My Problem With Debunkers

[Graphimancer]

When debunkers tackle a case, how often does anyone go over their counterclaims as carefully as the debunker went over the original case to disprove it? How often is the debunker's motives taken into account, or his credentials? Furthermore, when the public hears of a paranormal incident, then they hear about it being debunked, doesn't the standard public automatically assume the case is closed, the paranormal event was false or perhaps misunderstood normal events?

I think it's one thing for sceptical inquirey into a topic. For example, Biedny and Ritzman's look at the Chicago Ohare incident. We know that both are experiencers, and we know that they are not glomming onto a profitable debate that's going to earn them money, a'la all the people who wrote debunking books on Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. We know their credentials, and we are allowed to see the chain of evidence as they work their way through the photo's case. That's OK, in my book.

But what about debunkers who come from an idealogical background, such as Biblical literalists who write all sorts of bad science to disprove evolution and geological history? It's bad science, they make money, they use selective logic, yet everyone who is inclined to believe them automatically assumes they are correct.

I guess my point is this: I'm not going to believe dubunkers until I know the details, and I am not going to assume a case is closed just because I heard it was closed. I've been guilty of this in the past, but then when I was younger I even believed what I heard on the mainstream news.

Everyone assumes anymore that all photos and films of the paranormal are hoaxes. Maybe it's a safe bet, because with all the arguments and debate I'm not sure if there are any trustworthy photos or movies of the paranormal out there--maybe they are all hoaxes! But, until I can know one way or the other, within a reasonable doubt, I'm going in with my mind open.

 

[jritzmann]

Unfortunately, the mass public is often on the fence about the subject, and it only takes a McGaha or Nickell to push them over.

I used to bash heads with em all the time. The one commonality I always saw was that they refuse to refer to relevant data. For instance I mentioned to Jeremy the other night that McGaha said Sgt Penniston of Bentwaters/Woodbridge who *touched* and observed up close, a relatively small UFO craft, insisted he'd only seen a lighthouse thru some trees.

What. The fuck.

So what did he touch...where'd he see the markings...lighthouse light causes radiation too?

I'll never forget McGaha's reply to a UFO witness who saw a large craft overhead blocking out stars:

"Are you qualified to look at the stars at night?

You'll always hear the same 3 statements-"you're lying", "you didn't see what you thought you did", or "you're mentally inept to know what you're recounting."

These skeptics more often then not, are out to only elevate themselves as the "snickering at the fools" intellectual elite. In my opinion, most are neither.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

I've got a VHS tape of Friedman and McGaha at a formal debate. This is by far McGaha at his worst. He's rude and insulting to Friedman, at one point, between his weezing and huffing, calling him and everyone else who thinks that UFOs are real "incredibly stupid people," and at another using only 2 minutes of his 10 minute speech before stopping mid-sentence, his face turning beat red in rage and anger, shaking his head, and mumbling about how stupid Friedman is. Friedman, meanwhile, was kind and intelligent, taking McGaha's insults without evening smirking or seeming put-off by them.

Poor McGaha, I bet that this poor man has no friends. There's a very nasty side to that man. I think he may be prone to fits of blind rage and violence.

Here's the website of the observatory that he runs: http://www.3towers.com/

Occasionally I will shoot an email his way and ask him how it feels to be so thoroughly put in his place by Stanton Friedman at a formal debate.

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, everything should be looked at skepticly, especially the skeptics and their assertions.

I can even understand all the DaVinci debunkers, because there was money to be made in that for a time.

Well, rather than cite a bunch of examples of hoaxers or debunkers (two sides of the same disingenuous coin), I will say this: I think that the vocal minority in the paranormal world, the ones that interract on forums a lot, has lost its sense of wonder. Everyone is so quick to announce that something new is "probably fake, too good to be true, nice work but hoax, etc." is undermining potentially good stuff. Everyone tries to look cool by immidately showing that they are not incredulous, or easily fooled, and that they are wise to the ways of the world and it's disinformation agents. In other words, it seems like all the joy has been sucked out of this field by cynicism.

I think I'm going to open up my mind to wider possibilities, and if I end up looking like a fool more often, so be it.

(Obviously, I'm not talking about giving up healthy skepticism, or being so open my "brain falls out." But... Well, you get the idea.)

 

[jritzmann]

Nickell isn't a whole lot better. Although he doesn't get the smarmy attitude McGaha does. Nickell claims to be the only paid full time paranormal investigator (which I doubt). His website is one of those "glory to me" sites, where he lists his professions over the years...of which there are over 100(?)

