'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