the Russians and Chinese. And the problem I have is that the Area 51 is working with both the Russians and Chinese right now and err trying to trying to make UFOs ‘
Well the world leaders in research into topological insulators seem to be the Chinese...

Nick Cook made the Documentary 'Billion Dollar Secret' that introduced Bushman to the world in 1999 and also wrote 'The Hunt for Zero Pt'

a reply to: draknoir2

Skepticism would be more about the quality of evidence [facts]

Anyone can be skeptical of your statement without any need for the facts. To debunk your statement, I would point to this fact that refutes it: Skepticism

an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

A debunker need not offer facts, but rather just suggest alternative explanations, no matter how likely.

That's not debunking.

This is why I dislike the term - it has come to imply a half-hearted attempt to explain something away as opposed to proving a more likely explanation, or completely disproving the claimed explanation.

I have no problem with the term but I hate how it has been abused to attack people concerned with demonstrating the facts.

a reply to: Impodog

It is possible that there are real fact sprinkled in the midst of the story, but to tease them out from the junk, if they exist, is a major challenge.

I don't know anything about Nick Cook. Thanks for posting.

peace,
AB

Hi AB
Yes it takes a lot of effort to tease out the truth. But when all the pieces in the puzzle start to fit together you might well be onto something. The pictures were used to debunk real or not.
But his credentials are impeccable and are easy to check out. I contacted someone close to Boyd Bushman and they said Lockheed sanctioned him to talk to Nick Cook and talk about 'The Secret' ie let him do it.
I believe this is controlled disclosure by them. They seem to be an awesome company and ethical enough to realise the secrecy needs to end.
a reply to: AboveBoard

a reply to: AboveBoard

Semantics?

Maybe, it would depend on what you mean by that. If you mean using words according to what they actually mean, then yes. It's key to communication. If you're using the term to deflect, then have a look a this, english.stackexchange.com...
and don't miss the comments.

I have no support for Friedman's attempt to redefine debunker. Seems he may have an agenda of his own.

The process of "debunking" is fairly neutral if it is simply based in fact-finding, so I totally give you that.

Obviously I think anything more than that is beyond debunking.

Shall we use new terms?

I'm not at all being snide when I say I'd rather not. I'd prefer to just use words more in accordance with their actual meaning. This is written communication and I'm not that good at it. Things never seem to come out the way they would if I were communicating verbally.

a reply to: AboveBoard

So, while it is true that the technical definition of "debunk" is simply to "show as false" (like a belief or theory), Friedman has repeatedly established a definition of "Debunker" in ufology as a particular type of person that obfuscates, mocks, etc. You can dislike him or his definition - that's no skin off my back.

I don't like the way Friedman essentially defines a term, attaches derogatory characteristics to the term and then labels who he thinks fits that term. I blame him for the dichotomy that plagues this topic. While it makes for a fun read, it really hasn't helped anything.

Shall we use new terms?

How about "people".

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

This has devolved into arguing definitions, when I believe I've made my intended meanings clear. Language is a living and fluid thing - it is not rigid unless the language is dead.

If you don't like Friedman's definition, no sweat, use whatever words work for you and look at the meaning I intended. I am waiting for a response to that.

Wrangling over definitions is a distraction from the discussion of "believers" of whatever ilk vs those who are looking for the truth.

I think there are more people here who want to know the truth than there are people with firm agendas, other than, perhaps a desire to be seen as "right."

I don't need to be "right" I just want to explore, in an effort to find the truth. It is not always safe to do that and it can leave one open to being attacked by people who have already drawn their conclusions. In fact, exploration means being willing to go down some blind alleys and even trip a time or two while finding one's way. That's my opinion anyway.

Thank you for responding, DenyObfuscation.

Peace,
AB

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

There are all kinds of "people," from all different perspectives, with all kinds of motivations. So, yes, I agree that we are all people. What was being defined was motivation, not personhood.

I'm fine that you don't like Friedman's definition. I'm frustrated that definitions of words are more important than the clear intent of what has been said. My question is why?

Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I had no idea my post would be taken this way or that it would be seen in such a controversial light.





Peace,
AB

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

How about "people".

Blind pseudo-people who throw out common sense and simple logic and reason?

Doesn't exactly roll trippingly off the tongue. :-)

a reply to: Impodog

Hm. Can't watch the video now for some reason. I'll try it again later,,,

originally posted by: OrionsGem

originally posted by: RedParrotHead
a reply to: skyblueworld

no point silencing a dying man

...unless the secrets he holds are still important to someone, his surviving family could be threatened.

Your forgetting that many of these insiders claim that they are being sanctioned from the higher ups to release this information....they are slowly allowing this info to leak out in order to acclimate us to this reality...

OG

My suspicion exactly. He is being used to inform or maybe disinform. Who knows?

a reply to: AboveBoard
I think its a good topic for discussion. Not trying to argue either. When discussing something, I think its important to define the words you use. Obviously "debunker" has a lot of negative connotations.

to be honest, I jumped in the middle of the discussion, so I am a little lost with how the discussion ended up here. But from what I read, it seems like a reasonable discussion.

we all have bias and I think its the way we deal with that. Nobody is truly without bias but that's why we have methods to deal with that. But sometimes the bias is so strong that "facts" hold no meaning.

So I think you are asking why people are sometimes blind to facts on both sides of the issue?