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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppytoven

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People



Then let me put it this way. To go into the unknown as a skeptic is in a way already forming an opinion about something before even knowing the details or viewing the "proof". Personally, I try to go into unknowns with an open mind to be objective and fair. But to each his own. Obviously there is nothing wrong with asking for things to back up a story or video, but that's not debunking to me. That is gathering more data to reach a conclusion. What I am talking about are the people who like to derail the topic by making it into a "you need help" thread. I'm just saying that if the have the attitude of , why should I believe you, then I think they should be more willing to give us credentials as to why we should believe them? And before anyone wants to say burden of proof and all that, keep in mind that while the burden of proof is on the OP, everyone is also innocent until proven guilty.


You misunderstand what a skeptic is. A skeptic is someone who questions and looks for answers. A skeptic has an open mind. No one needs special credentials to be a skeptic. Like many people in UFO threads, you confuse skeptics with debunkers.




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrNeo
On matters of 9/11 and building 7, etc.

30 years of commercial construction, many of them with high rise buildings.
Bachelors degree in construction management.
Associates drafting and design.


What does that have to do with everyone being entitled to asking questions and requesting evidence? Are you suggesting that only specialists in a field are entitled to ask questions and request evidence? I'm not sure about the point you're making.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppytoven


This is a perfect example. Patronizing with an undertone of arrogant hostility. Unnecessarily judgemental and doesn't even explain himself thoroughly.

All right, let me try again.

The Bible says 'judge not', but you cannot go through life safely without making judgements. If you refuse to make moral judgements, you could end up doing wrong. If you refuse to judge the reliability of other people, you could end up bamboozled and penniless (or raped, or dead). If you refuse to judge whether a statement is likely to be true or not, you will waste your whole life investigating lies and trivia, accomplishing nothing.

So, for excellent survival- and sanity-related reasons, we learn to judge the claims other people make. Does a statement make logical sense? Does it fit in well with everything else I know, or believe I know? Is there evidence to support it? Is it evidence I can test for myself, or will I have to take the claimant's word for it? Is there an independent authority I can consult? If I have to go by somebody's word, do they seem trustworthy? Knowledgeable in the subject? Could they have a hidden agenda? Be trying to trick me somehow?

Such, my friend, are the bases on which sensible (and successful) people decide, not only whether a claim is true or not, but even whether it is worth considering or not. Only someone who does not realize this would be foolish enough to ask me what my 'debunking credentials' are. You don't need credentials. You need common sense and a decent survival instinct. As LiveForever8 said, we are all debunkers, or sceptics at least — and Heaven help us if we are not.

Patronizing? Arrogant? Judgemental? Hostile? Only from where you're sitting. Sorry, lad (or lass); the world is a hard place and facts are stubborn. If there was any justice in the world, you'd thank me for my advice and follow in my footsteps.


edit on 12/1/15 by Astyanax because: the boldly going went a bit too far.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
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!

Hello VoidHawk,

I think I was very clear in the related thread in my post here. Your photo may be genuine, but I'm afraid this is not an original, especially because it missed some EXIF data, like for example the camera model name.

Please, don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying in any way your photo is faked, I'm saying that any serious analysis should be done only on original unmodified photo, that you haven't provided yet unfortunately.

My related post:


originally posted by: elevenaugust
Hello VoidHawk!

My proposition to privately examine the original unmodified photo is still available. You can count on me not to reveal any details that could concern the privacy of the camera owner.

I can even sign for you a non-disclosure agreement like I've already done it in some cases.

BTW, tracing a camera owner is not that easy, especially with old and poor cellphones, moreover there's absolutely no way (I'm 100% sure) for anyone to succeed in finding the owner just with the camera model name.

Doing this will stop/discard all the inevitable (and should I say normal?) suspicion when the original photo is not given by the photographer.
Sorry to say, but up to now we can only rely on your testimony, even if I'm sure you're an honest guy
(or gal?).

When I do photos analysis for any UFO group, individuals or the the French GEIPAN, I DO NOT work on non-original photo and the related case is automatically classified as "C", i-e not enough information to conclude, if not thrown in the recycle bin...

So, please, let me examine the original photo and post my conclusion here after examination and removal of all the EXIF data that could provide clues to anyone about OP's location (i-e only 3 possible: GPS, camera body number and any possible comment made in any EXIF field by the OP). You can count on me, this is absolutely an honest proposition.


Then, the discuss might quietly continue on the nature of the UFO. You definitely cannot seriously discuss the various aspect of any UFO photo/video if the authentication part is not "clear".


