Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

Posted by


By JM Talboo and Steve W.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/10/debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theories.htmlMany people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of the US government and intelligence apparatus, as well as other international intelligence agencies, were involved, doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth debunkers.

 

The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers ("debunkers" just assert they are all confused lying with no basis), and peer-reviewed studies of the physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States” - Former Sen. Bob Graham on 60-Minutes 


We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.


Truth Teller's Radio Episode 16 - 9/11/2018 JM Talboo Interviews Richard Gage about the 3000+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

http://truthtellersradio.blogspot.com/2018/09/truth-tellers-radio-episode-16-9112018.html

Are there more problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report or the NIST WTC 7 Report? You Decide...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2019/09/are-there-more-problems-with.html

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Tribute Page:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/firefighters-for-911-truth-tribute-page.html

 


         

Unsurprisingly, the duh-bunk-turds hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth "debunkers" and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public. This site now features 9/11 truth related and not-so-related content. So please utilize our search feature (found also on the sidebar) to find a massive treasure trove of well-researched info on nearly every issue in the realm of 9/11 truth debate. 

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.

FAIR USE NOTICE

National Security Notice 

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.


To support this site please make a small one time donation to: 


The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this web site is for general information purposes only. The bloggers on this site make no representation and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained on or available through this web site, and such information is subject to change without notice. You are encouraged to confirm any information obtained from or through this web site with other sources, and review all information regarding any medical condition or treatment with your physician. NEVER DISREGARD PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE OR DELAY SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE READ ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

The bloggers on this site do not recommend, endorse or make any representation about the efficacy, appropriateness or suitability of any specific tests, products, procedures, treatments, services, opinions, health care providers or other information that may be contained on or available through this web site. 
at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, October 4, 2026

VIDEO: Students can’t answer basic questions about 9/11

Posted by

VIDEO: Students can’t answer basic questions about 9/11

Ahead of the 19th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Campus Reform spoke to students to see what they knew about the tragic event in the nation’s history.

While most students had very broad and general knowledge about the day’s events, many did not know basic details about which U.S. cities were attacked and who was responsible for the attacks.

https://archives.infowars.com/video-students-cant-answer-basic-questions-about-9-11/ 
at

10 Heartwarming Stories of Heroism and Humanity on 9/11

Posted by

10 Heartwarming Stories of Heroism and Humanity on 9/11

When we think about September 11, 2001, we naturally think about the terrible things that happened that morning.

Nearly 3,000 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Families lost husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters. The images of the burning towers and the people fleeing through the streets remain among the most painful pictures in American history.

But September 11 was also a day when ordinary people demonstrated extraordinary courage.

Some ran toward danger while everyone else was running away. Some stayed behind to help strangers. Some took enormous risks to rescue people they had never met. And thousands of complete strangers suddenly began helping one another simply because there was nobody else to do it.

Twenty-five years later, those stories deserve to be remembered too.

Here are ten of the most inspiring examples.

1. Rick Rescorla: The Man Who Wouldn't Leave Without Everyone

Rick Rescorla had already seen what terrorism could do to the World Trade Center.

He was working in the South Tower when the complex was bombed in 1993. Afterward, he became convinced that another attack was possible.

So he prepared.

Rescorla, a former Army officer and Vietnam veteran, conducted evacuation drills with employees of Morgan Stanley. He developed procedures for getting people out quickly and efficiently.

When the first plane hit the North Tower on September 11, Rescorla didn't panic.

He grabbed a bullhorn and began directing people out of the South Tower.

He sang songs from his military days to keep frightened employees calm as they moved down the stairs.

Nearly 2,700 Morgan Stanley employees escaped the building.

But Rescorla didn't leave.

He kept going back up the tower looking for anyone who might still be trapped.

He was last seen heading upward.

He knew the danger.

He went anyway.

2. Welles Crowther: The Man in the Red Bandana

Welles Crowther was a 24-year-old equities trader working in the South Tower.

He was also a former volunteer firefighter.

When the tower was struck, Crowther began helping people escape.

Survivors later remembered a young man wearing a red bandana over his face to protect himself from the smoke.

Crowther repeatedly went back into the building.

He helped people find the stairs. He carried injured people. He guided others toward safety.

He could have concentrated entirely on saving himself.

Instead, he kept returning for other people.

