Blog Categories
- African Incidents
- Atlantis Incidents
- Australian Incidents
- Belgian Incidents
- Bermuda Triangle Incidents
- Brazilian Incidents
- Canadian Incidents
- Chinese Incidents
- European Incidents
- France Incidents
- Ghosts
- Giants
- Italy Incidents
- Japanese Incidents
- Middle East Incidents
- Portugal Incidents
- Project Serpo
- Puerto Rico Incidents
- Russian Incidents
- Sasquatch
- Scandinavia Incidents
- Spanish Incidents
- UFOs
- United Kingdom Incidents
- United States Incidents
A Reminder to be Rational With Respect to UFO Debunkers!
With the increased positive attention on the topic in light of Grusch, I'm noticing a trend with both sides.
Both hoaxes and debunkers are jumping on bandwagons to gain their 15min of fame, but BOTH sides need equal rational analysis of their arguments.
People like Aliennation51 are appealing to those of us who want to believe.
People like Mick West and Steven Greenstreet appeal to those of us who are harder to convince.
But all to often, the skeptics are seen as rational and grounded, while hoaxes are always pinned as outlandish and stupid.
However we need to realise that personal opinion, such as what Mick and Steven suggests with the majority their views, are NOT skeptical analysis and far too often fall in the bucket of "show me the evidence" and "it's all just hearsay” followed by "here is my personal opinion” or " this is my guess on what I think is happening".
This is NOT the approach of a rational skeptic, this is not good science and it should not be tolerated any more than a teenager with a YouTube account making fake 911 calls.
Simply calling for "hard evidence" is a mute point unless the person calling for it has the knowledge to personally conduct the analysis themself.
What good are picture and video in a time of CGI?.
What good is a piece of metal unless you have an Understanding of condensed matter physics and metallurgy to run the test or interpret the results yourself?.
What good is a theory of high energy physics / energy production / propulsion unless you understand the math?.
Unless you do, you are simply trading one persons story for another persons story.
We need hard evidence, no questions, but simply stating the fact that Grusch isn't waving any of these on camera in an interview is not good enough to refute him.
Anyone saying there isn't evidence is forgetting the 70+ years testimony, pictures and video, but more to the point, the fact that almost ALL of the quality evidence is locked behind a CLASSIFIED wall.
This alone should pivot ALL skeptics to be asking the People classifying the data to release it, NOT simply trying to "debunk" personal testimony of credible witnesses by saying evidence doesn't exist.
We ALL need to be on the same front here, looking for the truth. And presenting yourself as a rational skeptic when you do nothing of the sort is just as harmful as hoax.
We need scientific consensus, and the only way we get it is when the obvious and know walls of secrecy fall. That is the only door we should all be beating on.
Post from user Specialkneeds7 at at reddit.
Comments:
Debunkers are mostly closed minded ignoramuses IMO.
Comment from user examachine at at reddit.
With the increased positive attention on the topic in light of Grusch, I'm noticing a trend with both sides.
Both hoaxes and debunkers are jumping on bandwagons to gain their 15min of fame, but BOTH sides need equal rational analysis of their arguments.
People like Aliennation51 are appealing to those of us who want to believe.
People like Mick West and Steven Greenstreet appeal to those of us who are harder to convince.
But all to often, the skeptics are seen as rational and grounded, while hoaxes are always pinned as outlandish and stupid.
However we need to realise that personal opinion, such as what Mick and Steven suggests with the majority their views, are NOT skeptical analysis and far too often fall in the bucket of "show me the evidence" and "it's all just hearsay” followed by "here is my personal opinion” or " this is my guess on what I think is happening".
This is NOT the approach of a rational skeptic, this is not good science and it should not be tolerated any more than a teenager with a YouTube account making fake 911 calls.
Simply calling for "hard evidence" is a mute point unless the person calling for it has the knowledge to personally conduct the analysis themself.
What good are picture and video in a time of CGI?.
What good is a piece of metal unless you have an Understanding of condensed matter physics and metallurgy to run the test or interpret the results yourself?.
What good is a theory of high energy physics / energy production / propulsion unless you understand the math?.
Unless you do, you are simply trading one persons story for another persons story.
We need hard evidence, no questions, but simply stating the fact that Grusch isn't waving any of these on camera in an interview is not good enough to refute him.
Anyone saying there isn't evidence is forgetting the 70+ years testimony, pictures and video, but more to the point, the fact that almost ALL of the quality evidence is locked behind a CLASSIFIED wall.
This alone should pivot ALL skeptics to be asking the People classifying the data to release it, NOT simply trying to "debunk" personal testimony of credible witnesses by saying evidence doesn't exist.
We ALL need to be on the same front here, looking for the truth. And presenting yourself as a rational skeptic when you do nothing of the sort is just as harmful as hoax.
We need scientific consensus, and the only way we get it is when the obvious and know walls of secrecy fall. That is the only door we should all be beating on.
Post from user Specialkneeds7 at at reddit.
Comments:
Debunkers are mostly closed minded ignoramuses IMO.
Comment from user examachine at at reddit.