posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:59 AM
Stanton Friedman likes to try to differentiate between skeptics and debunkers, but I believe he doesn’t quite get these terms correct either, as who
he refers to as debunkers is actually what I term false researchers.
My thought has always been that a skeptic is someone who comes into a case with no misconceptions of the particular case in question, not believing
one side or the other. The case is looked at and examined. Rational and logical avenues, such as things that are known, are examined and exhausted,
before even looking to the more exotic possibilities. It is hard to come in looking at the exotic possibilities, because these are hard to dismiss
because they are not known, which will keep you from ever getting to the possible explanations.
You can be a believer in UFO’s, Visitation, Supernatural, Advanced Civilizations, etc, and still come into a particular event from a skeptical point
of view. It is usually the best point of view to come from because if you come to the conclusion that a particular case is mundane, there may be
others that can not be proven as such, moving you closer to finding the answers and possibly even come closer to verifying your beliefs.
Once a person has come in from a skeptical point of view and shown that a case has just a mundane explanation, the case has been debunked, and this
person has become a debunker for this particular case, this does not mean this person from this point on out is now a debunker for every case forward,
just for the case or cases that they have proven to be mundane, false or a hoax.
You do have people who come into cases who are out to prove hoax or something mundane from the get go whether or not it is or not. They are not there
to find the truth, just to prove a case false without even looking into the case or the facts. These people often get labeled debunkers, but this is
not the correct use of the word, they are in fact false researchers. They have no desire to find the truth, it has nothing to do whether they are a
non believer or not, because even non believers have been known to look into the facts of cases, even if the conclusion is that no ordinary
You have other people that because no known explanation can be found, automatically go to the more unusual, even though there is no real basis for the
conclusions they are coming to. For these people unexplained, means aliens, supernatural, etc. which could very well be the case, but there is no way
to be certain. These aren’t believers but what I refer to as extreme believers.
Could I be wrong in my uses of terms, of course I could be, but I think I am more on track with the way I use these terms than Stanton Friedman and