Looks like another guy who couldn't find himself a career, or get fully arrested in any other field. It's also a common trait among some UFO "stars".

I don't personally see how or where he has the credentials or experience to get paid for what he does...but thats just me. He seems to be dotted all over the place and not especially well versed in anything.

 

[Graphimancer]

In other words, it seems like all the joy has been sucked out of this field by cynicism.

By the way, this is not to imply that everyone here got into this interest out of some "joy of the unknown" exploration type of motive.

I've seen a wide range of ghostly/astral entities all my life, for example, and my involvement with them has been neither harmful or beneficial to me. My involvement with ufos has been of great curiosity, not a need to find truths at all cost because of some paranormal trauma.

In other words, if you have had a paranormal trauma, I'm not making light of you or your history. I should have been a little more sensitive to the different motivations that drive people when I began this post.

(No, no one has yelled at me. I just think too much).

 

[TClaeys]

Scott,

I think I understand what you are saying. Now, even true skeptics can be wrong as often as pro-UFO people can be wrong. It doesn't neccessarily mean their intent is all bad. This is with exception for some of the bulldog, find-any-explanation other than UFO debunkers like McGaha and Nickel.

Let's take one example. The Mexican military's Campeche "sightings". You know, the overly popular moving lights we see all the time on TV. At first people were like "This is it, UFO's on film with infrared FLIR camera. This is the real deal". Debunkers immediately jumped on the defensive, offering all kinds of explanations: balloons, ball lightning, electrical flashes, atmospheric anamolies. All in an effort to debunk and bury this story. UFologists laughed at these explantions as their precious UFO story seemed to gain ground towards a weirder explanation.

Then the culprit was found: burning oil well platforms. Some refuse to still believe it, but this is what it was. If you look critically at the direction of the camera, the flight path of the plane and other factors, you must reasonably come to this conclusion. In fact some pro-UFO investigators have been appeased by this. It just simply fits the bill.

So, what I think you are talking about is the ridiculous initial reaction of the debunker parties. Not all of them, but many of them. This is where I think your frustration comes from. And so, for me, I can put this one(Campeche) to rest because of reasonable research. Reasonable probing investigating. However, when we have a sighting we often see a flury of terrible offerings of "skeptical" investigating. Really we see no skeptical nature, but rather ANY explanation. This is just as bad as saying Ogg and Zeta are the twin spacelings that have manned(or alien-ed) their craft from the Orion belt.

Unreasonable and silly is just that, unreasonable and silly. Now it may be frustrating that people in general will buy the debunking however silly it may be. It's just that way I guess. And I share some of your frustration in this respect because people at large just want a pre-packaged answer that debunks it. It is just easier to digest and forget about, because the other option is much more unpalatable perhaps. Of course I'm speaking in generalities.

I remember seeing that the Patterson film of Bigfoot was a fake/hoax. This was because Heironomous said he was in the suit. Well he confessed and it was all over with. But if you go back and look, maybe it wasn't like that. Maybe not at all. But people were and still are plenty OK with that as an explanation. So, case in point, this is what you are talking about. Just because someone says something doesn't make it true, even if it is from a skeptic. But for whatever reasons we find those explanations easier to accept.

And I think whatever explanations we get, whether prosaic or otherwise, we should look at them with the same sort of filters. I hope I made some kind of sense here.

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, that is very well reasoned, TClaeys. Point taken.

I've lived long enough to see a lot of debunking come and go. Recent examples would be Popular Mechanics explaining the true, man-made origins of ufos; Near-death experiences being 'explained' by chemical reactions in the brain; and others that have tried to explain away auras, alien abduction (aka sleep paralysis?), deja vu, and many other things.

Now, any pic or vid that shows up is automatically assume to be a hoax, and maybe rightly so. I think of all the vids of aliens on youtube, and even the best, while pretty good, fail the sniff test.

Well, I'm rambling. I guess it's all wishful thinking on my part. If I hadn't had substanting experiences myself, I suppose there are days when I would walk away from the whole thing.

 

[Rick Deckard]

IMO, 'debunkers' are zealous skeptics - they are as bad as the FIGU crowd. They are protecting their belief system. If UFOs are 'something else' rather than 'mundane' then their belief system crumbles - they will fight tooth and nail to maintain their 'reality'. Learn to identify them, then ignore them.

 

[derekcbart]

Hello.

