The Debunking Napster

  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • #1

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Hello Skeptics,
In an effort to provide a convenient reserve of ammunition, here we offer our skeptical friends a Napster for skeptic’s links; much in the same flavor as the UFO Napster. Please note that no arguments should be made here. This is only for links, quotes, and other specific references.

This Napster is intended for all subjects; not just UFOs.

This is not intended to limit the use of references in the normal course of discussions. This is just for your convenience.

Just like the UFO Napster, this is for everyone’s use. Please feel free to post good sources to either Napster.

Any posts made in violation of the spirit of these Napsters may be deleted.

Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Some UFO skeptics

UFO Skeptic


A nice addition from Zooby:
How to hoax a UFO. [Broken]

A debunking of Bob Lazar. Thanks Zantra!

I will add a few more to this post later
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
A nice, indexed source of creationist claims - and why they are wrong. [Broken]

A debunking of anything involving T von Flandern [Broken]

Debunking of the face on mars, debunking of the debunking of the Apollo landings etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
  • #8
An easily debunked UFO report: IMHO

I thought it appropriate to display a little of the filtering that I do when considering UFO claims. This is a good example of a report that I can completely reject at a glance. This does not mean that I reject this with absolute certainty, but unless something else comes along to ignite my interest in this story, for me, it goes in the debunked file.

I find these pictures unconvincing at best. One method that can be used to gauge relative distance in a photograph is to look at the contrast between the light and dark areas of an object, and compare this to other objects in the picture that are at a known distance. The closer something is to the camera [or your eye], the greater the contrast between light and dark areas. As an object approaches infinite distance, the contrast goes to zero and the color of the object approaches the color of the horizon.

In these pictures, we see significantly greater contrast between the light and dark regions of the "saucer" as opposed to those of the planes. This tells me that this is a small object very close to the camera.

A Special Note: A completely new technology was recently patented that allows for focus at multiple distances in a single photograph or in a video. This will surely make possible an entirely new breed of hoaxes. This is also a real breakthrough for photo imaging of all kinds.
Last edited:
  • #9
Here, courtesy of,[/url] is [URL=]a beautiful takedown of Dembski, Behe, and ID [/URL] .
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The king of anti-creationist sites:

And the queen... [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Famous Hoover "disc" quote debunked

On television and in most of the current Roswell literature, this quote is often cited as evidence that Hoover had a continuing interest in the Roswell disc and the "other discs recovered". Here, thanks to some skeptical prodding by Zoobyshoe, it is shown that Hoover was asking about known hoaxes and not an alien craft.

Please see this handwritten entry by Hoover; page 45 of pdf#1 in the FBI UFO files.

July 15th, 1947; responding to the urging of others for the FBI to stay out of the UFO business, Hoover writes the following:
I would do it but before agreeing to it we must insist upon full access to discs recovered. For instance in the [unreadable] case the army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination

Next, Hoover's memo is quoted and we see that the unreadable portion is the La. case. Please see the FBI pdf file; the first paragraph of p 38.

Here is the definitive doc that shows clear knowledge by the FBI that the saucer in the La. case is "sixteen inches in diameter".
See p 4 of 79 of the FBI pdf #2:
Last edited:
  • #13
The website of a field cryptozoologist, who studies animals from bigfoot to the red wolf (supposed to be extinct in areas he's photographed and videotaped it)
  • #14
Philip Burns collects Earth catastrophists debunkers.

However looking at the work some textbooks are outdated.
  • #15
UFOs: A Skeptical View [Broken]
Tim Printy

links to 'usual suspects' and more...
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Hi Wabbiteer and welcome to PF.

You will find a number of "Napsters" or "Stickys" [like this thread] in many forums here. These are intended only for links and specific information. Please make sure that you're not in a Napster [like this one :biggrin: ] when posting comments. :smile: If you look below you will see the regular threads below the sticky threads.
  • #19
A Public Debate on Science, Pseudoscience, and Spiritualism

4 - Voodoo Science: Perpetuum Mobile, Robert L. Park
5 - Magnet Therapy, A.R. Liboff
7 - A Public Debate on Science, Pseudoscience, and Spiritualism
from the Perspectives of a Physicist, Sociologist, and Biologist,
Alan Scott, Bob Salt, Ken Parejko...

...Most of us have had experiences that science cannot explain. As Dr. Salt points out, to deny the spiritual aspect of life is to deny an important, fundamental and true part of our being. But though I can’t speak for him myself, it seems to me that Dr. Scott is not denying spirituality. He is questioning aspects of modern life that are anti- or pseudoscientific and claim to be spiritual.. [p 9 of 16][continued] [Broken]
PF Thread:
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
A collection of web pages and theories deemed 'crackpot'. Found a strange sounding theory? Check if it's in here. If it's not, why not submit it?
Last edited:
  • #22
The U.S. state depreaments debunking web page about the government cover ups like 9-11/area 51/ what ever elese some wacky conspricay theoriest can think of. [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
I think I have a few nice things to add here.
First a couple of books I recommend:
"The Demon Haunted World- Science as a candle in the dark" -Carl Sagan
and also
"Flim Flam" -James Randi
Next is a video by Michael Shermer, Editor in Chief of Skeptic Magazine

Michael Shermer is really good! He is definitely my favorite skeptic. In this video he outlines Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
Another good website is:
Finally I would like to mention Richard Dawkins. He has many videos on you tube that are good to watch, and he is one of the strongest voices on Earth against superstition and pseudoscience in my opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:

Suggested for: The Debunking Napster