I'd Like To See Your Debunker Credentials, Please.

a reply to: Tangerine

I think those who consider themselves open minded (and by going so far in the other way literally become close minded again, ie close minded to the possibility of there NOT being anything real in the UFO, Alien area) simply hear that when ever a 'debunker' or they deem a debunkerr (ie anyone who doesnt agree with them) speaks, they are often so paranoid or rigid in their beliefs that any argument that might in someway dent that belief gets routed through a mental filter that results in all them hearing is, this that and the other is fake, non exsistant etc etc... when in reality the person simply stated this case of evidence isnt strong enough to say otherwise etc etc.

Kinda sad really... just dont know how they can function in the world, as there will always be people who disagree with you, and often you just have to admit they might be right from time to time... doesnt mean your beliefs are invalid.

And as to the OP's statement.. for me its 36 years of interest in the subject and reading books on the subject spanning 70+ years and knowing personally people with opinions on both ends of the belief spectrum... after all my time looking at the subject, seeing my own odd light and the like, all the predictions that fall bust, the charlatans come and go, the subject morph and change shape every decade...

A large amount of UFO lore and its believers are, pretty much a load of old cobblers... i dont need a degree to see that, simply time spent observing it all and seeing the patterns of epic facepalmery...

edit:- Just had a thought, the UFO believers who attack debunkers so strongly and act like any one who questions it, in my opinion NEED their belief in UFOs, it literally defines them as a human. For them any form of opinion that attacks the subject is a personal attack on themselves... these people cant survive in society without being a part of a group, similar to religous people who define themselves by their link to a group or church. They cant be without being a part of their belief, they ARE their belief... I find that kinda sad really. but it is something that can be seen through out human history.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
and someone else on the thread invariably adds "how can you believe that we are alone in the universe?",

Which would be the the epitome of arrogance, considering the sheer vastness of the universe.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: amazing
I just think it's again the essence of ignorance when a "debunker" or "skeptic" says emphatically...there was no advanced civilization on Mars...ET has never visited earth...there is no God...there is no life after death...

Please copy and paste the posts in this thread in which people you label debunkers have said those things because I must have missed those posts. What skeptics have said is there is no evidence proving that those things have occurred. Do you understand the difference?

Thanks for posting this point, Tangerine.

So many times when (for example) I mention in a discussion that I don't see enough evidence to say there is life on Mars, I get asked "why don't you think there is life on Mars?", to which I need to answer, "Personally, I think there may be life on Mars; however, I haven't yet seen enough evidence for me to say it is a fact".

It's as if I'm somehow betraying my belief that Mars may harbor life -- or even betray that life itself -- by not believing in it more easily, as if what I believe is important to that life. I got news for those people: If life on Mars exists, it really doesn't care whether I believe in it or not.

The same goes for alien visitation. I personally think alien visitation is possible (it is within the realm of possibility), but I don't think the available evidence is compelling enough. People don't seem to understand the difference.

It gets worse when someone says "I don't think there is enough evidence to say aliens are visiting Earth", and someone else on the thread invariably adds "how can you believe that we are alone in the universe?", as if that's what the first person even said.

I agree with you. I don't have a problem when there is a skeptical view posted like this. It's what we need on ATS. I'm with you 100%.

It's the rampant debunker's that dismiss without looking at any evidence. There's a huge difference.

I love the Mar's anomaly threads. But most of them, I'll say it just looks like an odd natural phenomenon. I never say.. "All I see is rocks."

I don't have time to play Tangerine and whoever elses game of please site the evidence. Apparently they've never been in a Mars Anomaly thread. LOL Yeah?

originally posted by: amazing

It's the rampant debunker's that dismiss without looking at any evidence. There's a huge difference.

I love the Mar's anomaly threads. But most of them, I'll say it just looks like an odd natural phenomenon. I never say.. "All I see is rocks."

I don't have time to play Tangerine and whoever elses game of please site the evidence. Apparently they've never been in a Mars Anomaly thread. LOL Yeah?

This isn't a Mars anomaly thread.

And when the evidence is a photo of what appears to be a rock, it's perfectly acceptable to say that's all you see. That's not ignorance, that's a valid response to crappy evidence of a sensational claim.

Personally I would really appreciate it if people would argue with me directly and not against some notion of what a "skeptic" or "debunker" is. Even if someone did say these things, they don't represent all of some imaginary group.

originally posted by: BigfootNZ
a reply to: Tangerine

...
edit:- Just had a thought, the UFO believers who attack debunkers so strongly and act like any one who questions it, in my opinion NEED their belief in UFOs, it literally defines them as a human. For them any form of opinion that attacks the subject is a personal attack on themselves... these people cant survive in society without being a part of a group, similar to religous people who define themselves by their link to a group or church. They cant be without being a part of their belief, they ARE their belief... I find that kinda sad really. but it is something that can be seen through out human history.

