Were Back, Alive and Well (now the real work begins)

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by Pimander

 

reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Guys, "debunk" has always been used as a term meaning to "get to the bottom of" or to "find the truth of". The definition is "to expose falseness of" which is nearly the same thing.

If there is any false or misleading information I am sure it will be exposed, a.k.a. debunked. This is the same thing as finding the truth. In order to find truth you must first expose/find the lies.

If there is not any false or misleading information to expose, than you have a more credible phenomena. However, if there is falseness or misleading information, than you have a less credible phenomena.

"Debunking" is not a bad thing like is always portrayed in the UFO communitiy. In fact, it is one of the best approaches for finding the truth.

I think the "debunker" definition has been misconstrued by a certain group of "believers" who don't like when their beliefs are exposed as being lies. Being a debunker, or debunking a certain sighting is a good thing, not a bad thing.

De-bunking is not a good thing. Being skeptical is a good thing. The amount of de-bunkers who i have come across who dont give a crap about the ufo subject. There only love is to de-bunk it, and most of the time that means not really looking into the case, but de-bunking it anyway. Thats what these people love to do, in fact, it would not suprise me that if they had the choice to de-bunk all there life, or disclosure, they would choose de-bunking. They take such pleasure out of it, and its something that is not needed in this subject. The other side of the coin are the believers who will believe everything that they read and see. No matter what the evidence suggests. In my opinion de-bunkers and hardcore believers are the same.

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


In that context (and strictly within that context,) I agree with you. However, the statement "and debunk if possible" suggests a bias toward suspicion of falsehood before analysis has even begun. That is my only issue with the statement. In the context you allude to, I agree that something being succesfully "debunked" means to disprove it rigorously. That choice of wording sounds biased to me here, however.

I am hoping (and expecting) that I'm wrong. I say this with uttmost respect and gratitute to JonnyAnnoymous et al and their work.

reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


The trouble my friend is that there has come to be a great difference between skeptics and debunkers. The so called debunkers in many (but not all) cases ignore the kind of rock solid evidence I referred to in my earlier post,

"There are also excellently researched examples and the testimony of EXPERT witnesses including pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts and even former presidents to study. There are at least 50 ex-military and ex-intelligence service whistle blowers who have admitted (some of them on their death-beds) that contact with extraterrestrials is already happening. Surely they aren't ALL lyeing. Some military personnel have seen the bodies of crashed UFO occupants. Or is that simply outrageous so it must be lies? There are NASA photographs and video footage of what appear to be craft and "critters" in space. There are tape recordings of astronauts discussing alien craft and UFO's with Houston. There is much more too..."

I notice no replies have appeared that even attempted to dismiss (or even mentioned) the evidence I cite. Well, are they ALL lying. If even one is telling the truth, then the debunkers have every reason to be OPEN MINDED SKEPTICS.

At the same time many 'debunkers' focus on the weaker stuff (and like in this thread ignore the more important evidence). We are all entitled to be skeptical. However a lot of the dislike of 'debunkers' is the lack of an open minded approach to studies. A scientist tests theories WITH AN OPEN MIND.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Pimander]

[edit on 10-8-2010 by Pimander]

Good stuff Johnny, can't wait for the results.

I have to say.. YIPPYYYYY.. JA is the man who got me to sign up! Watching his videos and the information JA presents is always well researched, even if it's about how corn pop's. I can't wait for some more video installments!!

Hi Johnny! This is exciting news! Cant wait to see what you got for us.. I'm going to Hessdalen, Norway for about 7 days really soon, and I hope to bring back something for ATS to Keep on the good work!

Cheers

Well now..

I can see that even while I'm knee deep into analyzing the hours and hours of footage, audio and data, I'm still going to have to come in here to set the thread straight again.


(I'm speaking on my own behalf right now)
Anyone that has done any research or even just googled my name knows that I for the past 25+ years have been seeking "the truth" in regards to the UFO Phenomena. I've even had my own series of 'personal' experiences/events through out my lifetime. So lets be correct and clear here, I personally find it mathematically illogical to assume we are the only 'living species' in the known Universe. These are my own personal thoughts on the subject (I can not speak for Franks thoughts/beliefs).

