It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: artistpoet

Hahaha well if you come up this way next time il meet up with you. And yes B.C is gorgeous. They don't call it supernatural british columbia for nothing


That's pretty close to my hometown btw. The gulf islands are awesome, Theres so much in this area that hasn't been explored.

There are places on the mountains within view humans have not set foot on or even been to in over 200 years.

And thats just within view from my town.

SUPERNATURAL lol British columbia

edit on 11-1-2015 by AnuTyr because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide

There are people in the A&U forum with extremely high levels of skills and credentials. Everything from people with PhD's in various fields, to former NASA employees, to experts in photo analysis, and so forth.

And, surprise, they do the believers a HUGE favor by keeping the garbage and swill out of the conversation. If you did not have these resources at your fingertips, literally, where would you be? How much would you have to pay for such services if you wished to authenticate a video?

One of the most well known "debunkers" has twice posted threads where he offered up the cases that he could not find fault with - and they went largely ignored.

You really are looking at things backwards. The skeptics are not here to embarass or harass you. They are also believers and people who hope for that amazing moment when something totally irrefutable appears. They just happen to be the ones doing the leg work to verify things so that we don't all get tricked by some slick con artist as we wait for that day.


That's all well and good, but those guys usually have threads stating who they are (their credentials) in the title of their post. But if you're suggesting there should be an assumption that a debunkers view shouldn't be as suspect because he/she might be an expert -- shouldn't that debunker make that same assumption before questioning anyones character?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AnuTyr

Thanks ... Yes awesome place and people for sure




posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Unfortunately some so called experts merely parrot their own indoctrinated views
And some have an agenda they serve



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   


I think people in this thread will enjoy this video lol.

I hope we don't need to debate over its authenticity.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Puppytoven

I think third phase of the moon deserves its place up there honestly.

Myself being an Authentic alien witness. These kinds of videos piss me off a little bit.

But not to much, I'd rather people consider E.T even with the videos being fake.
What really goads me is that these people are trying to turn a profit off it.
So it is becoming somewhat of an epidemic on youtube.

it makes some people feel that there is an agenda to whitewash all alien ufo videos with any athenticity by search results consisting of Fakes.

I don't think the goverment had anything to do with this. It was probably work or schizophrenics who don't belive aliens are real and that humanity is the center of all existance.

I will totally agree with you on that, Those kinds of people who are missing their meds are deliberatly paranoid.
Oy, iv seen crazyier crap than the majority of humans on this planet walking around kicking dirt and rocks.

I think peoples cheesy view of reality is hilarious.
This millium i have awoken into is very comical and hilarious.
Keep up the good work. And don't forget to continue with a little social chaos. The seeds were sown a decade ago.
And now it is taking into full bloom. Enjoy the show folks. WW3 will have plenty of drama and pretty lights.


I think we've all seen Third Phase of the Moon. Comedic value aside, there have been a few authentic videos posted there. And it usually comes down to those small details that are known only to people who have either seen the same thing or the persons description of events that include details that are not significant to anyone else but those who experienced it too.

And yeah, as someone who has had more than a few non-human contacts, fake videos are annoying. But then even those I consider because I myself have my pc hacked and actually had evidence blurred out or video changed to look fake. It comes down to the details only those who have seen it too know about.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: Puppytoven

We should all be debunkers, shouldn't we? That should be our default position, especially in the age of Photoshop, et al.


I would say we should all be skeptical yes. Debunking is dismissing something without even looking at it.

Most intelligent people are skeptical about this stuff for good reason but that doesn't make them debunkers.
edit on 11-1-2015 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: Puppytoven


Myself being an Authentic alien witness. These kinds of videos piss me off a little bit.


Wow, authentic alien witness, authentic with a capital A even.

Peed off with hoax sites. In all honesty could I see any authentic proof of what you witnessed???

Am guessing not, so thirdphaseofthemoon should be right up your street really.


