Bring on the debunkers! - Farsight Forums

A really brave and clever move, would be to challenge serious and professional debunkers, to try to debunk these "Identified Flying Objects" videos.

This would:
1) Eliminate any and all natural explanations that cannot be substantiated by hard facts.
2) Highlight any an all valid natural explanations that can identify the UAPs as natural phenomena or of human origin.
3) The result will be proof of Identified Flying Objects that are neither of human or natural origin, which could be presented to the world as proof of Alien craft! (Or humanly created replica of them).

There would be nothing to debunk, because it has already been through a rigorous debunking process by the best serious debunkers.

Of course we need to find the right people for the job. There must be some serious debunkers out there who works scientifically and methodically, with the neccesary skills and knowhow. Their goal must be to get to the truth, not only to dismiss and ridicule any image or video they are presented with.

Post below any people you know of, who could be right for the job.

Sorry, but your logic is flawed.

Firstly at 1) any and ALL natural explanations that can't be substantiated by hard FACTS.

That in itself is too high a bar for basically anyone with the current levels of technology and the data sources coming in.

Sure, you can rule out a few things, but that doesn't mean you can rule out *every*thing.

2) - there are numerous explanations that people (sceptics and debunkers... and just critical thinkers) can come up with. It doesn't mean they're all correct, nor that they are all wrong. At the moment, we're left with a "best fit" scenario.

You're also presuming that the people doing the debunking (that you trust) have knowledge of ALL scientific advances used in the military field. And other than each government's Military Industrial Complex, I doubt that anyone would know this. You say aliens, I say new DARPA project...

Besides which, the concept of 'natural' is, I suggest, still in debate.

A lot of the time, we can work out what something isn't. It's a lot harder to say what something actually is! And saying that an object is 'proof of alien craft' would pretty much be impossible (especially given "or humanly created replica"... which may not be an actual 'replica' of a downed craft, but merely something made in its image).

Morten

3 months ago

Thanks for your reply.

I still believe it would be a brave and clever move to engage in a dialogue with people, who doesn't immediatly agree with the conclusions drawn in "Identified Flying Objects" about what those phenomena actually are.
For instance, a bug expert may identify some footage as a bug, an astronomer might identify some footage as a meteorite, and a remote sensing specialist may provide other natural explanations to some footage. (A remote sensing specialist is someone who aot. is specialized in analyzing footage in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum than visible light, ie. ultraviolet and infrared).

Shiningbrow

3 months ago

Yes, I totally agree!

But, be aware that it's likely to cost money, because such experts are unlikely to do this for free (unless they have a personal - maybe professional - interest). And even then, what happens when other experts in the same field disagree with their conclusions? Which do you believe? Even the Climate Change debate doesn't have 100% consensus. And then there's the ad hominems whenever someone takes a particular stance (whether based on evidence or not) - almost like you're not allowed to take you to where the evidence leads.

part of the other issue, which I raised above, is that currently, we don't have *really* good visual evidence. 99% of the time, we have blurs at a distance. Occasionally, there's corroborating evidence (e.g., radar). So, your bug expert may well say "it's probably a bug - but I can't be 100% certain".

And, lastly, some people simply won't accept expert opinion anyway...