Your answer:


originally posted by: VoidHawk
Your request to see the original.
Surely the photo I have already supplied, and that included in the op, are the photos that should be examined!
If you think they have been faked then please say so, while also providing your reasoning for such a claim.
I am interested in what you think could be learned from the original that you cannot get from the full photo I have already supplied, could you please enlighten me on this?


First step in any photo analysis is the authentication part. Once again, if the photo failed to pass this first part, then we can not continue to do any expertise. This is not against you, this is just the way how scientific method should be applied.

In this sense, sorry to say, but no, your photo is not authentic.

My proposition to privately examine the original non modified photo is still available, under the conditions exposed in my post above, where there are zero risks for you.



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.


Hi Soylent

I guess you meant "original unmodified image", of course!

edit on 12-1-2015 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I never debunk UFO videos , simply because I believe in UFO's.

Does that mean I believe in aliens though?.. No

UFO's exist and their is plenty of proof. They're seen daily all around the world.

Who's flying them is never for me to say, i'll leave that to the 'experts'.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:26 AM
link   
It sucks, but I just don't think video/photographic evidence is ever solely sufficient in this age, at least not when it comes to the paranormal. It's too easy to fake the stuff. We're in the age of "have 10 other witnesses" or don't bother.

I think it's great in the sense that it diverts hoaxers and conclusion jumpers, but I also wonder If we were ever given a real, quality video...if it would matter. I'm far from a skeptic, but I don't think I'd put much merit into such things.

More on point, an argument could be made that no site, this one included, can be trusted in this age - be it stories, photos, videos or anything else. I'm sure some are more trustworthy than others, but who exactly decides that one isn't? That should be up to you, yourself, not some stranger on the internet. The idea of a blacklist is troubling. Others should be able to point you in the proper direction, but you should make the decision yourself. I think it would be far more useful to post a list of quality sites. Even though there would definitely be duds, I for one would actually bother to read that sort of thing. ha.

The real movement should be to hold people accountable. If you don't check your facts, you should pay for it.. Having a list doesn't make people accountable. After all, you'd have to be accountable in the first place to bother checking a list of hoax sites. So, it would be kind of futile. The sort of person who posts something from a questionable site, obviously isn't interested in checking a thread like that ahead of time. Meh.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Some of the debunkers on this site are like worn out tracks on a record, on a narrow path that drones a repeating monotone. They know who they are.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppytoven

Then let me put it this way. To go into the unknown as a skeptic is in a way already forming an opinion about something before even knowing the details or viewing the "proof". Personally, I try to go into unknowns with an open mind to be objective and fair. But to each his own....


OK, but you seem to be talking about the "keejerk reaction dubunker" who will debunk everything because they have already made up their minds that there is no possible chance that alien visitation is happening. However, they are basically the exact same thing (just a different side of the same coin) as the "blind believer" whose keejerk reaction is to automatically believe that every UFO report is a true alien visitation.

There are many people who come on this board and say "I believe this UFO report is real (actual aliens) because I believe in alien visitation". A good skeptic would come on here and question that. They would ask "I understand you believe in alien visitation, but what specifically makes you believe THIS particular report". I mean, what credentials do these blind believers have for automatically calling a particular UFO sighting "an alien craft"?

The way I see things, even people who are open to believing in alien visitation could be skeptics -- as they should be.

BOTH the "automatic naysayer debunkers" and the "automatic believers" in every UFO report should both open their closed minds up, and take a skeptical look at what it is that they so dogmatically believe.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Especially the space UFO's, because Mr Oberg has that one all neatly tidied up:

All space UFO's debunked by Oberg




posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
Some of the debunkers on this site are like worn out tracks on a record, on a narrow path that drones a repeating monotone. They know who they are.


The ones who keep accusing those who don't unconditionally believe everything posted on youtube of being paid debunkers and disinfo agents? Or the ones who always respond to naysayers with a swamp gas reference?

Yeah, it does get old.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Puppytoven


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


Correct. The question is not "what are your credentials," the question is "what are your standards of evidence." The definition of a "believer" is someone who accepts any statement without critical analysis. The definition of a "skeptic" is one who examines the evidence for contradictions and inaccuracies. You don't need a diploma to apply critical thinking.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld
Especially the space UFO's, because Mr Oberg has that one all neatly tidied up:

All space UFO's debunked by Oberg
Your link description is false. Oberg only claims to have solved the "best cases":


93 Q: Why don’t you solve all the other ‘shuttle UFO’ videos on youtube?

A: While there’s an almost unlimited series of dancing space dots on youtube, there isn’t an unlimited amount of time and effort at my disposal. Moreover, most of those postings omit critical information such as date and time of the event or the original recording, which precludes independent checking. I have published detailed prosaic explanations of what are widely considered the ‘best’ space shuttle “UFO videos” – on STS-48, -63, -75, and -80, and when those research results are accepted as definitive by consensus of UFO researchers, I’ll commit new efforts to others. But none of the others I’ve ever looked at seemed any more mysterious or unsolvable than these ‘best’ cases, which I believe I have solved already.
"dancing space dots", I have to remember that, LOL.

