Interview With Stanton Friedman - Debunking the Debunkers - 2011 UFO Conference

page: 3
118
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Fair enough. I think Stan would call you a skeptic then. Hes just using the term debunker differently.
edit on 6-3-2011 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by roughycannon
He's says that we shouldn't have any debunkers... is this man crazy? if we didn't have debunker's the Jerusalem video would be prove of aliens visiting us? Am I right in thinking that? what complete nonsense.


He makes an important distinction between "debunkers" who he dislikes, and "skeptics" who he firmly believes we need.

In Mr. Friedman's experiences, debunkers are those who reject the notion of UFOs as anything extraordinary, and habitually denigrate those making the observations and the sightings for the pure sport of it (apparently). While skeptics, in his mind, are those who would like to see the truth and in doing so, judge UFO sightings with a highly critical eye as a harsh test toward discovering the truth.

By his definitions, it's "skeptics" who exposed the Temple Mount UFO as a farce -- and debunkers who made fun of it.
edit on 6-3-2011 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Ok fair enough but I think his "thinking" of what debunkers are is wrong, what he is talking about I would call "non-beleivers"



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I think the big problem is the demonizing of a certain term within the community, rather than the action. That action being the whimsical brushing-off with no particular reasoning why of any and every video, picture or testimony.

Debunking is good. Debunking is actual research and demonstration as to why a certain piece of evidence is not unnatural or extraterrestrial (or secret government/insert your particular brand of theory here).

Shooting down a post and calling Fake without any reasoning or explanation isn't debunking, so I don't think it's necessary to sling mud at a particular term within the community in an attempt to broaden the scope of "people we don't have to listen to". If debunking becomes bad, it just makes it easier to become antagonistic against anyone who doesn't adhere to a certain set of worldviews and opinions.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kargun
Ya I love how he talks about scientist saying it would take 700k years to get to the nearest star by voyager. Why do scientist think we will not have the ability to learn to travel through space at a faster pace in the future?

Lets look at Motor car speeds over the last 100 years. Or jets compared to planes.

Scientists can be so blind.


Space is a different animal altogether in regards to travel... The distances on earth are infinitesimal when compared to the distances in space.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by roughycannon
 


Good point, except non-believers don't get themselves too involved. They don't participate in the dissemination of an extraordinary claim. Debunkers are non-believers as well, but take it upon themselves to actively destroy a claim, fact or fiction.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lastdragon
You definitely followed your debunkers handbook, where can I get one.


You get one free with every hypothalamus.

It's very funny that you started your reply with a post about attacking the poster and not the message and finish up on the same note.

If Mr Friedman is to be taken as factual then I have to admit to being a sceptic from a debunker default stance.

The question then is; Is being sceptical from a believer default stance any better?

I know who I wish to crack jokes to when the sun goes down.

-m0r



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
Do you notice how many of the Debunkers aren't flagging this thread? Its amazing they say its a made up word and no body does it? I love for this fella to come onto ATS that would give some of these troll debunkers a run for there money.


There's no such thing as a "troll debunker" because debunkers have a logical reasoning as to their disagreements.

It's the believe everything seen or heard people that are ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Wonderful video! I'm always impress with Stanton Friedman. He is probably the only expert in Ufology that I can reliably trust in and his arguments are always backed up by irrefutable data. I wish more people listen to Stanton Friedman lectures.
Thanks ATS for this awesome interview!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Very interesting ATS interview!

I found Stan's explaining the difference between a skeptic and a debunker interesting and have seen both operate on ATS. Skeptics present data and facts that may be in conflict with a claim. A debunker pulls the "you're stupid" card and generally repeats debunker slogans which are a dime a dozen. You learn from skeptics but you feel like you are observing an unspervised playground with a bully acting up when dealing with debunkers.

Thanks!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Amusing and entertaining ((^_^))



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Definition of a 'debunker' -

Someone who is not trying to sell-you their next book or video.

