True skeptics and debunkers are two very different animals:
Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence.
A pseudo-skeptic, on the other hand, is a person with an priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and it’s just a matter of figuring out how to debunk it. It’s a foregone conclusion before they even begin to investigate.
Below is a list of explanations given by debunkers to explain UFO sightings. For the sake of brevity I have listed the main categories of explanations. Underneath each capitol letter you will find a number of variations on the theme. For the fleshed out version, go to the following link.
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm
A. MATERIAL OBJECTS
B. IMMATERIAL OBJECTS
C. ASTRONOMICAL
D. PHYSIOLOGICAL
E PSYCHOLOGICAL
F COMBINATIONS AND SPECIAL EFFECTS
G PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS
H RADAR
I HOAXES
My personal favorites that are embedded in the list include the following. I’m having them bronzed so I can prominently display them on my mantle.
*paper and other debris
*leaves
*insects
swarms
*moths
*seeds
milkweed, etc.
*feathers
*tumbleweeds
*spider webs
*matches
*smoker lighting pipe
*cigarettes tossed away
*ghost of the Brocken (I don’t know what that is, but it sounds way cool. Kind of like one of those low budget movies you see on The SyFy channel)
The problem I have with debunkers is they try to put ALL sightings under one of these categories. When asked if they think that all sightings since the dawn of mankind up to the present and into the future short of an actual landing are mundane in nature you begin to get evasive answers that do not address the question straight on. This question is designed to be a what is called a "boxed ended canyon" type question. There are only a few answers to this question, all of which are anathema to a debunker. If they answer yes, that becomes an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof, which, of course, they can't provide. They definitely don't want to go there unless they say, "in my opinion". which then puts them in the realm of any other Tom, Dick or Harry on the street; as good or bad as anyone else. If they answer no, maybe, I don't know, that opens the door to the possibility that their might be something else other than what they use as explanations. That doesn't mean that the sightings are necessarily alien, it just means that their is something out that that is a mystery that could be a whole lot of things.
Now, of course, when pressed to the wall they will invariably pull the "Unicorn Gambit™" which is just a smartass way of saying 'no' while trying to maintain the appearance of objectivity.Statistics: Posted by jakesteele — 30 Sep 2009, 05:25
]]>