That red bandana eventually became one of the most recognizable symbols of individual heroism on 9/11.

Crowther didn't survive.

But the people he helped never forgot him.

3. Moira Smith: The Police Officer Who Kept Going Back

NYPD Officer Moira Smith was among the first police officers to respond to the World Trade Center.

She was 38 years old and the mother of a two-year-old daughter.

Smith could have concentrated on getting people away from the disaster.

Instead, she became one of the people helping organize the evacuation.

Smith was among the first to respond and was last seen evacuating people from the South Tower. She helped save hundreds of lives before the tower collapsed.

She was later awarded the NYPD's Medal of Honor, the department's highest honor.

Smith kept returning to the danger.

Eventually, she didn't make it out.

Her story is particularly heartbreaking because she had a young daughter waiting for her at home.

But it is also a reminder that heroism isn't always one dramatic moment.

Sometimes it's simply continuing to help people when you're terrified yourself.

4. Stephen Siller: The Firefighter Who Ran Toward the Towers

Firefighter Stephen Siller had already finished his shift when he heard about the attacks.

He immediately turned around.

By the time he reached Manhattan, access through the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel had been closed.

So Siller did something almost unbelievable.

He put approximately 60 pounds of firefighting equipment on his back and ran through the tunnel toward the World Trade Center.

He was 34 years old.

He had a wife and five children.

He knew something terrible was happening.

And he ran toward it.

His story eventually inspired the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, which continues to honor first responders and military members.

Sometimes courage isn't complicated.

Sometimes it's simply knowing where you're needed—and going there.

5. Brian Clark and Stanley Praimnath: Two Strangers Who Became Friends

This may be one of the most beautiful stories of 9/11 because it didn't end when the two men escaped.

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower when United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the building.

He became trapped beneath debris.

He called out for help.

Brian Clark, who was higher up in the building, heard him.

Clark had every reason to keep going.

He was trying to escape the burning tower himself.

Instead, he followed the voice.

He found Praimnath and helped free him.

The two men then made their way down the damaged stairwell together.

They escaped only minutes before the South Tower collapsed.

They had been complete strangers that morning.

They became lifelong friends afterward.

In one of the darkest moments imaginable, one stranger simply refused to leave another stranger behind.

6. Frank De Martini and Pablo Ortiz: Going Upstairs When Everyone Else Was Going Down

Frank De Martini and Pablo Ortiz worked for the Port Authority in the North Tower.

After the plane hit, they helped people escape.

But then they did something extraordinarily dangerous.

They went back toward the upper floors to search for people who might still be trapped.

The two men and their colleagues helped clear debris and open a stairwell so people could get out.

De Martini and Ortiz eventually died in the building.

They weren't firefighters.

They weren't police officers.

They were ordinary World Trade Center workers who decided that their responsibility didn't end with getting themselves out.

They went back for other people.

7. The Passengers of Flight 93: Ordinary People Who Decided to Fight Back

Flight 93 is one of the most extraordinary stories of September 11.

The passengers learned through telephone calls that other planes had already been used as weapons.

They realized that their airplane was probably intended for another target.

And they had to make a terrible choice.

Do nothing and hope for the best—or attempt to take control of the aircraft.

Passengers including Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, Tom Burnett and Jeremy Glick communicated with loved ones and others on the ground as they discussed what to do.

They ultimately decided to fight back.

Todd Beamer famously prayed with telephone operator Lisa Jefferson before preparing to act.

The words associated with the passengers' decision became famous:

“Let's roll.”

The plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania rather than reaching its intended target.

We will never know exactly what would have happened had the passengers not fought back.

But we do know that they refused to simply surrender.

Their courage saved lives.

8. The Boat Captains Who Turned New York Harbor Into an Escape Route

Not all of the heroes of 9/11 were firefighters or police officers.

Some were boat captains.

After the attacks, Lower Manhattan was essentially cut off.

Roads, bridges and tunnels were closed. Hundreds of thousands of people were stranded.

Then civilian boat operators began arriving.

Ferries.

Tugboats.

Tour boats.

Private vessels.

Anything that could carry people.

They started transporting stranded New Yorkers across the harbor.

The evacuation became one of the largest maritime evacuations in history.

Nearly 500,000 people were transported from Lower Manhattan in less than nine hours.

