> Hi Merrell,
> I haven't read Sitchin nor many of the other New
> Age claims describing contacts with aliens from
> other parts of our Cosmos, but I have followed
> links from GHMB to various debunkers, and have
> read their analyses. For the most part, I haven't
> found most of them helpful--leaving me questioning
> the debunkers more than the ideas or authors they
> are trying to debunk. Almost all of the New Age
> claims are highly speculative and wish fulfilling.
> Do they need to be debunked?
> I don't think so. They need to be examined as
> "blue sky thinking" toward more interesting
> approaches to more accepted thinking in scholarly
> or professional publications. Instead, debunkers
> do their best to discredit both the ideas and the
> writers-which leads many of us to turn the tables
> and question them--debunking the debunkers.
> For me, the most unsatisfying professional
> debunker is Jason Colavito, who seems to be almost
> totally lacking in academic credentials yet poses
> as if he were nearly an authority in many areas.
> Reading him always makes me consider the target of
> his debunking to be more credible than I thought
He has a BA in journalism and anthropology which makes him a good writer with just enough background to make his debunking sound good. I'm not impressed with him either, although I'm embarrassed to admit that I've quoted him too...and then I did my homework.
But I completely agree with the substance of your post, and I side with you and Lee on this one. Debunking is in no way disproof. Debunkers debunk phenomenological reports, not evidence.
Debunkers don't understand that by attacking so hard, they simply generate more sympathy for the people they're trying to debunk.