Someone seeking the truth.

Pretty basic stuff.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ommadawn
 


A debunker is someone that seeks truth? That doesn't make any sense to me. A scientist is someone who should seek truth. The definition of a "Debunker" is right in the name DEBUNKER. The word itself if a verb. A debunker is a person who contradicts claims as being false. I do not see the word "debunker" being interchangeable with the word "scientist" or "skeptic".
edit on 6-3-2011 by zerotime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


So basically this Stanton dude is one of the billion people that talks in theory’s and has never presented credible evidence in nothing, but we have to listen to him, and his stupid ideas, as if he’s credible, as if he’s one of Us, as if the ufo conference has one person that has presented good, conclusive evidence, as if nothing they say are hoaxes, loll, Guh!

Let’s get real, until one of the famous , ‘A class celebrity ufologist’ bring something conclusive to the table, >
I will be ‘denying ignorance’.

Forums can put people threads in the hoax section, and trash bin, and in the grey area, but we have to listen to stories from other people, and go to there conference… As if they cracked the alien agenda, loll, as if their wild fascinating’ money agenda ‘theories and hoax logy stories really matters to people.

I deny ignorance ,and people that have no facts to bring to the table on this subject.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I like Stan... I really do, but his witty one-liners wear thin after a while. It should also be noted that the very thing he is most famous for; i.e The MJ 12 Documents, were fakes created by Doty & Co. Stanton has been stuck in this denial for a long time now, and in so doing, has lost much of his credibility. He should have just stood up and said, "You know what, I was fooled... but it won't happen again". Unfortunately he didn't. He still beats that dead horse like a war drum and it's sad to watch. Almost as sad as watching Doty's other victim, Linda Moulton Howe...

LMH... Now there's a piece of work right there!

People on this forum need to understand that Friedman is fallible, and history has proven as much. He is not an all knowing super hero Ufologist. He gets things wrong and he makes mistakes. One should remain skeptical of everyone else in this field making claims... including Stanton.

IRM
edit on 6/3/11 by InfaRedMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Slipdig1
Do you notice how many of the Debunkers aren't flagging this thread? Its amazing they say its a made up word and no body does it? I love for this fella to come onto ATS that would give some of these troll debunkers a run for there money.


What are you talking about? how could you possibly know who has NOT flagged this thread? how many did you notice? what complete and utter nonsense! considering this thread has 69 flags, one of them mine I feel as if I'm in a position to debunk you.
edit on 6-3-2011 by roughycannon because: spelling



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
I fail to see why Stanton is held up so highly in this field, I remember him from documentaries from the 90's and I never once saw him making anything particularly noteworthy. This interview is a great example, nothing intelligent nor interesting is said at any point. I like to see ATS making these sort of interviews though!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Why is it always proven repeatable science deemed at 'debunking' ludicrous proposals of logic?

Who's 'dream world' would come crashing down as opposed to the crazy ideas people postulate that accuse us firm provable demonstrated repeatable researchers are ascared of discovering?

Yes, I spelled that like when we were juveniles.

The more you probe into the workings of the molecular fields of 'what is' the more mundane it all becomes with not so many surprises, and that's one reason the Bomb worked, and still does.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com
 


I think most of ATS including myself could learn alot from this video.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by InfaRedMan
 


I like Stan too, and I know what you mean about his 'one liners', they get old. I do think that as UFO researchers go he is about as good as it gets. He has done some amazing research and brought a lot of things to light. I'm sure he makes mistakes too, as do we all, but the guy has done a lot for the field. Also, he has shown that some of the MJ 12 docs may be legit. I don't completely buy it, but he makes some good points.

I don't know why everyone is having a hard time understanding his distinction between a debunker and a skeptic. It's pretty simple, a lot of people have pointed it out so I won't beat a dead horse here again.
edit on 3/6/2011 by wtbengineer because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
118
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join