I agree. That's one of the reasons I refer to it as the Church of ET. Fundamentalists are literalists who feel that they have been chosen and take any disagreement with their beliefs as a personal attack. They are unable to step back from their belief set and examine it critically. Yes, it is sad and, as it becomes a larger, organized religion, may become frightening.

originally posted by: amazing
It's the rampant debunker's that dismiss without looking at any evidence.

One of the major problems is there is no real evidence, just pictures of mylar balloons that is a "morphing ufo", or a "robot head" that is just a rock etc.

Asa to the "Debunker Credentials", what about the credentials of people making the claims....

a reply to: amazing

It's... the essence of ignorance when a "debunker" or "skeptic" says emphatically...there was no advanced civilization on Mars...ET has never visited earth...there is no God...there is no life after death...

I challenge you to show me one ATS post — by anybody — in which it is categorically stated that there was never an advanced civilization on Mars, or that extraterrestrials never visited Earth.

ETA: I see Tangerine has already thrown down the same glove. I'll let this post stand, though. Because the point is important.

a reply to: Astyanax

Because the point is important

I have to agree. Here is another one I came across recently.

In fact, there are those deniers who suggest that ufo sightings are just delusions we base on what we see in sci-fi movies.

I have never heard any denier say anything like this. Was this a notion from the 50s? Are they just grossly misinterpreting what someone really said? I could probably fill up pages with this stuff. Its time to get to the bottom of this and find out which deniers are saying goofy things and shun them from the deniers club.

For the record, here is the official denier stance: People that see UFOs are not delusional. Even if they believe the UFO was an alien ship, they would not be delusional. If they insist that its alien after its been conclusively shown to be otherwise, then they may be "delusional" but really only after they get officially diagnosed. And I have no idea what sci fi movies have to do with anything since there is enough UFO/Alien lore to draw from. Thanks for listening.

It bothers me seeing some random person "diagnose" a stranger online with a condition like schizophrenia. You'd need to be a psychiatrist for that, and perform a proper evaluation. The gall of some people who think they are fighting ignorance amazes me sometimes.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

I have never heard any denier say anything like this. Was this a notion from the 50s? Are they just grossly misinterpreting what someone really said? I could probably fill up pages with this stuff. Its time to get to the bottom of this and find out which deniers are saying goofy things and shun them from the deniers club.

For the record, here is the official denier stance: People that see UFOs are not delusional. Even if they believe the UFO was an alien ship, they would not be delusional. If they insist that its alien after its been conclusively shown to be otherwise, then they may be "delusional" but really only after they get officially diagnosed. And I have no idea what sci fi movies have to do with anything since there is enough UFO/Alien lore to draw from. Thanks for listening.

I have come across this when people's descriptions match up with something from a recently released movie. The well-known historical accounts where a bunch of people witnessed something get compared to movies that came out shortly before. I haven't had any reason to save those URLs so unfortunately I can't link to anything for you.

a reply to: MoreInterior

Which well-known historical accounts have been compared to movies that came out shortly before? Who made the claim(s)?

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: MoreInterior

Which well-known historical accounts have been compared to movies that came out shortly before? Who made the claim(s)?

I haven't seen anything that matches that description exactly, but there are some very shaky stats supporting the so called "Will Smith effect", related to Will Smith movies released in 1996 and 1997:

UFO sightings: the Will Smith effect examined

what is the effect of science fiction in the movies and on TV?

Independence Day came out and the figures went up - as they did when Tom Baker's doctor battled Davros in Doctor Who and Mulder and Scully investigated the X-files. Are UFO sightings really linked to Hollywood and TV?

There's certainly a UFO peak in years with a big Will Smith sci fi movie out - particularly 1996 with Independence Day and 1997 with the first Men in Black movie.
....
Year UFOs
1994 209
1995 117
1996 609 Independence Day (and Mars Attacks!) score at the box office
1997 425 Men in Black released
1998 193
1999 228

The numbers jumped up in 1996 and 1997 when UFO movies came out, but I wouldn't say that's conclusive that the movies were responsible for the jump, nor would I rule out the possibility without researching it. Also, there were plenty of UFO flaps not correlated with any major movie release so any correlation if such exists would be very limited, and there may be no correlation on further investigation. I've never seen proper research on the subject so I suppose it's an open question until that's done. Lacking that my guess is there might be at least some small correlation, in some cases.

I wouldn't assume the UFO sighting descriptions matched the UFOs in the movies, rather, I'd think more people might have more UFO awareness after seeing a big UFO movie, and might be simply looking up more, and as a result seeing more things they can't explain just because of that, but that's just my unresearched hypothesis about one possible reason for the 1996-1997 numbers.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'd be interested in knowing whether Oprah ever had ET proselytizers on her show or she expressed an opinion about the topic. It would be interesting to find out if reports increased significantly following any such program/endorsement.

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'd be interested in knowing whether Oprah ever had ET proselytizers on her show or she expressed an opinion about the topic. It would be interesting to find out if reports increased significantly following any such program/endorsement.

