Debunking the Debunkers??? Help here

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


Seems legit....😂

Honestly, how about quoting primary source material instead of random flying
Saucer blogs (second only to random YouTube videos as the antithesis of the definition of "proof".

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Not really, they always come up with this excuse, the latest was the "AURORA PROJECT" who never happened in reality, so nope, it was not the case.

Hmm, no not the case. Aurora was actually a budgetary code for the B2 funding in the 1980's when the program was still black that made its way into contemporary UFO culture and is authoritivley quoted by doe eyed believers worldwide as a factual program,second only to the Infamous TR3-B that only exists in pop culture fanboy publications yet is tossed around as an authorities "fact" that the government is hiding impossibly exotic technologies that only exist in comic books and the back of cereal boxes.

But hey, I digress....

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

The discussion on the Blue book lack of scientific approach and bias is well documented in many books, what are you trying to imply here? Most debunking is actually bad science, you are basing yourself on a premise that you already know what a civilisation potentially billion of years more advanced than ours could do. So they always fall short anyways, because the UFOs normally would not behave in the way they wanted to, or never send them an invitation for a symposium, or a private meeting to present themselves over tea and a cupcake.

I don't know of a single book that covers all those individuals. It would be a book worth writing.

But you can certainly find books and articles individually debunking all those people.

Carl Sagan certainly became more skeptical as the years went on. And his book "Demon-Haunted World" (basically his treatise on his brand of skepticism) was published after he fell ill with the disease that would ultimately take his life.

It's not uncommon for people facing their own mortality to become either more or less skeptical of all things supernatural.

I believe Sagan was very bitter in those final years. And who can blame him for that? However, I think he chose to take that bitterness out on a fairly easy target, i.e. believers in the supernatural. And one can fault him for that.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: flamengo

Carl Sagan?

I can't imagine anyone that would have been more over joyed to find evidence of the existence of intelligent alien life.

Sound like you've simply decided that you'd rather eat up everything that everyone ever puts out and simply ignore any one that offers a more mundane answer.

Instead of wasting your money on a book, just ignored those who debunk or are skeptics.

Carl Sagan is a prime example of a debunker who didn't actually believe his own debunking efforts.
Carl Sagan believed UFO's were real

See, now this is where I have a problem: someone who debunks or is a skeptic = someone who does not believe in the existence of intelligent alien life.

I've seen this school of thought all too often here on ATS.....and it's completely bunk.

I'm a skeptic and have helped debunk stuff on here (because there are WAY too many out there that are just looking for their 15 minutes of fame, not the truth), and yet I fully subscribe to the existence of intelligent alien life, and yes, I believe that UFO's exist.

Are there debunkers out there that don't believe? Sure. And there are also debunkers who are also just looking for their 15 minutes of fame too.

But putting all in a box on one side of the other is just wrong (and very closed minded thinking).

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

The conflation of U2 and Blue book is pathetic to say the least. Besides you haven't proved your point or anything like that.
The deep state may have exotic weapons, no doubt, probably coming from foreign sources. The so called "Aliens", whatever # they are.

a reply to: Moresby

Carl Sagan knew a lot, and he was paid to obfuscate the UFO phenomena and the Mars monuments. Still he was intelligent enough to give it away to people who was researching. He was an insider, deal with it. As a scientist he was a good PR.

You idea to find the debunkers one by one is a good approach, and I was think about this possibility myself.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

The discussion on the Blue book lack of scientific approach and bias is well documented in many books, what are you trying to imply here? Most debunking is actually bad science, you are basing yourself on a premise that you already know what a civilisation potentially billion of years more advanced than ours could do. So they always fall short anyways, because the UFOs normally would not behave in the way they wanted to, or never send them an invitation for a symposium, or a private meeting to present themselves over tea and a cupcake.

Any chance of talking you into referencing specific examples rather than broadgeneralities and blanket statements. Could be,should be etc is just supposition no matter how rational it sounds without the support of empirical observation.

Sure, the Drake equation posits intelligent civilizations should be common throughout the universe yet as the Fermi paradox so irrefutably posits " so if Intelligent life is common why is there absolutely no sign of them anywhere?

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Actually the Fermi paradox is just a clever assumption. It does not take into consideration that Advanced civilisations do not use they Dyson globe and want to be discreet. So it actually the paradox is a flawed one.

Regarding the Blue book, I put a link to a book, you can find the criticism of the scientific method of the Blue book in many sources, is astonishing that you have not done your homework there, because it is something beyond the obvious.
Check out Richard Dolan for instance. Have a good read.

a reply to: flamengo

There is no proof of anything religious or supernatural, and not for lack of trying...

For all of human history people have tried to prove the existence of ghosts and god, and what do we have to show for it??

Testimonials without one single repeatable experiment that proves ANYTHING outside of normal physics.

The skeptic argument usually can't be debunked, because by its nature it only counts facts and it is not making a crazy claim able to be debunked.

Watch both sides spiels and decide who makes the most sense.

I'm still looking, but have yet to find anything that points to the supernatural or grand scale coverups.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

The conflation of U2 and Blue book is pathetic to say the least. Besides you haven't proved your point or anything like that.
The deep state may have exotic weapons, no doubt, probably coming from foreign sources. The so called "Aliens", whatever # they are.

Hat do you mean by the conflation of the U2 and blue book being pathetic? It seems to me it served its purpose in spades.

Secondly, there are actual rules to logic that help to make sense of the world around us and one of those rules is incredible claims require incredible evidence. As you are the one making the claim the onus is on you to provide proof, not l.

And lastly, yes, we know for a fact the military industrial complex creates most bleeding edge aerospace technologies so it is a safe statement that the Oxcart/Arch Angel programs existed with technology that easily explains many of the more credible sightings of the 1950's and early1960's.