With that said, as an investigator/researcher I have to set aside what my own belief systems are and go where the data, evidence and testimony take me. I have to approach this in a way that wont make any sense to many of you as it will seem as a conundrum of pathways.

Does this mean that I have to be a Skeptic? YES
Does this mean that I have to try & Debunk claims YES
Can someone Believe, be a Skeptic and a Debunker combined? YES
Will by being all of the above help me get closer to the answers and truth we seek? YES

Just like a detective, I have to investigate all possibilities, I have to try and duplicate scenarios, I have to see if by experimentation we can find a terrestrial answer for the claims made. I also have to 'profile' those that are making said claims. And then also spend endless hours hoping to observe something, anything, that the claimant may have made with the hopes of capturing what they claimed to have witnessed. I wear a lot of hats while out on an investigation. It is only by detective/investigative work that we will get closer to the truth as we are able to eliminate identifiable pieces of the puzzle in different genres/scenarios. To say that I'm completely neutral and unbiased would be a misnomer because I do have a belief. So although I may secretly hope for the 'smoking gun' (as one poster mentioned earlier), I can't let that influence me when it comes to peeling away the multi-layers in an investigation. But I can share with you this, both Frank and I do not let our personal thoughts/feelings get in the way of the data/evidence in an investigation. And as Frank will emphatically agree with me, we have no problem "calling a spade a spade" (this is not a racist comment). We go where ever the 'data path' takes us and regardless of how 'outrageous' the claims might be, (yes I used that word outrageous again for a reason to be revealed at a later date), we have to accept it, even if we don't understand how the phenomena is presenting itself.

It's easy for anyone to sit behind a computer and make claims about 'this or that', it's also easy for 'arm-chair' enthusiast to share their thoughts whilst never actually going out in the field to do the proper and needed legwork and investigation. You learn so much more facing someone when their retelling an account or claim. And sadly, both Frank and I have come across those that for reasons unknown want to fabricate things/stories/claims. It's our job to root those out. And I'd like to add that the 'pairing' of Frank and I has worked well as he has brought ideas and thoughts to the table that helped us look at 'scenarios' in a different latitude (which is always good). Remember, it is only through diligence and perseverance in trying to rule out all known identifiable bits of information and evidence in an investigation, that we will get closer to the truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So let me apologize right now to anyone that may have been offended by my terminology in my opening post, I tried to choose my words wisely, apparently I failed for some of you. Bottom line is that our goals are the same regardless of the terminology that was used.

I'm now getting back to analysis, I probably will not be back to post until were close to the release of our preliminary investigation. Keep in mind that analysis and scrutinizing does not occur overnight. Please be patient for the video report, it will hopefully all make sense then (including my terminology).

Johnny

[edit on 8/10/2010 by JohnnyAnonymous]

I guess what we're running into here is a semantic conflict rather than one of substance. If you say that your sole aim is pure skepticism and rigorous analysis, whatever the outcome of that may be, then I agree with and support that.

It's just the phrases, "try to debunk" and "debunk if possible" which, semantically at least (not necessarily contextually or literally, given your subsequent clarification) implies to me an effort to disprove something, when in fact refraining from judgment either way (i.e. saying "I don't know one way or another until the conclusion of my analysis") will result in proving or disproving the claims being made just as readily as proactively "trying to debunk."

As I said though, if you say that isn't how you intended it, then that's sufficient for me and in my view should be for everyone else as well.

I would like to touch on the "armchair" comment as well, though. I would never claim to be a "real investigator." Which is why I'm careful to say "in my opinion," and "I feel," etc. when qualifying my opinions. However expressing opinions is not an inherently nonconstructive activity. Dialogue and assessment of one's words or choice of words, when dealing with something that semantics are so relevant to (in my opinion,) are not trivial and in my view should not be dismissed on the basis of how "easy" it is to question one's choice of words when the one doing the questioning is not an investigator their-self. It is "easy," but a lot of things that still matter are easy. Expression of personal opinion is one of them. (It's also easy to dismiss someone's opinion based on subjective personal criteria. That doesn't make it right necessarily.)

Just my two cents, and again, I say this with utmost respect to your investigation and the work put into it, both of which are much appreciated. Please don't mistake my questioning of your (now explained) choice of words for a lack of appreciation of respect. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I have to admit that if this investigation has been mentioned on ATS other than what I recall in the past few weeks on the ATSLive radio program, I sure cant remember it.

