Since the art of debunking various phenomena is like figuring out how Houdini really pulled off a trick there is a belief system built in to the debunkers methodology that all things can naturally be explained. Just as there is a belief system built into some conspire types. However I have noticed that the things that are debunked are generally ones that have a relatively easy explanation that also reinforces the debunkers belief system. Ones that take a lot of thorough investigation and analysis may either have an absurd explanation or left alone entirely. The fact is there is so much dis-information going on whether conspired or not that the difficult cases generally are not solved by rational explanations to anyone's satisfaction. For instance I have heard quite silly explanations for the Rendlesham forest incident that try and deflect from the actual evidence and observations at hand. I defy anyone here on this forum to debunk this case and make a rational explanation based on the evidence that is available. Things that are known can be debunked but things that are truly unknown generally not. There is a lot of unknown out there. Who can you really rely on?