Every picture and video has not been debunked

I ate some cereal this morning and then I decided to look at some of the pics and videos posted in this folder.

After about the third video and pic, I noticed the same conversation over and over again.

About halfway through the thread, someone will post on the thread the the pic or video has been debunked. The person always acts like it's a fact without any evidence whatsoever.

First off, saying something looks like this or something looks like that is not debunking a picture or video. This is just wishful thinking on the part of the person that has this desire to try and debunk everything so they will feel better about their beliefs on these issues.

I think it's only fair if they demand high standards like extraordinary evidence, then we should require the same thing when they are trying to debunk everything.

It's fine to debate over what things may or may not be but at the end of the day you don't know.

The people on these boards say things like, that's been debunked, thoroughly debunked and more and then they don't provide any evidence.

If it has been thoroughly debunked, I want to see:

The expert who examined the picture or video tell us what characteristics are consistent with say a weather balloon and what characteristics are inconsistent so we can begin to rule things out.

I want the eyewitness examined and polygraphed.

I want weather conditions of that day and radar reports to let me know if anything was flying in the area where the account took place.

And since many debunkers require extraordinary evidence, it's only fair that we require that the debunker has also visited the area and examined the eyewitness or witnesses and examined the area of the sighting.

Of course you have pics or video with sloppy CGI but every pic or video does not fit this category and it's just silly that on every thread of a picture or video there's a debunker who wants to make it seem that the picture or video has been debunked so case closed.

So, it's easy to run to you tube or find a pic on google and say this looks similar to that and that's fine but that doesn't mean the pic or video has been debunked.

YES, good post. I have the same feeling about some members here.
You can add 50 links to difrent sites, and are 'debunked' because it is not on an official .gov website. It is just redicules since that will never happen, and it shows that nothing outside 'gradeschool' material is true. I find it provocative and it makes me feel that the other person havent read any thing about the topic exept for the 'approved' facts on the matter, and that doesn't cutt it. ATS isnt about slapping school books around, but get to the truth of things.. Or have I gotten the wrong impression about ATS?.

Im also a member at the 2012 forum, and there people are not debunking nearly as SS like as some people here, and it is always the same people...

wierd how some people lack the abiltiy to adapt or think outside the box for just a tiny minute , and those are the dangerous people when the SHTF......Serious..

Would dearly like to know just who took this and where...

Great thread. I was thinking of starting something similar regarding grossly premature and baseless "debunking" claims and especially when alternative explanations are presented on flimsy to no evidence. I posted something regarding this in another thread which I feel is relevant and I hope you don't mind me posting it here too Plato.

There is an incredible double standard with regard to the evidence that is deemed acceptable in support of the ETH and that which is deemed sufficient to "prove" alternative explanations to it. Almost nothing is ever accepted as valid "evidence' for ET/UFOs, and yet the flimsiest non-evidence or obvious hearsay accompanied by brash proclamation is usually enough to have an alternative explanation immediately accepted as "fact" (and repeated as such, if ever the case is raised again): "It's an X. Sorry. Case closed. Debunked. Deny ignorance." or "Nothing to see here. This was already debunked in another thread. The fact is, it's an X".

With regard to this issue:

On Pseudo-Skepticism, a commentary by Marcello Truzzi:

"Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a [UFO] was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary--for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma. In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected.

Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence."


[edit on 28-3-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Good point.

Saying something looks like this and then saying it's debunked like it's a fact doesn't make sense. Saying it looks similar to something is fine but it doesn't mean it's debunked.

The objective seems to be to shut down debate on a picture or video because this happens with just about every pic or video.

SnF

I've wanted to say that for such a long time, but I've never quite had the wording to follow it through. Thank you for plucking my words straight from my head.