And they weren't all being evacuated by government emergency agencies.

Ordinary mariners saw people who needed help and went to help them.

No one needed to tell them that they were heroes.

They simply brought their boats.

9. Lisa Jefferson: The Stranger Who Stayed on the Phone

Todd Beamer's story is famous, but one part of it is sometimes overlooked.

His final conversation wasn't with his wife.

He tried to reach her but couldn't connect.

Instead, he reached an airline telephone operator named Lisa Jefferson.

She stayed on the phone with him.

For approximately 15 minutes, she listened as Beamer described what was happening aboard Flight 93.

She also prayed with him.

She became, in effect, the last person on the ground to speak with him.

Jefferson couldn't save Beamer.

She couldn't stop the hijacking.

But she could do something else.

She could make sure that he wasn't alone.

And sometimes, when there is nothing else you can do, simply staying with another human being is an act of profound kindness.

10. Lauren Grandcolas: A Final Message of Love

Lauren Catuzzi Grandcolas was flying home to California after attending her grandmother's funeral.

She was also three months pregnant.

During the hijacking of Flight 93, she called her husband.

He didn't answer.

So she left a message.

She told him there was a problem with the plane.

She told him she was okay.

And she told him she loved him.

Lauren couldn't know what was going to happen.

She couldn't know whether her husband would ever hear her voice again.

But in the middle of an unimaginable crisis, she thought about the people she loved.

Her final message wasn't about herself.

It was about love.

The Other Side of September 11

There is a reason stories like these remain powerful a quarter-century later.

They remind us that September 11 wasn't only a story about evil.

It was also a story about people.

People who ran toward burning buildings.

People who carried strangers.

People who went back upstairs.

People who opened boats to complete strangers.

People who stayed on telephones with frightened passengers.

People who said goodbye to their families.

People who sacrificed themselves so others might live.

And people who simply looked around, saw somebody who needed help, and decided to help them.

We should never minimize the horror of September 11.

But remembering the victims doesn't require us to remember only how they died.

We can also remember the courage that surrounded them.

The kindness.

The selflessness.

The ordinary people who became extraordinary when the moment demanded it.

And perhaps that is one of the most important lessons of September 11.

We don't always get to choose the circumstances in which we are tested.

But we do get to choose how we respond.

On one of America's darkest days, thousands of people chose to help someone else.

That is worth remembering.

That is worth teaching our children.

And that is worth carrying forward.

at

10 Reasons Some Trump Supporters Are Turning Against Him

Posted by

10 Reasons Some Trump Supporters Are Turning Against Him

Donald Trump still has an intensely loyal political following. That hasn't disappeared. But loyalty isn't the same thing as satisfaction, and there are signs that some of the people who once supported Trump enthusiastically are becoming disappointed, frustrated, or simply less enthusiastic.

That doesn't mean Trump's entire base has abandoned him. Far from it. But the Trump coalition has never been as monolithic as it sometimes appears, and different parts of that coalition supported him for very different reasons.

So what has changed?

Here are ten reasons some Trump supporters are turning against him—or at least becoming less enthusiastic.

1. “No More Endless Wars” Doesn't Look Like What They Expected

For many Trump voters, one of his most attractive promises was that he would keep America out of unnecessary foreign wars.

Trump repeatedly presented himself as the president who would end the era of endless wars. During the 2024 campaign, he talked about bringing an end to years of war and chaos, said he could stop wars, and promised that America would have “no more wars.”

There is an important qualification, however.

Trump has never been a traditional pacifist. He has long taken a hard line toward Iran, supported military pressure against America's adversaries, and during his first presidency ordered military action, including the killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

So it would be inaccurate to say Trump promised never to use military force.

But many voters heard something broader: Trump would be extremely reluctant to get America involved in another major foreign war.

That is why the conflict with Iran has been such a difficult issue for some of his supporters.

Trump argues that the operation is limited and necessary rather than another endless war. Critics—and some former supporters—see something that looks dangerously similar to the type of foreign intervention Trump once criticized.

The distinction matters.

Trump didn't promise that America would never fight. But he did build a substantial part of his political identity around the idea that he was the president who would not get America trapped in another endless conflict.

For supporters who voted for that promise, the question isn't simply whether the war is justified.

It's whether this is what they thought they were voting for.

