'The Debunkers' Last Stand

What else are they supposed to do?  Admit that evidence exists for the
possibility of ET contact, either in the past or the present,
and then have to admit to the possibility of total and systematic world-wide
conspiracy, which is what such an admission would amount to, btw, if 
such knowledge exists.  Consider the consequences of debunkers
actually coming clean!  Their addiction to disinformation and half-
truths fuels their endless crusade to deny what they know to be the final
nail in the coffin of their weak cosmogony.  They are missionaries, 
positioning themselves in a final attempt to convert BELIEVERS to their 
habitual dislike for any idea that threatens their daily routine, 
the whitewash that they call 'reality', the way things are, the status 
quo.

Consider the implications of such an announcement.  We're talking about 
changing the way people actually think, since entirely new thought 
structures would arise from an ET perspective; whole new realms of knowledge 
would flood our minds; we would become connected with both the past and 
the future if such an event took place, and in this time, it's quite 
possible that such an idea might ripple through future time and destroy us, 
or perhaps promote a new peace. 

Debunkers portray any analysis of hypothetical ET-related phenomenon 
as an inherently flawed thought process, and the very idea is laughed at!  
The ETH remains taboo.  Is it not simply the result of one scientific 
observation which has led to an efficient method of data collection 
represented by the best evidence reported by govt., military, commercial 
and public sectors alike.  Are these reports not potential candidates and
do they not meet the accepted guidelines for admissible evidence?  The 
evidence exists, however, it is interpreted differently depending on how 
one approaches the actual numbers.

To the debunker, NOTHING but hard-core physical evidence for ET., like 
a Sirian license plate, or proverbial dead alien, will ever be good enough.  
The debunkers ask for repeatable evidence.  Methods of data collection 
have been implemented in the past and are taking place now.  Thanks to the 
FOIA, we get to read what's left of the reports, if any evidence remains once 
the debunkers are finished with our friend, the trusty black marker.

Debunkers change the rules by changing the tools of observation. 
The debunker will argue and grandstand on points *aside* from the 
sighting, apart from the incident under discussion, in order to lead 
the discussion away from the possibility of knowledge.  Actual 
discovery could in fact lead one to develop an extra-terrestrial 
hypothesis.  But debunking the discovery could lead one to deny it.  
Either way, data is used to convince one of the merits of one side
or the other.  For debunkers, however, there is no debate.  There 
in only one possibility, and that is a mundane explanation.  [Remember,
don't dare question a debunker or you'll end up getting labeled a 'believer'.]

Debunkers have the bases covered, _at all times_, and everytime they 
post, they do so knowingly, in fact with intent, to dissuade, deny, 
lie, and complain about how the evidence doesn't exist, and still, 
all the while, the debunker refuses to look at the EVIDENCE.
[It's like a mad-tea-party!  And the debunkers are all sitting together 
at the table drinking tea with the Mad Debunker himself, Queen Dean.  The 
Queen sits there, conversing through the noisy throng of skeptibunkers, 
asking each debunker questions that have no real answers.]

But even under so-called scientific examination, the data may sometimes 
get set aside, whether it is because of practical financial interests that 
fund research, or the quality of the data alone, the sad truth becomes 
painfully obvious; stockholders control the data, not the scientists.  Recent 
examples of such events may be found in the daily paper.  

So in fact, science is controlled by the financial interests of investors 
who couldn't give a flying fuck about TRUTH and EVIDENCE.  All they are 
concerned with is the bottom line, which translates into cold cash, if not 
just meaningless binary digits alone.

Therefore, to state the obvious, scientific results can be manipulated in 
the name of ambition and profit, leaving much doubt as to the true state 
of evidence, in any form.  Whether such a hypothetical cover-up could go 
on for very long, is questionable.  Unless such evidence was physically 
destroyed, the truth would eventually get out, somehow, unless those in 
possession of the 'facts' had a way of erasing evidence of its existence. 
It would also have to be the greatest secret of all time, the greatest 
story ever told, so to speak. What would give this story added legitimacy 
however, would be the scientific acknowledgement of certain fundamental, 
underlying repetitive factors, which may or may not reflect an internal 
consistency that responds to the presentation of data which hopefully can
be simulated and controlled for further testing.

If any thread can be found, if any answers can be obtained, shouldn't a 
clear and careful focus on a common thread be the first priority in an 
ongoing investigation as to whether or not evidence exists in favor of 
the ETH?  I also wonder how one would one go about testing for alien 
phenomena and I question exactly what threshold is necessary for data 
to become legitimate in the eyes of the establishment.

Insisting on only physical evidence alone is ridiculous.  This limitation 
goes against our most fundamental notions of reality.  But I will admit, 
that without physical evidence, it is impossible to base any educated 
belief in the notion that "space aliens are on our planet now".  However, 
it needs to be said, this is NOT the argument being proposed on these 
newsgroups.  This thread title clearly demonstrates the lengths debunkers 
will go to deceive us, and the plain fact that debunkers create their own 
arguments to knock down the one of their opponents without *ever* having 
to confront the FACTS of the actual argument.  

If we were to actually listen to the debunkers, we would become mental midgets, 
strapped to a rigid body of knowledge, and confined to house arrest.   If we had

listened to the debunkers we would still be slaves, or serfs or peasants,
toiling 
in the 'masters' field, content with the whip and the chain.  

Josh

From: Josh Olaf