ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 12, 2016 Share Posted October 12, 2016 Why do some posters slag off fellow posters just because they have different ideas to them. Better to give a genuine reply I think, even if it is a negative response. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in people who can see into the future, I don't believe in people who can see into the past, and neither do I believe in flying saucers or extra terrestrial beings, but I do believe Labour will not be electable for the next 10 years. But some folk believe in all these things, I would not post a nasty post about them, but rather gently take the mick out of them if I was in that kind of mood, or even offer brass for information that proved beyond all doubt any of the above existed. I believe the great Houdini had similar principals, so I am in good company. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgs58 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Actually that might be a more feasible explanation Anna. I t wouldn't be the first time top secret projects have been mistaken for Alien craft for example. Look at the myriad of sightings in the 60s and 70s that are now attributed to the testing of top secret airframes like the Blackbird and Stealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 I realise this is an ancient thread now but I thought I'd address the odd logic in the OP... Something was seen in the sky, we don't know what it looked like, what it sounded, tasted or felt like. We don't know the size of it, we don't know what it was made out of. What is there to debunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgs58 Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 It's precisely because we don't know what IT is that is stimulating the debate.Afteral, curiosity is man's most defining trait.I think you're confusing debunking with the process of 'elimination', the testing of hypotheses. The definition of debunking as I understand it is: the prejudicial distortion / denial / ridiculing of phenomena to uphold the Status Qou. As for not knowing anything about it, on the contrary I thought megalith provided a wealth of detail about its movement and the geographical location & time of the event etc. Certainly enough to stimulate debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 It's precisely because we don't know what IT is that is stimulating the debate.Afteral, curiosity is man's most defining trait.I think you're confusing debunking with the process of 'elimination', the testing of hypotheses. The definition of debunking as I understand it is: the prejudicial distortion / denial / ridiculing of phenomena to uphold the Status Qou. As for not knowing anything about it, on the contrary I thought megalith provided a wealth of detail about its movement and the geographical location & time of the event etc. Certainly enough to stimulate debate. Yet not enough to come to any conclusion or claim about it, which can then be debunked (or not). Also, I think you misunderstand what debunk means Debunk- Expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/debunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santo Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 It's precisely because we don't know what IT is that is stimulating the debate.Afteral, curiosity is man's most defining trait.I think you're confusing debunking with the process of 'elimination', the testing of hypotheses. The definition of debunking as I understand it is: the prejudicial distortion / denial / ridiculing of phenomena to uphold the Status Qou. As for not knowing anything about it, on the contrary I thought megalith provided a wealth of detail about its movement and the geographical location & time of the event etc. Certainly enough to stimulate debate. No. To debunk means to expose a falseness. Not quite sure where you found your definition of the word. This (ancient) thread is asking for a UFO sighting to be debunked. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 13:45 ---------- Yet not enough to come to any conclusion or claim about it, which can then be debunked (or not). Also, I think you misunderstand what debunk means Debunk- Expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/debunk Beat me to it. ---------- Post added 13-10-2016 at 13:54 ---------- Actually that might be a more feasible explanation Anna. I t wouldn't be the first time top secret projects have been mistaken for Alien craft for example. Look at the myriad of sightings in the 60s and 70s that are now attributed to the testing of top secret airframes like the Blackbird and Stealth. It's plausible but I think the days of top secret aircraft are over. We have satellites and drones now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgs58 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 yes fair enough but there is no such thing as a UFO..if you cant tell what it is then your thick...ive seen things in the sky before where its been hard to tell what it is but i have still worked it out...you can always identify whats in the sky..and if you cant you need your eyes testing..this post is full of freaks If you are incapable of expressing your views in a civil tongue then don't bother contributing to the debate my friend. Just because you pertain to be a genius that knows everything and can work out what a UFO is when there are trained observers that often have great difficulty identifying these phenomena and feel you have a god given right to dismiss those amongst us who aren't so certain as either thick, fantasists or Mr Magoo is no reason to be rude or abusive. ---------- Post added 16-10-2016 at 16:35 ---------- Yet not enough to come to any conclusion or claim about it, which can then be debunked (or not). Also, I think you misunderstand what debunk means Debunk- Expose the falseness or hollowness of (an idea or belief) https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/debunk My friend that definition does no begin to explain the motives of Project Bluebook' for example. Its more or less a given that the US Military / Govt were debunking not to expose the "hollowness or falseness of UFOs" based on the evidence available but to uphold some hidden agenda; possibly to dispel public concern or fears or more likely, in my humble opinion, because they are incapable of sharing info or telling the truth. Professor Hynek was Bluebook's more fervent 'debunker' and whilst he accepted that 90% of sightings could be explained away as mistaken identity, naturally occurring phenomena, atmospheric anomalies etc, etc there remained that 10% that could not be so easily categorised. He came to the conclusion that there was potentially more to this phenomena than the official findings / hypotheses would have us believe. Postscript: I fully endorse your statement about UFOs being exactly that: 'UNIDENTIFIED' Flying / Ariel Objects; and you can't debunk what you cannot identify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexandra85 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 Great story though :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 My friend that definition does no begin to explain the motives of Project Bluebook' for example. Its more or less a given that the US Military / Govt were debunking not to expose the "hollowness or falseness of UFOs" based on the evidence available but to uphold some hidden agenda; possibly to dispel public concern or fears or more likely, in my humble opinion, because they are incapable of sharing info or telling the truth. Professor Hynek was Bluebook's more fervent 'debunker' and whilst he accepted that 90% of sightings could be explained away as mistaken identity, naturally occurring phenomena, atmospheric anomalies etc, etc there remained that 10% that could not be so easily categorised. He came to the conclusion that there was potentially more to this phenomena than the official findings / hypotheses would have us believe. Postscript: I fully endorse your statement about UFOs being exactly that: 'UNIDENTIFIED' Flying / Ariel Objects; and you can't debunk what you cannot identify. That's like saying the definition of "tool" can't be right because someone claimed an apple is a tool, but clearly it isn't used to carry out a useful function therefore the definition of tool must be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgs58 Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 That's like saying the definition of "tool" can't be right because someone claimed an apple is a tool, but clearly it isn't used to carry out a useful function therefore the definition of tool must be wrong. I'm not saying your definition is incorrect merely pointing out that its just one of several in circulation, including the definition I used. There are at least two types of debunker. One uses the dialectical approach to debunk the more sensational claims about UFOs by pointing out the flaws, contradictions and absence of logic in the 'believers' arguments whereas the other type dismiss, admittedly often arcane theories based on nothing more than their own prejudices, hidden agendas etc etc. Healthy skepticism is to be applauded and encouraged but ignorance and prejudice we can do without. Thats all I'm saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now