Allow me a brief defense of Joe Nickell. He is often portrayed as being a "debunker", but he never sets out to "debunk" something. He genuinely sets out to investigate something. It just so happens that of all of the cases that he has investigated over the years none have turned out to have anything other than a normal, rather than paranormal, explanation.

BTW, as far as I know he is the only full time paranormal investigator. At least in the US, but probably in the world. CFI pays his salary and allows him to investigate whatever comes his way. Many of us at the IIG would like to be paid anything for our investigations, and we're not even going to ask for full time compensation.

 

[TerraX]

Somehow I have a particular disliking of Michael Schermer. I've seen him a couple of times on tv documentaries regarding the UFO/ET phenomenon and he often has a smirk on his face while debunking every aspect of a case. During an interview on the Roswell case first he claims the government can't keep a secret and than he consideres it quite normal that the government lied about it (all those years) when the Mogul explanation came out (and nobody mentioned Mogul before to the best of my knowledge). The guy comes up with arguments that enable him to debunk even when there conflicting. There are more examples like this.

 

[Chuckleberryfinn]

Hello.

Allow me a brief defense of Joe Nickell. He is often portrayed as being a "debunker", but he never sets out to "debunk" something. He genuinely sets out to investigate something. It just so happens that of all of the cases that he has investigated over the years none have turned out to have anything other than a normal, rather than paranormal, explanation.

BTW, as far as I know he is the only full time paranormal investigator. At least in the US, but probably in the world. CFI pays his salary and allows him to investigate whatever comes his way. Many of us at the IIG would like to be paid anything for our investigations, and we're not even going to ask for full time compensation.

That guy is a clown. Look at the list of his different "personas" on his website. What a douche.

If he found anything to be genuinely mysterious about a case, his handlers at CFI would probably fire him.

 

[David Biedny]

Hello.

Allow me a brief defense of Joe Nickell. He is often portrayed as being a "debunker", but he never sets out to "debunk" something. He genuinely sets out to investigate something. It just so happens that of all of the cases that he has investigated over the years none have turned out to have anything other than a normal, rather than paranormal, explanation.

BTW, as far as I know he is the only full time paranormal investigator. At least in the US, but probably in the world. CFI pays his salary and allows him to investigate whatever comes his way. Many of us at the IIG would like to be paid anything for our investigations, and we're not even going to ask for full time compensation.

Well, I just looked at this Nickell's bio page on his site, and I think it's an absolute joke.

This guy is as much a charlatan as Horn, and there's NOTHING in his background that indicates he's useful as a scientist, or investigator. He's a "photo analyst"? Nonsense. The photo of his study lacks something critical - a computer. I see the typewriter, what kind of data port lets him connect to the Internet with a fcking typewriter? Are you kidding? Lots of alien toys, not many books, lots of B U L L S H I T. I agree with the idea that he's not a debunker, he's not much of anything. Sorry, Derek, if someone's paying this clown to do investigations, they're being ripped off.

dB

 

[Poi]

MaGaha makes me laugh. Nickell doesn't do anything for me and I dislike the way Schermer smirks, but I think there are other possible explanations for what fell out of the sky at Kecksburg for instance. I think disinformation is a real phenomenon and that the government would of course keep our capturing a Russian satellite a secret and even play it up as a UFO. It's handy even if the Russians know the truth. Similar thing could have happened at Roswell. I just don't buy any of the most popular explanations because we just don't know.

Even if the government or military didn't have a hand in promoting the UFO story, a willing, gullible public isn't out of the question. Hell, we look to the heavens for a forgiving God. We also look for saviors, saints and demons. More often than not, we see what we want to see which may have nothing or everything to do with what is there. That would also explain the blatant divide amongst the people who saw what they did in Kecksburg. Vision can become uber vision.

Debunkers are as bad as true believers in that each has an cherished ideal. Given that, I'd rather see Schermer's smirk than MaGaha's ramblings. At least the smirking chimp occasionally offers some plausible explanations sometimes. Okay, not often, but more often than MaGaha who is the biggest joke amongst the three in my opinion.

 

[jritzmann]

I have to echo David's statements on that guy Derek-if I had to pick a skeptic I respect, it'd only be you because I know you dig in and really look...and do all the legwork.

Hello.

Allow me a brief defense of Joe Nickell. He is often portrayed as being a "debunker", but he never sets out to "debunk" something. He genuinely sets out to investigate something. It just so happens that of all of the cases that he has investigated over the years none have turned out to have anything other than a normal, rather than paranormal, explanation.