Have you ever actually read Carl Sagan The Dragons of Eden or are you familiar with his baloney detection kit? If not give it a quick google, his logic is sound and works for both the believers and skeptics alike.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You talking rubbish here and assuming a lot. We have videos, we have photos, we have scientific studies. The skeptic argument is based on the argument by authority and only that. When you talk about psy phenomena and put in the same category, you make yourself a diservice as over and over statistical studies proved it is a thing, over and over again. So the only thing missing is seriousness to tackle the problem head on.
I understand the phenomena is complex and is able to masquerade itself, we should not blame it, we should blame ourselves not to have understood how it operates and not to fool ourselves, not me, but most.
So no, you are just misrepresenting and oversimplifying a real thing. The problem is that, the real is more complex then you can imagine if we take all the data seriously, and the data keep appearing non stop.

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

They did not need to make a blue book for the u2 man, please. They had tones of cases and a lot of public pressure upon them. They had to try in debunking it, it was show trial.

a reply to: flamengo

I think it is really that the Fermi paradox ONLY accounts for broad galactic style civilization that has lasted for billions of years , and stretched out across the universe.


It is accounting for space, but not for time really..


For 2 civilizations to meet they must both be at the same tech level roughly, at the same time, AND within a close enough difference to make the trip.

For example our earliest radio signals are only 100 light years away.. meaning we could only hear a civilization that was within that distance, at that time frame..

So imho you would need to look far longer than 30 years to say that at all!!!

If after we have listened to every single star and still don't maybe..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: flamengo

I think it is really that the Fermi paradox ONLY accounts for broad galactic style civilization that has lasted for billions of years , and stretched out across the universe.


It is accounting for space, but not for time really..


For 2 civilizations to meet they must both be at the same tech level roughly, at the same time, AND within a close enough difference to make the trip.

For example our earliest radio signals are only 100 light years away.. meaning we could only hear a civilization that was within that distance, at that time frame..

So imho you would need to look far longer than 30 years to say that at all!!!

If after we have listened to every single star and still don't maybe..

Man, this search using radio signals is cringe as you can get, it is a extrapolation and a projection of our technology, Paul Davies tries to make the case for it showing the difficulties, and he still considers as an option, it is actually a waste of money as far as ET is concerned. If people is serious about ET it is just a matter of studying the data. All of it.
And regarding our galaxy, we have even a proposition, such as PHD Paul laViolete and his research on the Pulsars, his supposition is that some of them may be artificial.

originally posted by: flamengo
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Actually the Fermi paradox is just a clever assumption. It does not take into consideration that Advanced civilisations do not use they Dyson globe and want to be discreet. So it actually the paradox is a flawed one.

Regarding the Blue book, I put a link to a book, you can find the criticism of the scientific method of the Blue book in many sources, is astonishing that you have not done your homework there, because it is something beyond the obvious.
Check out Richard Dolan for instance. Have a good read.

Seriously, unless you can show where a dyson sphere actually exists outside of science fiction novels ( and the silly reddit article a few weeks back is not remotely proof of anything other than the writers imagination)I Wouldnt dismiss the fundamental truth that if they are everywhere we don't see them as flawed.

Why a Dyson sphere?Why not just say they are a magic race of unicorns and turn themselves invisible at will? You have just as much evidence for u icorns than Dyson spheres?

Again, there are honest to goodness rules that govern this stuff. Google logical fallacies and run through the top 20'I will bet you will see some familiar lines of reasoning.

a reply to: Drunkenparrot

I mentioned the Dyson sphere as an example, because everyone who quotes the Kardashev scale quotes Dyson sphere, and because we never saw one therefore there are no advanced civilisations around us. And that assumption I think it is rather bizarre.

I think the evidence is more on the ET side than not, but so what? You will never convince some until there is a white house landing, its just the way they are wired. Think liberal vs conservative, same kind of thing.

On the flip side, there are many cases that are in fact misidentified. And while many cases are promising, they really arent quite there to the point where other possibilities like a military black project cant be ruled out.

Instead, I would focus the cases(perhaps you have your own experience) that you consider to be the best. Even if those ebil skeptics are using underhanded tactics to debunk a case, they could still be right ... just because Hitler said it, doesnt make it wrong.

Some of my favorites

Levelland 57 - Several motorist encounter a glowing sphere that stops their motor, police try to locate the object and also see it.
New Guinea 58 - Father Gill and others wave at the aliens
Westall 66. Daylight sighting of a drone like craft that levitates up on a school campus.
Ravenna 66 - Several police chase ufo through 2 states
Minot AFB B-52 incident 68 - radar confirmation case
Colares 1977 - UFOs burning residents
Tehran 1977 - UFO engaged by Iranian F-4s.
Eupen 89,90 - (start in at 2:20min) start of the Belgium wave

a reply to: flamengo

That's just it: Dyson spheres do not have to be solid shells.

They can be literally just 100's of thousands of objects that surround a star to collect it's energy.

You should check out Isaac Arthur on YouTube with his Science and Futurism channel. He's got several videos going indepth on the Fermi Paradox talking about solutions to it (answers). He doesn't just throw any answer away, but goes into how likely or unlikely each answer is.

He also goes into Dyson Swarms and why they do not have to be solid objects completely covering a star.

Some of the answers to the paradox are very interesting and thought provoking. He doesn't declare no life out there, simply offers ideas as to what the answers may be.

originally posted by: Groot
What do you have against Carl Sagan?

Is he and the others really skeptics?

What are you trying to prove ?

Research , a healthy dose of skepticism before coming to conclusions is the best path.

Carl Sagan is a complete turn coat. Early on he was a believer and advocate of extraterrestrial life. It was only after he became mainstream that he changed his tune. He was given the "comply or slink into obscurity" speech by someone at one point.