2. The Cost of Living Hasn't Matched the Promise

Economic frustration is probably even more important.

Trump's political appeal has always included the promise that ordinary Americans would be better off under his leadership.

But voters don't experience the economy primarily through GDP figures or stock-market indexes. They experience it at the grocery store, the gas pump, the mortgage company and the rent payment.

If prices remain painfully high, a president can have a long list of explanations—and voters can still be dissatisfied.

That creates a particularly difficult problem for Trump because economic expectations were so high.

Some supporters believed Trump would quickly restore the purchasing power they associated with his first term. When that doesn't happen, explanations about inflation, Federal Reserve policy, global economics, previous administrations, corporations or supply chains can start sounding like excuses.

The political reality is simple:

People judge an economy by what it feels like to live in it.

And some Trump supporters don't feel better off.

3. Tariffs Have Become a Problem for Some Supporters

Trump has always viewed tariffs very differently from many traditional Republicans.

He sees them as a negotiating weapon, a way to pressure foreign governments and a tool for encouraging domestic production.

Some supporters enthusiastically agree.

Others have become less convinced.

Tariffs can produce winners and losers. They may protect certain domestic industries, but they can also raise costs for businesses and consumers, particularly when companies depend on imported materials or products.

This creates an awkward political problem for Trump.

Many of the people who voted for him did so because they wanted lower prices.

If tariffs are perceived as contributing to higher prices, some voters may begin asking whether the cure is creating another problem.

That doesn't automatically mean Trump's tariff philosophy is wrong.

It means the policy has a real tradeoff—and voters who are feeling that tradeoff may become less enthusiastic.

4. The “Drain the Swamp” Promise vs. Governing From Inside the System

Trump's original political appeal was partly based on his promise to disrupt Washington.

He was the outsider.

He wasn't supposed to behave like a conventional politician.

He promised to “drain the swamp,” challenge entrenched interests and take on the bureaucracy.

But eventually, even the most unconventional president has to govern through institutions.

He needs cabinet officials. He needs congressional allies. He needs lawyers, agencies, advisers, donors and political organizations.

That creates a problem for people who supported Trump specifically because they wanted to see the entire Washington establishment shaken up.

Some of them now see Trump as part of the system he once attacked.

And this criticism isn't necessarily coming from Democrats.

Some of the loudest complaints come from people who say Trump hasn't gone far enough in dismantling the institutions they dislike—or that he has surrounded himself with people who are too much a part of Washington's traditional political machinery.

The irony is that governing is much harder than campaigning.

The outsider eventually has to become the insider.

And some voters don't like the transformation.

5. Immigration Isn't the Same Political Issue It Once Was

Immigration remains important to Trump supporters, but its political position has changed.

Trump made border security one of the defining issues of his political career.

And when illegal crossings fall dramatically, something politically strange can happen:

The issue can become less visible because the problem appears to be improving.

That means voters who once ranked immigration as their number-one concern may start focusing on something else.

For Trump, that “something else” is often the economy.

There is also a second problem.

Once voters believe the border is secure, they may begin asking what comes next.

A politician can campaign for years on fixing a problem. But once voters believe the problem has been substantially fixed, they don't necessarily continue giving him credit indefinitely.

In other words, success can actually reduce the political importance of the issue.

That doesn't mean Trump's immigration policies have become irrelevant.

It means the political landscape has moved.

6. “America First” vs. a More Interventionist Foreign Policy

Trump's “America First” message has always contained a tension.

On one hand, it means putting American interests ahead of international commitments.

On the other hand, Trump believes America has enormous military and economic power—and that power can be used to force America's adversaries to change their behavior.

Those two ideas can coexist.

But they can also collide.

A voter who interpreted “America First” as “stop spending American blood and treasure on foreign conflicts” may become frustrated when the administration becomes deeply involved in another international confrontation.

Another voter may see military action as precisely what “America First” requires.

This is one reason Trump's coalition isn't as simple as “isolationist” versus “interventionist.”

There are Trump supporters on both sides.

But when foreign policy becomes more aggressive, some voters who came to Trump because of his opposition to the foreign-policy establishment may wonder whether the old Trump is still there.

7. Some Supporters Think Trump Is Fighting the Wrong Battles

Trump has always been a fighter.

That's one of the things his supporters like about him.