I think Oberg has displayed good research and critical thinking skills, and your mockery of such implies the lack of such. For example, he has actually talked or otherwise corresponded with the astronauts, and people that have worked with them as part of his research into the space UFOs including those seen by astronauts, which is far better than the mockumentary which edits Buzz Aldrin's description of the UFO he saw to remove his explanation he's 99.99% sure it was one of the four panels released from his spacecraft.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

And people who suck up to the site by quoting their latest media campaign?



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Yep, that's my stand too.

We can't just blindly believe everything we read.
If we does not look at things with a critical eye, then we can be easily fooled into anything.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
True but we also need to scrutinise so called "experts" and not take them on face value.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: artistpoet
True but we also need to scrutinise so called "experts" and not take them on face value.




Sure -- everyone needs back-up to act as confirmation, but that back-up does not need to be something they learned as Ph.Ds or engineers or pilots...or any sort of credentialed professional.

For example, I don't need to be a pilot to know what various aircraft lights can look like. What I do know is that I would need to provide some sort of backup examples or sources if I'm going to claim that (for example) "the non-blinking bright white light in that video could be an aircraft landing light" -- but I don't need to be a credentialed aviation expert to point that out.

A person who applies critical thinking skills to a UFO report does not need to be an expert. They just need to use their critical thinking skills properly, and have a commonly agreed upon standard of "grounding" for the logic and evidence they are presenting.


Going back to my example of the airplane landing lights for a moment:

The person who claims (and I have seen this claim) "the light in that video can't be an airplane because planes always appear as blinking lights" is making a false and inaccurate claim themselves, and are not knowledgeable enough (let alone "experts") about aviation to be making the blanket claim that "if the light doesn't blink, then it's not a plane".


edit on 1/12/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: AthlonSavage



Especially the space UFO's, because Mr Oberg has that one all neatly tidied up:


Not tidy, at all -- the scary part is that there ARE valuable phenomena being
caught up in the UFO reportage avalanche, and by NOT recognizing them, we
miss out on some genuine wonders, and closer to my heart, we miss a chance
to save lives in space:

06/12/2008 - MSNBC.com: Why NASA watches out for true UFOs

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Yes you explained well what I failed to put into words.
Experience is a key factor

Here is a little example of my own.

I have friend who fixes up my car ... he is not a qualified mechanic
Yet ... From a young age he was one of those people who loved taking things apart to see how they worked.
He takes pride in problem solving ... even to the point of making parts himself

If I take my old car to him ... He not only solves and fixes the problem but automatically checks everything over.
It is his passion ... If there is something he does not understand you can bet he will find out about it and fix it

Like I said .. He is unqualified ... Yet far superior to any mechanic I have used ...
Because of this and his Character I can say I trust him implicitly

Without going into any detail ... I have come across so called experts in their field only to find them narrow minded and arrogantly opinionated ...

"The proof of the pudding is in the eating" as the old saying goes



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: skyblueworld
a reply to: AthlonSavage



Especially the space UFO's, because Mr Oberg has that one all neatly tidied up:


Not tidy, at all -- the scary part is that there ARE valuable phenomena being
caught up in the UFO reportage avalanche, and by NOT recognizing them, we
miss out on some genuine wonders,
and closer to my heart, we miss a chance
to save lives in space:

06/12/2008 - MSNBC.com: Why NASA watches out for true UFOs

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Star for you. That's exactly the point I've tried making.



posted on Jan, 12 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppytoven

Use your own damn EYES! 5 pounds of grey matter in your skull should make it OBVIOUS that YT is FULL of hoaxy bullsh*t fakeass videos. Goddamn!! Really? Aliens on the beach and majorly HUGE space ships floating over China India and you're all like 'What? How can I be sure that its not REAL?'

You expect Stephen Hawkings to roll on over with his f**kin ID cards? Screw debunkers and make your own mind up. If your mind tells you a mothership hovered over a city and didnt make worldwide front page news well you NEED to ease up on the YT ufo vids.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join