Mick West was just called a "loud and unqualified debunker" on NewsNation

This is an opinion piece by George Knapp, long a proponent of UFO conspiracies. As we've noted before, those whose reputation (and sometimes their livelihood) is bound up with the idea of UFOs tend not to be at all happy with debunkers, and having an honest conversation with them can be extremely difficult.
 
Last edited:
Did he mention Mick by name? Perhaps he was referring to some other debunker who is, in fact, loud and unqualified? If he meant Mick, he should have at least added "suave and quite good looking," just to be balanced.

In any case, 'loud and unqualified" and similar ad hominem arguments are beside the point. Maybe a point is raised by a loud and unqualified debunker out there -- is he RIGHT? If a point is raised by a soft spoken British sounding chap who is unfailingly polite -- the question is still the same, is he RIGHT? If you don't think so, bring on your evidence and make your counter argument.
 
What makes a person a qualified debunker?
Would having a well-regarded book on conspiracy theorists published, and years of experience debunking hundreds of cases count?

On the other hand, what qualifies the NewsNation guests as UFOlogists? It can't be experience with hundreds of UFOs...
 
First rule of disinformation, start with a true statement and then invert the language. Simply invert again to obtain the truth.

Compare "loud and unqualified" to "sound and qualified".
 
Back
Top