BTW, as far as I know he is the only full time paranormal investigator. At least in the US, but probably in the world. CFI pays his salary and allows him to investigate whatever comes his way. Many of us at the IIG would like to be paid anything for our investigations, and we're not even going to ask for full time compensation.

 

[ArizonaWill]

I don't pay any attention to debunkers. They don't push any buttons or cause a bubble to rise out of the simmering soup of my consciousness. Why? Well, I guess I've become so jaded myself that I have a hard time believing anyone and anything anymore.

Now there is a "movement" in the ufo community to claim that alien interactions are determined subjectively by the person involved. (For an example of this, please listen to Dr. Leo Sprinkle being interviewed by The Clueless One and then read the comments).

It seems to infer that if a person has a history of negative experiences characterized by fear and hostility, this reflects the person's consciousness. Those who have a positive experience with their "Space Brothers" evidently are on a higher plane of consciousness, and think in terms of HallMark Card Homilies all day, or in some way have escaped the human tendency to bitch and complain about freeway traffic or their weight. They welcome the alien interaction as a shamanic spiritual experience for their greater good.

How does anyone get a handle on an experience that is subjectively created? If this is true, either you believe whatever someone is saying (since they subjectively created the experience, even if that entails having a joy ride on a flying scaucer with Jesus as the pilot and Elvis Presley singing "Are you lonesome tonight?" in the background, a perfect question to ask if the person subjectively insists on being abducted at 3:00 a.m.) or you don't. Research takes a tailspin into accepting each person's claim on the grounds that this phenomena is purely plastic, and molds itself to the consciousness of the victim/experiencer/chosen one/lucky dog/earth embassador to the Federation of Planets, etc.

In that case, debunking is just silly because it becomes somewhat synonymous with debunking someone's lucid dream. What's the point?

However, if the abduction phenomena and alien interaction in general is subjective and based on the person's consciousness, then what's the point of studying it? Does the entire focus shift from a David Jacobs' attempt to find out the "hard facts" and agenda of the aliens to just psychologically cataloging the experiences, and letting them just stand as testaments to the great unknown? Does each abductee story then just become another Carlos Castenada Tale, fascinating but in many ways meaningless except to the person having the experience? Should ANYONE bother with ufology anymore?

I am rambling (and for that reason in the past, felt a wave of regret over my posts here and deleted all). But does anyone get what I am talking about? Is there something objective here that researchers can check out or is it all just like a natural DMT trip, a sort of self-obsessed little journey into woo woo land (like Scrooge) experienced for his greater good. Were the 3 ghosts of Christmas just another form of alien abduction? If I knock on the aliens' door, will my hand just pass through air? If I had been at Jeff Ritzmann's workshop when the 2 MIB's (insurance salesmen) visited, would I have seen anyone there besides Jeff? Or would I have seen a dark shop because Jeff was obviously in a mental construct of his own making, not visible to me or others on mundane terra firma?

 

[ArizonaWill]

Addendum: I do support any "abductee's" right to redefine themselves and their experience, so that they become an "experiencer" or "contactee" and the grey alien goons become Space Brothers, doing their part in the Federation of Planets (referenced several times by Dr. Leo Sprinkle). If anyone wants to believe in this basic Star Trek scenario, that is fine with me. What this forum has done for me is help me realize my own attachments to certain outlooks, and to consciously let them go, at least in terms of what I publically proclaim to others. In that same Dr. Leo Sprinkle interview, he referred to Richard Boyland several times, as if the guy had an ounce of credibility (the California hot tub psychologist whose license to practice was revoked, and is now the Star Children Meister, also pushing hard the "ascension" to 4th dimension New Age schtick and the Space Brother religion). OK, I did it again! I offered a negative opinion, which seems very unpopular in certain neighborhoods of the web.

I have to tell myself that I was abducted as a child and had this entity (a pure white skinny tall being like a preying mantiss) screw a long needle into my left ear, puncturing the ear drum and inserting something into the brain that is visible there today, BECAUSE I HAD A BAD ATTITUDE. Why wasn't it an angel giving me the gift of healing, as Edgar Cayce claimed to have experienced as a boy? Why wasn't it Captain Kangeroo and Mr. Greenjeans, along with Bunny Rabbit and Grandfather clock?

I should have been taught that Shamanic experiences are often painful and cruel, but that there is great spiritual depth and growth in them. (As an asside, how coincidentally Catholic that attitude is, that we grow through sacrifice and pain, emulating the journey of Jesus to the cross!).