But being willing to fight is not the same thing as always fighting the battles your supporters care about.

Some Trump voters want him focused on inflation, wages, housing, energy, immigration and foreign policy.

Instead, they sometimes see enormous amounts of political energy devoted to personal feuds, media battles, cultural controversies and disputes with political opponents.

To Trump's strongest supporters, those fights can be part of the larger struggle.

To others, they can look like distractions.

A voter might agree with Trump on ten major issues and still become frustrated because the president seems to spend more time fighting about something else.

This isn't necessarily a policy disagreement.

It's a question of priorities.

8. Some People Voted for 2016 Trump and Are Now Judging 2026 Trump

This may be one of the biggest changes of all.

Trump is no longer the political outsider he was in 2016.

He's a former president, a current president, a movement leader and one of the most recognizable political figures in modern American history.

That changes expectations.

In 2016, Trump could say:

“I alone can fix it.”

He was promising what he would do.

Now voters can look at what he has actually done.

That means Trump's record is no longer hypothetical.

Supporters can compare promises with results.

They can ask:

Did prices come down?

Did government get smaller?

Did Washington change?

Did foreign wars decrease?

Did immigration improve?

Did their lives get better?

And they can reach different conclusions.

Some will say Trump delivered.

Others will say he didn't deliver enough.

Still others will say he delivered on some promises while failing on others.

That's a much more complicated political relationship than the one Trump had with many voters in 2016.

9. The Trump Coalition Was Never One Single Group

There is a tendency to talk about “Trump supporters” as if they are one giant bloc.

They're not.

There are social conservatives.

There are economic populists.

There are libertarians.

There are national-security hawks.

There are isolationists.

There are working-class voters.

There are wealthy business owners.

There are people who care primarily about immigration.

There are people who care primarily about abortion.

There are people who care primarily about taxes.

There are people who simply hate the Democratic Party.

And there are people who genuinely like Trump personally.

Those groups can support the same candidate while wanting very different things.

That means a policy that makes one faction happy can alienate another.

Trump's success has always depended on holding these groups together.

The challenge is that maintaining a coalition is much harder once you are actually governing.

Eventually, somebody doesn't get what they want.

10. Some Supporters Are Judging Trump by the Same Standard They Use for Everyone Else

This may be the most important reason of all.

Trump has always benefited from a certain amount of political loyalty.

Some supporters were willing to forgive things they would never forgive in another politician because they believed Trump was fighting for them.

But political loyalty has limits.

Eventually, some voters begin asking a different question:

“If a Democrat had done this, what would I say?”

That can be a powerful moment.

A Trump supporter who once defended almost everything he did may begin separating the man from the policies.

They may still agree with Trump on immigration.

They may still like his economic nationalism.

They may still believe the 2020 election was mishandled.

They may still dislike the Democratic Party.

But they may nevertheless conclude that a particular Trump policy was wrong.

That's not necessarily betrayal.

It may simply be political maturity.

You don't have to decide that a politician is either completely right or completely wrong.

You can believe someone was right about one issue and wrong about another.

And that may ultimately be the healthiest way to judge any president.

Has Trump Actually Lost His Base?

Not exactly.

There is still a substantial and intensely loyal Trump constituency.

But the more interesting question is whether the intensity of that support has changed.

There is a difference between:

“I will vote for Trump no matter what.”

and

“I enthusiastically support everything Trump is doing.”

Those are not the same thing.

A person can remain a Republican.

A person can still vote for Trump.

A person can still dislike the Democratic Party.

And yet that same person can become disappointed with Trump's performance.

That's what makes the current political situation more complicated than the simple claim that Trump has either “lost his base” or “still has his base.”

The reality may be somewhere in between.

Trump's coalition remains powerful.

But it isn't frozen in place.

Voters change.

Circumstances change.

Presidents change.

And eventually, even the most loyal supporters start keeping score.

The real test for Trump isn't whether everyone who once supported him still supports him.

No politician can maintain that.

The real test is whether the people who once believed Trump was the answer still believe he is delivering the results they voted for.

That is a much harder question—and one that ultimately can't be answered by either Trump's supporters or his critics.

It has to be answered by the voters themselves.

at

The Debunker's Trap: When Explaining Something Isn't the Same as Explaining It Away

Posted by

The Debunker's Trap: When Explaining Something Isn't the Same as Explaining It Away

There is a particular kind of argument that appears again and again whenever somebody reports something strange.