Btw thirdphaseofthemoon is a bag of sh@@e but I find it hard to agree with someone who claims to be an authentic alien witness. Whatever that may be????
edit on 11-1-2015 by fenian8 because: to add the last bit



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I know the world sucks and don't need Youtube to prove it. I do see some good videos on there every once in a while. Call me whatever makes you feel better. I'm human, I do make errors. The people who are usually qualified are probably bought off to go with the agenda on most conspiracies. They could be true. So much has happened in the last couple decades, I'll never know the real truth on 95% of it. I still try to find kinks in the armor. Things I've had hunches on a long time ago are surfacing to be conspiracies. That automatically puts me on the defensive and makes me not want to hear the official narrative anymore. I'm just a man who is digging. Sometimes I get it wrong. Sometimes I get it right. Either way, nothing changed within me or my condition. Well unless you add one and one together. Just kidding. I'm hoping my prodding will just click one day and everything is going to give me the whole truth about humanity in general.


edit on 11-1-2015 by LOSTinAMERICA because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppytoven

OP -- I don't get it what you are asking...

Shouldn't we all strive to NOT take something at face value? Shouldn't we all strive to ask questions about a alleged "fact" before we actually believe it to be a fact? Shouldn't we all be skeptical about what is being presented to us on this forum?

Then again, maybe by "debunker" you mean something else rather than merely "skeptic". A person who automatically debunks things out-of-hand just because they don't believe in (say for example) alien visitation is just as wrong as the blind UFO believer who will believe any and all UFO reports simply becasue they have a pre-existing belief in alien visitation

BOTH of those types of people (automatic debunkers AND blind believers) are equally closed-minded. They believe only what they already a predisposed to believe, and nothing else.

However, if you simply mean a person who expresses a skepticism, and then attempts to use critical thinking, logic, and existing common knowledge of science and nature when looking at a particular UFO report, then I'm not sure why you would need their credentials....

....I mean, anybody can use critical thinking, logic, and common knowledge of science and nature to ask questions about something -- there's no reason to be credentialed to do so.


What I do expect from skeptics/debunkers is that any reason they give for being skeptical should be backed up by sound logic and/or sound science. If they have an issue with a piece of evidence, then they need to give a valid explanation as to why they have and issue with it. Then again, I expect the people who believe a sighting is real to be held to the same level of scrutiny.



edit on 1/11/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
When a person continually posts "Hoax" into a thread they are being as dishonest as those who really post fake material. I suffered this quite recently in one of my own threads. You know who your are!!!

How does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?
Yes I know some photos are just obviously fake, but the photo I offered was genuine, I know because I shot the pic myself, and yet one poster continually shouted hoax, and another poster who is clearly an expert photographer is unable to tell whether my photo is genuine!
So I ask again, how does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...How does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?


There are certain commonly standard facts about photography that are learnable and understandable by all.

If someone has an issue with an image, they should be able to state what they feel is wrong with the image, and then point to those commonly known standards of photography to back up their claims. Or, if it is not standard knowledge, find independent confirmation (in multiple independent sources) that backs up that claim.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
I wish I saw evidence for aliens like Mulder I want to believe but I sure will not fall for anything.
Many will just swallow any evidence or clap trap I will not.
I'm so glad we have much more learned members here than myself because If we didn't have these I may fall for all the faked videos and such.
It is critical ATS has debunkers otherwise it would just be another wacky website.


you don't actually have to look far for written evidence. allow me to explain:

if, as we are told by mainstream historians/archaeologists, the ancient people did not have access to, nor understand, advanced technology or science, of any kind (other than some understanding of how to build stone constructs or how to tell when the moon was going to eclipse), then there should be no written evidence to the contrary from those same people. but that's not the case. for example:

in the book of enoch, enoch writes an eyewitness account, first hand, of a super massive black hole. since the book of enoch was written before the time of jesus (meaning it's a BC event not an AD event), we can assume to some small degree that, even if he didn't understand entirely what he was looking at, the guy that took him to see it, sure did.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...How does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?


There are certain commonly standard facts about photography that are learnable and understandable by all.