After losing 40% of the hearing in that ear, I should have taken this as a symbol that I should have developed my inner-ears to listen to the song of the spheres. Yes, that's the ticket! Instead of reacting to the painful surgery that was required to repair my ear afterwards when I went to a delirious fever and coma, I should have called out to the Shamanic MindWork Masters to come again and teach me more! I should have embraced the fear and pain, and let it burn me clean of all human base reactions.

Perhaps the theory is correct that the aliens cannot see us until we acknowledge them, so we all need to constantly affirm their reality and invite them into our lives, invite them to land, invite them to do with us what they will, since it will obviously be for our own good in the fullness of time. While I don't remember acknowledging a giant preying mantiss bug when I was a little boy (we didn't have them in Wisconsin), perhaps I picked up the idea from watching Mutual of Omaha's Sunday show on wild animals?

In such a mind set, I again ask, what good is it to debunk or even comment? It seems more appropriate to have people tell us their masturbation fantasies so we can judge their veracity, e.g., "Oh, there is no way YOU and Brad Pitt could be doing it in the MACYS Christmas Window display in New York City. Come on now!" Or, "YOU and Ellen Degeneres? Yeah, I can see that. So I support that story as true". Are aliens the ultimate masturbation fantasy for the S&M set?

 

[Graphimancer]

Well, Will, I understand where you are coming from from on the whole subjective reality front, but I think you've kind of drifted off the point of the thread. Strangely, I'm not too peaved, because your mantis-alien (big grey?) and implant story is enteresting. I'll be honest, I've already worked my way through this whole subjective thing, and have come to conclude that a major part of this is in the consensus reality, not the subjective. If it was all subjective, it would only be magic.

Don't get me wrong--There is a subjective element to it. I can't really know if my encounter last year was a super-lucid dream, or it was "real," or it was astral beings. I do know that afterwards my attitude changed big time, I got into studying the paranormal, and psychic abilities that I had turned up big time. No physical proof of what happened. And, psychic abilities are nebulous and seemingly too close to synchronicity to serve as hard proof. Yet, what happened to me was "real" to me.

Oops, gotta' go.

 

[valiens]

ArizonaWill: This sort of mirrors the debate we were having about ufology in general. Daniel Brenton and I worked on a plan to bring together serious researchers and ignore/debunk the snake oil salesmen. The opposition for this, besides the "it'll never happen" mantra, was that it's better not to get organized but to remain maverick researchers presenting data in books and lectures and let the people decide what's real and what's not for themselves.

After decades of isolated research groups and individuals what do we know? Anything? What can we know? Anything?

Would that change if we pooled data and cross-referenced in an interdisciplinary manner? We'll never know until enough people want to try this. That they don't tells me this isn't about getting to "Truth" or "fact." It's about exercising our imaginations--it's about keeping it as subjective as possible because this mystery has replaced Mystery for many of us. Yeah, sadly, the majority or "researchers" want to keep this a religion. I'm sure profit is a motive but I doubt it's as big a motive as that amazing high one feels when searching his/her mind for answers to unsolved riddles. And then imagine that you can write a book about it and get the attention of the people! Holy shit, man! Why would we want to ruin that trip for science?

It's a shame because there's room on the seesaw for all of these types, but it's weighted down at one end. No one wants to do the shared science part except for a handful.

I have my own thoughts about your main questions but nothing to back them up. Neither do you. I suspect this answers what we know after decades of research, eh? As for whether it's worth investigating in the first place, the answer is YES, provided you don't have an answer already that you're trying to prove. It may not be Mystery, but it is still a mystery and one that deserves an honest assessment, even if the end result is, "We are not equipped to know the answer."

 

[mike]

im of the mind that the source of the manifestations could still be a fixed reality in the same way LSD is a fixed chemical combination.

Just as different people have different experiences under LSD.
and its well known that if you take LSD and are negative you will have a BAD trip, that your mindset effects the result.

yet the brain and the chemical are both "fixed" factors

it may be as simple as an LSD ray so to speak thats used to fudge our short term recollection during the procedures

LSD is a chemical it has no motives, it just is. and yet an individuals reaction to it can be measured at either extreeme.
the weak link in the reality chain appears to be us, and by us i dont mean our brain, as a machine it functions predictably as does the LSD.
someone who has been having a good trip one minute can suddenly start having a bad one, ive seen it happen once. scary stuff

any confusion on the reality appears to be a "software" issue not hardware