I don't know, but she has been duped by a hoaxer before.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'd be interested in knowing whether Oprah ever had ET proselytizers on her show or she expressed an opinion about the topic. It would be interesting to find out if reports increased significantly following any such program/endorsement.

I don't know, but she has been duped by a hoaxer before.

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, and she foisted Dr. Phil on the world. In my opinion, she's running a very successful cult that exists to worship her.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: amazing

It's... the essence of ignorance when a "debunker" or "skeptic" says emphatically...there was no advanced civilization on Mars...ET has never visited earth...there is no God...there is no life after death...

I challenge you to show me one ATS post — by anybody — in which it is categorically stated that there was never an advanced civilization on Mars, or that extraterrestrials never visited Earth.

ETA: I see Tangerine has already thrown down the same glove. I'll let this post stand, though. Because the point is important.

Well because you asked...there is this thread. but I mean, why should i have to look this stuff up for you? You don't know how to use search on ATS?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and if you search the Mars Anomaly threads you will see countless posts of simply "Rocks" or a long explanation of Perodilia -I didn't spell that right.

All I'm saying is that there tends to be a lot of people on ATS that are beyond skeptical. Where, instead of a completely open mind. It could be an abduction, it could not be an abduction. 50%/50%. Let's look at the evidence and then form an opinion. They already have an opinion that it's most likely 99% false with a 1% probability of truth. They will call this percentage "having an open mind" when the mind is already closed. Or with some of the better anomalies on mars..it's perodilia first and then archaeology second. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Especially if your view/theory is that there could have been an ancient civilization on Mars. I'm looking for that evidence.

It's no different than looking for Water on dwarf planet Ceres. You're actively looking for that evidence. If you already have in your mind that there is no water there, you might pay no attention as you're looking for something else completely.

That's all I'm saying. I start with the open mind, always. I'm always 50%/50% then look at the evidence.

Even on Climate change.... I do look at the charts/graphs and links provided by those with an opposing view or I do my own search on topics brought up. I still have that open mind, ready to take in new information.

a reply to: amazing

The thread title was, "Aliens Have Never Visited Earth! Alien Spacecraft Have Never Visited"

That doesn't count.

the challenge above was

I challenge you to show me one ATS post — by anybody — in which it IS categorically stated that there was never an advanced civilization on Mars, or that extraterrestrials never visited Earth.

I have to bring up probably the most defining moment in U.S. history

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

www.slate.com...

originally posted by: amazing
Where, instead of a completely open mind. It could be an abduction, it could not be an abduction. 50%/50%. Let's look at the evidence and then form an opinion. They already have an opinion that it's most likely 99% false with a 1% probability of truth. They will call this percentage "having an open mind" when the mind is already closed.

If the claim is that a dot in the sky is an alien spaceship, 1% probability of being true is probably a gross overestimate. Anyone who thinks the odds of that are 50/50 is completely delusional.

The truth is, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's completely irrational to assign a 50% 50% probability to such claims when study after study has shown that about 95% of the UFOs can be explained as manmade objects, natural phenomena or hoaxes. Even using those stats you can't claim the probability is more than 5%, and just because 5% can't be explained doesn't mean they are alien. Maybe some are but there's still no reason to assign a 50% probability of ET intelligence to those.

If you don't understand the significance of extraordinary claims, I suggest reading this explanation:

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

If you add in balloons, quad copters, RC planes, Chinese lanterns and such to the many aircraft in our skies, you have let's guess 999,999 manmade objects in Earth's skies. So far no known alien craft, but if there was one alien craft, then you have a million to one odds against that dot you see being that one alien craft, but it has a 999,999 out of a million probability of being one of the manmade objects. Do you see why this isn't a 50/50 proposition?

Now add in birds, bats and bugs to the UFO claims mix and the numbers are even more overwhelming. Can you even guess how many bugs are in the sky?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian
Thanks for the laugh for the blast from the past on the definition of the word "is".
He lived up to his nickname "slick willie", with that one, didn't he?

Tangerine asked for an example from this thread, and the cited reference doesn't meet that request, but I'd give at least partial credit for meeting the revised challenge, in spite of slick Willie's definition of "is". Partial because in addition to the "is" definition, the member who made that is already banned.

a reply to: amazing

and if you search the Mars Anomaly threads you will see countless posts of simply "Rocks" or a long explanation of Perodilia -I didn't spell that right.

That's because of every Mars photo ever posted turns out to be a product of pareidolia. Where do you draw an equal 50% possibility of it being alien created if every photo has been shown to be a rock? The default answer is a rock unless there is overwhelming evidence to say otherwise. And that overwhelming evidence goes beyond "HEY, that looks like a squirrel!"

In order to give a serious 50% possibility of anything alien to any branch of this phenomena, there needs to be a past foundational basis for that 50% if the incident itself doesn't provide that evidence. One tiny smidgen of scientifically studied and scrutinized physical evidence in the 60+ year history and thousands upon thousands of claims is all it takes. That one past piece opens the door for a realistic and equal possibility to all of these other claims.

to the OP: you want my credentials?

Most of us call it common sense. The end.