But I'm pleased that you two gentleman made it back alive (which I'm sure is a pun, yes?), and I await eagerly to hearing more on what you went to investigate.

Cheers

Welcome back, Frank and Johnny!

From the sound of it, I can hope that your spirit of careful but persistent investigation, open-minded to all possibilities (including the unpopular ones), will become more of a pattern in our little ATS corner.

Looking forward to the results of your investigation.

reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous


Apologies if I have offended any debunkers lol.

Johnny I think that your approach is reasonable enough. I must say though I cannot stand the use of the work debunking to describe a study, but maybe just because it means something different to other folks.

Having said that, there is some pretty extraordinary evidence out there now which come close to being that extraordinary evidence. At some point I will have to put my metaphorical money where my mouth is and summarise it on here with a thread of my own (when I have posted enough times on here) for you all to try to debunk. However I suspect that a lot of the success of debunking may come down to simply not believing witness testimony which is, of course, enough to send somebody to the electric chair in many US states.

Of course the truth is Johnny, I am simply envious of you. I can only dream of having the time and resources away from my day job to invest as much time as you can in research.

Originally posted by Jay-morris

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by Pimander

 

reply to post by AceWombat04

 

Guys, "debunk" has always been used as a term meaning to "get to the bottom of" or to "find the truth of". The definition is "to expose falseness of" which is nearly the same thing.

If there is any false or misleading information I am sure it will be exposed, a.k.a. debunked. This is the same thing as finding the truth. In order to find truth you must first expose/find the lies.

If there is not any false or misleading information to expose, than you have a more credible phenomena. However, if there is falseness or misleading information, than you have a less credible phenomena.

"Debunking" is not a bad thing like is always portrayed in the UFO communitiy. In fact, it is one of the best approaches for finding the truth.

I think the "debunker" definition has been misconstrued by a certain group of "believers" who don't like when their beliefs are exposed as being lies. Being a debunker, or debunking a certain sighting is a good thing, not a bad thing.

De-bunking is not a good thing. Being skeptical is a good thing. The amount of de-bunkers who i have come across who dont give a crap about the ufo subject. There only love is to de-bunk it, and most of the time that means not really looking into the case, but de-bunking it anyway. Thats what these people love to do, in fact, it would not suprise me that if they had the choice to de-bunk all there life, or disclosure, they would choose de-bunking. They take such pleasure out of it, and its something that is not needed in this subject. The other side of the coin are the believers who will believe everything that they read and see. No matter what the evidence suggests. In my opinion de-bunkers and hardcore believers are the same.

I need to totally agree with you, debunkers sometimes are there just to get a rise out of people that do believe. Then again, if you can debunk something using good methods and proven ways then there is totally nothing wrong with that.

Fantastic! I look forward to your finished piece. I am a resident of Oregon myself, living in the foothills of Mt.Hood.

I feel like an idiot asking this (and yes I tried using the search bar for an answer), but what case/cases exactly were they investigating in Oregon? Is it the so-called "Oregon Vortex"? Or something completely different?....

this is gonna be awesome! how long were you guys out there Johnny? Do you have a ballpark estimate when the preliminary investigation will be ready?

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
Does this mean that I have to be a Skeptic? YES
Does this mean that I have to try & Debunk claims YES
Can someone Believe, be a Skeptic and a Debunker combined? YES
Will by being all of the above help me get closer to the answers and truth we seek? YES

Just like a detective, I have to investigate all possibilities, I have to try and duplicate scenarios, I have to see if by experimentation we can find a terrestrial answer for the claims made.

Well said, and this approach seems logical. You can try and debunk claims and if there's no bunk in them to debunk, you find that you can't debunk them.

There's nothing wrong with this, in fact it's a sound approach. The only debunkers I would object to are those who would make up a false claim to debunk something which of course no truth-seeker would do. But Phil Klass did and that's how he ended up on the UFO hall of shame. I think the term I've heard coined for such people is "pseudo-skeptic".

But honest attempts to debunk claims while seeking the truth are to be applauded, as with anything that brings us closer to the truth. We are looking forward to seeing your analysis and hearing more about the incident Frank mentioned.

Hey Johnny,

I look forward to hearing/seeing what you have captured.

I respect your work.