A person sees an unusual animal.

Someone suggests it might have been a bear.

Case closed.

Someone photographs an unexplained object.

Perhaps it was a bird, a balloon, or an aircraft.

Mystery solved.

Someone reports an unusual sound in the woods.

Probably an owl.

End of story.

Sometimes those explanations are correct.

The problem begins when "could be" quietly becomes "was."

That's what I call the Debunker's Trap.

The trap isn't skepticism itself. Skepticism is valuable. The trap is believing that once you've proposed a conventional explanation, you have actually demonstrated it.

Those are two very different things.

A Possible Explanation Isn't Necessarily the Explanation

Suppose somebody sees a large, hairy figure walking through the woods.

A skeptic says, "It could have been a bear standing upright."

Absolutely.

It could have been.

But that doesn't establish that it was a bear.

Maybe the witness saw a bear. Maybe it was another animal. Maybe it was a person. Maybe the witness misperceived something in poor lighting. Or perhaps the observation really was something unusual.

The correct conclusion, based on the information available, might simply be:

We don't know.

That's not a failure of skepticism.

That's intellectual honesty.

Yet "we don't know" can be an uncomfortable conclusion. People naturally want mysteries to have answers. Skeptics and believers can both fall into this trap.

The believer may say, "It was definitely Bigfoot."

The skeptic may respond, "It was definitely a bear."

Both may be claiming more certainty than the evidence actually allows.

The "Bear" Explanation

Bigfoot provides an excellent example.

Over the years, countless alleged Bigfoot sightings have been attributed to bears.

And sometimes that's almost certainly what happened.

Bears can stand upright. They can appear surprisingly large. Their movements can look strange at a distance. In poor visibility, a bear could conceivably produce a very confusing sighting.

But there's a subtle logical problem.

The fact that bears can produce a particular appearance doesn't demonstrate that every witness who reports that appearance saw a bear.

If a witness says:

"I saw something about seven feet tall, walking upright, with unusually long arms, and I watched it for several minutes."

responding "Bears can stand up" doesn't actually resolve the report.

It provides a hypothesis.

That's useful.

It isn't a conclusion.

The Same Problem Applies to UFOs

This isn't exclusively a Bigfoot problem.

Someone sees a strange light in the sky.

A skeptic identifies Venus.

Fine.

But was it Venus?

That depends on whether Venus was actually in the right part of the sky at the right time, whether its apparent movement matches the observation, whether the brightness is consistent, and whether other details of the report fit.

If they do, you've got a good explanation.

If they don't, "Venus" becomes little more than a convenient label.

The same applies to aircraft, satellites, balloons, drones and atmospheric phenomena.

A skeptical investigation should ask:

Does the proposed explanation actually fit the evidence?

Not merely:

Can I imagine something ordinary that might produce something like this?

The Difference Between "Possible" and "Probable"

This distinction is enormously important.

Almost any strange observation can have dozens of conceivable explanations.

The challenge is determining which explanation is most consistent with the evidence.

Imagine somebody finds a set of enormous footprints in the wilderness.

Possible explanations might include:

  • A bear.
  • A human wearing oversized footwear.
  • A deliberately constructed fake.
  • An unusual natural formation.
  • A misinterpretation of ordinary tracks.
  • Some unknown animal.

The fact that all of those possibilities exist doesn't make them equally likely.

And it certainly doesn't mean that identifying one as "possible" solves the case.

Good investigation requires comparing the hypotheses.

What would we expect the footprints to look like if they were made by a bear?

What would we expect if they were fabricated?

Do the stride length, depth, anatomy, terrain and trackway pattern fit?

Are there inconsistencies?

Is there independent evidence?

That's investigation.

Simply naming a possibility isn't.

The Debunking Shortcut

There is another version of the trap that is even more common.

A skeptic finds one plausible explanation and assumes that it explains the entire phenomenon.

For example:

"People sometimes mistake bears for Bigfoot."

True.

Therefore:

"Bigfoot sightings are people mistaking bears for Bigfoot."

That second statement doesn't logically follow from the first.

It's an enormous leap.

It would be like saying:

"People sometimes mistake airplanes for UFOs, therefore every UFO report is an airplane."