If someone has an issue with an image, they should be able to state what they feel is wrong with the image, and then point to those commonly known standards of photography to back up their claims. Or, if it is not standard knowledge, find independent confirmation (in multiple independent sources) that backs up that claim.



Thank you, thats my point, they should be able to show us the problems with the photo. In my case they couldn't so they ignored the photo and picked on the exif data.
Here's my photo.






Here's my pic, its genuine, can any ats experts find fault?



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppytoven
I was just reading a recent thread and wanted to pose this:

A main point of contention with debunking is, "What makes you qualified to say this is real?" That's usually when mental illness is brought up. Blah, blah, blah. You know the drill.

I look at all these YT Channels getting listed and have to pose that same question: What makes the people saying this stuff is fake credible? What if they are schizophrenics who's reality has no aliens in it? What if these people haven't taken their meds and are convinced Youtube itself is fake?

If you are a debunker, are you able to provide us with reasons why we should believe your conclusions? Can you prove you don't have mental illnesses that might alter your perceptions of reality?

And even if you had credible evidence to your sanity, Do you see the irresponsibility of a list that's so general? I have looked at these sites and agree that there is a lot of crap on each site, but there are also real videos and photos mixed in. To just slap a blanket label of "FAKE" on a site seems harsh.

It's up to each of us to decide what we believe is credible and what is not.

Obviously, there is a wee bit of sarcasm in my post, but if I have my character and stability questioned, then shouldn't all of us when it comes to what proof is real and what stories are to be believed? And if not, why not?


The person making the positive claim (ie. Extraterrestrials visit earth and abduct people, or whatever) are obligated to cite testable evidence proving their claim of fact. That's how it works. Those challenging the claim are not obligated to prove a negative because it's impossible to prove a negative. I'm rather surprised that you don't know that.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LiveForever8
a reply to: Puppytoven

We should all be debunkers, shouldn't we? That should be our default position, especially in the age of Photoshop, et al.


No, we should all be skeptics and ask for testable evidence. Debunkers are like true believers. They take a position without requiring testable evidence. Sadly, most believers don't distinguish between debunkers and skeptics just as they don't distinguish between belief and fact.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...How does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?


There are certain commonly standard facts about photography that are learnable and understandable by all.

If someone has an issue with an image, they should be able to state what they feel is wrong with the image, and then point to those commonly known standards of photography to back up their claims. Or, if it is not standard knowledge, find independent confirmation (in multiple independent sources) that backs up that claim.



Thank you, thats my point, they should be able to show us the problems with the photo. In my case they couldn't so they ignored the photo and picked on the exif data.
Here's my photo.






Here's my pic, its genuine, can any ats experts find fault?



thought you might like this. topography filter + green + negative image + clarify + fade correction. paintshop pro 7



looks interesting



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...How does a person become qualified to say whether a photo is genuine?


There are certain commonly standard facts about photography that are learnable and understandable by all.

If someone has an issue with an image, they should be able to state what they feel is wrong with the image, and then point to those commonly known standards of photography to back up their claims. Or, if it is not standard knowledge, find independent confirmation (in multiple independent sources) that backs up that claim.



Thank you, thats my point, they should be able to show us the problems with the photo. In my case they couldn't so they ignored the photo and picked on the exif data.
Here's my photo.






Here's my pic, its genuine, can any ats experts find fault?



thought you might like this. topography filter + green + negative image + clarify + fade correction. paintshop pro 7



looks interesting


It's a photo of a Bigfoot. Now show me the problems with that claim of fact. In other words, prove that it isn't.

I don't have great expectations for you getting my point but some may.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

were you talking to me? i don't see bigfoot. unicorns, maybe, tangerine.



posted on Jan, 11 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: VoidHawk

You moved the camera when you took the picture, it's not an elongated object it's a dot.

What it is, i can't say as it is impossible to determine from that ONE pic.

I capitalized "one" above, because it wonders me why people always only present one pic, and not two or three in succession, it's not that it takes long to take a few more.

Was it so fast that you didn't have time to take more ??

Do you have a story behind the pic?




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join