ATS FAILURE? (ATS Members, Your Opinions on Tough Debunking Please)

Originally posted by taibunsuu
No one has proof that demons or aliens exist whatsoever to begin with.

So why stop at John Lear? If unquestionable proof is what you think is needed to have a place discussing here, why not close the whole topic about Aliens & UFOs? How about threads about religion? Or NWO? What are we going to do about the Cryptozoology and Mythical Beasts-topic? What do you think should be done about Predictions & Prophecies? Or Paranormal Studies?

[edit on 21-9-2004 by Durden]

I didn't say they were invalid subjects to discuss. I said no one had proof they exist.

If you have proof they exist, bring it on out and let's talk about it. That's what I like about this forum.

But talking about the possibility of something is a long shot from talking about admitted fiction.

How are we supposed to have a rational discussion about the 70 types of ETs when we don't even have evidence that Earth has ever been visited by ETs in the first place? Talking about how aliens collect and recycle our souls, eat the ears off cows, slip technology into our culture, started Jesus, and placed the Moon in orbit, as if these things really happened, is asinine without a single shred of verifiable proof.

No offense on John Lear, I write fiction myself. But when he's asked for a single objective evidence for his theories or asked to apply a piece of logic to his fiction, he can't do it. His stuff is for people who already believe.

Do I want to believe? Yes! However I'm kind of like Thomas. Let me poke my fingers in those holes and feel the flesh. Then I'll believe. This website has had provided me with incredible factual input from the members that has lead to to very interesting facts and details in such a wide variety of subjects. It's invaluable to me because skeptics and rationale people provide their input here and very cool tidbits of verifiable information, quotes, photos, and links.

If you start bringing in people who present their fantasies as fact, and people who accept these total fantasies as fact, then the quality of the readership will drop. I like this site and don't want to see that happen. When I saw the "Did a 757 hit the Pentagon" thread get 16 pages of replies despite overwhelming evidence in the form of witnesses, photos, and raw data, I felt pretty despondent. Then I saw the John Lear thread, read the guys totally unhinged theories and really second-guessed the whole "Deny Ignorance" motto of this website.

Originally posted by taibunsuuThen I saw the John Lear thread, read the guys totally unhinged theories and really second-guessed the whole "Deny Ignorance" motto of this website.

Ignorance can't be "denied" until we know what shape and form it takes. The motto does not imply that we ignore ideas and theories that we think are the result of ignorance, instead, it demands us to examine them in significant detail, and collectively come to as much of a collective conclusion as possible. The nature of our subject matter and history of content will attract people that have extraordinary theories. And likewise, we also attract people that subject these theories to extraordinary analysis. For example, how would we know which tact to take in debunking the non-757 theories related to the Pentagon 9/11 incident if we didn't first examine all the alternative theories in exceptional detail? So... our motto is not "ignore ignorance"... it's deny ignorance.

Well that's a good point, SO. I didn't think about it until you mentioned it, but I'm biased in the 757 case due to personal experience.

I wasn't dismayed by the subject, but the length of the discussion and many of the responses that didn't have anything to back up an alternate theory in the face of evidence. It was carried for pages and pages by people who continously ignored the evidence.

On the other hand, in threads stating that the recent string of hurricanes is abnormal, members readily provided historical examples of how things are actually pretty normal.

In the case of John Lear's writings, he stated that his theories are for people who already believe - people that are not skeptical about the existence of ETs, and already accept ET presence on Earth and in our history as fact. But even if you don't believe, but hypothesize such a scenario, his statements still contain massive problems when held even to light scrutiny.

I'd like to see this forum stick with good, hard analysis.

I think that members didn't have a problem with disagreeing, or hard questions from staff, but had a problem when it seemed to cross the line into badgering, and threatened to end the two-way communication.

I myself am a skeptical believer. I've seen enough, read enough, and heard enough to be firm in my convictions, yet I demand good evidence, and corraborating evidence, before I accept a piece into my jigsaw puzzle of what I think is going on.

I think that the staff involved, when it went from debunking to badgering, realized this, apologized for it, and we moved on, and that imho is admirable.

Originally posted by Gazrok
I think that members didn't have a problem with disagreeing, or hard questions from staff, but had a problem when it seemed to cross the line into badgering, and threatened to end the two-way communication.

I myself am a skeptical believer. I've seen enough, read enough, and heard enough to be firm in my convictions, yet I demand good evidence, and corraborating evidence, before I accept a piece into my jigsaw puzzle of what I think is going on.

I think that the staff involved, when it went from debunking to badgering, realized this, apologized for it, and we moved on, and that imho is admirable.

Agreed with our acceptance of disagreement however , I saw a simple question posed by SO go unanswered by Lear that caused much dishevelment (love that word!) . A simple question with the intent to gather debunking information (without any accusation) was not answered , and SO who had some inside info regarding his question got a bit heated when a response was not given to his inquiry re. Lazar . It started out cordial , and flew off in a bad direction .

"I've seen enough, read enough, and heard enough to be firm in my convictions, yet I demand good evidence, and corraborating evidence, before I accept a piece into my jigsaw puzzle of what I think is going on."-Gazrok


I maintain that it was the pursuit of the integrity of the thread and confirmation of the identity through skeptical questioning (or lack of confirmation of certain information) of the guest speaker that caused the uproar .
I personally stay away from the posts that I believe have no merit rather than come out and call someone a crackpot . Believe what you want , I would like some evidence to many claims made on ATS also . Some times this is simply not the case , and those are the types of threads I stay away from .

It seems that the issues have been adressed regarding future guests , but I saw no need for people to get heated at staff members ( SO , Valhall ) for presenting valid but unanswered questions that any members would be welcome to pose .

The problem was the ending of the 2 way communication that is at the discretion of management , not an abuse of power but an attempt to maintain integrity that was misinterpreted as "big brotherish"in nature .

After reading Lears most recent post it seems these issues were well founded as he posted a loooooong disclaimer of his ideas , and mentioned he will be seeking professional help in the future .

IMO , we need to accept the staff involvement as common members when they choose to participate in such a manner . They just have to put the hammer away for the duration when they do so....

oddtodds 2 cents .

BTW , Kennedy is alive and well but has been surgicaly altered to apear as a black man (proved to me in Bubba Ho-Tep) , The moon IS made of cheese (Walace and Grommit) , Aliens DO abduct humans (I can still feel the probe) and Bush is the anti-Christ (found that out here!)