Obviously that wouldn't work.

The existence of false reports doesn't demonstrate that all reports are false.

And the existence of genuine misidentifications doesn't demonstrate that every unexplained observation is a misidentification.

The Debunker's Trap Can Work in Reverse

There is an important point here for believers too.

Suppose someone sees something that looks exactly like a large humanoid.

They conclude:

"That's Bigfoot."

But perhaps it was a person.

Or a bear.

Or an optical illusion.

Or a prank.

The believer can fall into precisely the same trap by taking a possible explanation and treating it as established fact.

That's why the best approach isn't believer versus skeptic.

It's evidence versus assumption.

What Would Actually Constitute a Good Explanation?

A strong explanation should do more than merely be possible.

It should explain the details.

If somebody proposes that a sighting was a bear, for example, we should be able to ask:

Does the animal's estimated size match?

Does its posture match?

Does its gait match?

Does its behavior match?

Was a bear known to be present in the area?

Could the witness have observed the animal clearly enough to distinguish it?

Does the explanation account for all the details, or only one of them?

That last question is particularly important.

Sometimes a proposed explanation solves one piece of a mystery while creating another.

If someone says a strange footprint was simply a bear track, but the alleged trackway contains features that don't resemble bear tracks, the explanation hasn't necessarily solved the mystery.

It may simply have moved the mystery somewhere else.

"I Can't Explain It" Doesn't Mean "It's Paranormal"

This is where skepticism needs an important safeguard.

There is a temptation, when criticizing debunking, to swing too far in the opposite direction.

If the conventional explanation doesn't work, perhaps the extraordinary explanation must be correct.

No.

That's another logical mistake.

If we can't explain a strange event, the appropriate conclusion may simply be:

We don't currently know what happened.

An unexplained Bigfoot sighting isn't automatically evidence for Bigfoot.

An unexplained UFO isn't automatically an extraterrestrial spacecraft.

An unexplained archaeological anomaly isn't automatically evidence of a lost advanced civilization.

Mystery is not proof.

But neither is mystery something we are required to pretend has already been solved.

The Most Interesting Position Is Sometimes the Middle One

There is a third position between believing every extraordinary claim and dismissing every extraordinary claim.

It sounds like this:

"I don't know—but let's investigate."

That's actually a very powerful position.

It allows us to take witnesses seriously without automatically believing their interpretation.

It allows us to consider conventional explanations without automatically declaring them correct.

And it leaves room for genuinely unusual discoveries.

Science has repeatedly advanced because somebody noticed something that didn't fit the existing explanation and refused to simply explain it away.

That doesn't mean every anomaly turns out to be revolutionary.

Most don't.

But occasionally, an anomaly really does tell us something.

The Goal Isn't to Protect the Mystery

There's an important distinction between investigating mysteries and protecting them.

If new evidence demonstrates that a famous Bigfoot case was a hoax, then that's worth knowing.

If an alleged UFO turns out to have been a weather balloon, that's not a disappointment. That's an answer.

If an archaeological mystery has a perfectly ordinary explanation, excellent.

The objective shouldn't be to preserve mystery for its own sake.

The objective should be to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Sometimes it leads to something mundane.

Sometimes it leads to a mistake.

Sometimes it leads to a hoax.

And sometimes, at least temporarily, it leads to:

We don't know.

That last answer should not be confused with failure.

The Real Debunker's Trap

The real trap isn't skepticism.

It's premature certainty.

It's taking an explanation that is merely possible and presenting it as proven.

It's confusing "I have an explanation" with "I have demonstrated what happened."

And it works both ways.

Believers should be careful not to turn mysteries into monsters simply because they don't have conventional explanations.

Skeptics should be equally careful not to turn conventional possibilities into established facts simply because they dislike extraordinary possibilities.

The intellectually honest investigator stands somewhere in between.

Ask questions.

Test explanations.

Look for contradictory evidence.

Change your mind when the evidence demands it.

And above all, remember one simple rule:

Explaining something isn't the same as explaining it away.

Sometimes the ordinary explanation really is the answer.

Sometimes the extraordinary claim really does collapse under scrutiny.

But sometimes the evidence simply isn't good enough to tell us yet.

And that's when the most honest words a researcher can say are also the most useful:

"I don't know."

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)