dre wrote:

Art Wholeflaffer wrote:

All you do is validate my thesis that debunkers are rightfully
dismissed as fools, charlatans and clinically insane!

only asking for credible proof

Again, it has been proven to those capable of understanding the proof.
For obvious reasons, that eliminates debunkers and useful idiots, so
you can never be told, which is a good thing.  I have to admit that I
totally agree with the policy that slobs like you should never be told,
it is way beyond your ability to understand the facts about the larger
reality.  So keep spewing your nonsense about hedgehogs and crash-test
dummies, they are funny to the general public.  Weather balloons
anyone!!  Ha-ha;

Being a Debunker means never having to say you're sorry, or even making
a lick of sense!
Sage advice by John F. Schuessler

Debunkers: I have heard it said that the most frustrating and least
useful aspect of ufology is the machinations of the debunkers.
Debunkers are experts at the use of disinformation, misinformation, and
propaganda. They provide prosaic explanations for everything. If the
first story gets challenged, they simply generate another story and do
not even apologize for changing their position. No information or data
supplied by the ufologist is ever good enough for them. Truth, honesty,
ethics and things like that are foreign to their way of operating
because it might erode their position. They seldom do real
investigations.

Most of their explanations are canned and used over and over so that
they do not feel it necessary to do investigations. All this is very
frustrating to the ufologists that conduct extensive investigations,
record every little detail of a UFO incident, assemble statistics,
maintain vast databases, and probably most of all, respect the good and
honest witnesses who report their UFO incidents.

Perhaps it would help ufologists to deal with the debunkers if they
understood why the debunkers act in such a manner. This is best
described in The Argument Culture, a book by Georgetown University
professor Deborah Tannen. These machinations are an example of what the
cultural linguist Walter Ong calls "agonism" or "programmed
contentiousness." Agonism does not refer to disagreement, conflict, or
vigorous dispute. It refers to ritualized opposition.

Professor Tannen says: "The way we train our students, conduct our
classes and our research, and exchange ideas at meetings and in print
are all driven by our ideological assumption that intellectual inquiry
is a metaphorical battle. Following from that is a second assumption,
that the best way to demonstrate intellectual prowess is to criticize,
find fault, and attack." Further, she says: "Many aspects of our
academic lives can be described as agonistic. For example, in our
scholarly papers, most of us follow a conventional framework that
requires us to position our work in opposition to someone else's, which
we prove wrong.

The framework tempts, almost requires us to oversimplify or even
misrepresent others' positions; cite the weakest example to make a
generally reasonable work appear less so; and ignore facts that support
other's views, citing only evidence that supports our own positions."

This approach "fosters a stance of arrogance and narrow-mindedness."
There is much more of value in The Argument Culture, but in these few
words, I believe Professor Tannen has clearly exposed the operating
technique used by most debunkers. With this information in mind, it is
fairly obvious that we are stuck with a continuing tirade by the
debunkers and it will continue until they all die off. They are unable
to change, they are
programmed to act as they do.

Fortunately, most ufologists have no desire to play the debunkers game.
Programmed contentiousness is viewed as dishonest, unfair and
unethical. It puts an end to exploring ideas, uncovering nuances,
comparing and contrasting different interpretations of a particular
work, and gaining a deeper and more accurate understanding of the
material. It kills the quest for open-minded inquiry.

Even knowing all of this, ufologists still allow themselves to be
stressed by the actions of debunkers. A good investigator is likely to
be provoked by a debunker's announcement that a certain UFO was
actually Venus when everyone knows that Venus was not visible at the
time. A debunker's demand for "all of your investigative files so I can
identify the UFO," is another provoking ploy. They play on your ego by
saying "I have never seen any credible evidence of a UFO," hoping you
will try to provide some evidence that will convince them. Will it
convince them? No! Their debunker's pre-subscribed dogma will not allow
it. If all else fails, they will claim it is your responsibility as an
investigator to respond to their demands. Don't fall for that ploy.
Only you and the organization you represent can define your
responsibilities.

A formula for avoiding stress caused by the actions of the debunkers is
to follow industry's lead in looking for "value added" in any
interchange or effort. If there is nothing to be gained from responding
to them, then don't do it. Apply your energies where they will make a
difference. Don't play their game. It takes two to make a game and if
you do not respond to their provocation, then they do not have a game.
They lose and you are not stressed.