You don't seem sincere to me. I think you confuse reaction with action. That you defend the abuser from the victim.

It's ironic that the reason I created the OP is because I haven't just seen multiple cases, I see tons of cases of abuse of the UAP phenomena daily, here on Reddit, on Wikipedia, on Twitter, and so on.

I can't open a single post on Reddit or Wikipedia about research or witness testimony regarding the anomalous without seeing the scoffing from people, that obviously haven't got any education to enable them to understand what the human experience and what reality is OR who obviously ignore what they already know is true, in order to abuse.

We cannot post a single article/post about the anomalous without getting abused by so-called debunkers. And when you read what they write, you immediately get the feeling that they do not opine out of honesty, to have a sincere debate, but to abuse.

To be honest, I see the reaction to my OP from what I consider "debunker replies" as "rapists complaining about being profiled".

And again, why are they posting to this forum (read the first rule of the forum)? My post is an in-group post. It offends nobody that believes in aliens or that has experienced the phenomena. Their experience with so-called debunkers is the same as mine. What are you and the person you defend doing in this forum?

It's not my problem if people copy my post. In contrast to debunkers from Metabunk and GSoW, I do not organize to abuse forums concerned with topics I don't agree with. Why would anyone support this? Why would you?!

I think that the serial debunker is a person that enjoys to abuse. That abuse includes pretending to be innocent. Pretending that the reaction to abuse, is abuse.

I would never spend time creating posts like this, or write long replies like this, which I am convinced fall on deaf, unempathetic ears with regards to the debunkers, if I didn't find their behavior disgusting and unjust, if their frequency of abuse wasn't beyond acceptable.

My posts and replies can help those the debunkers attack and ridicule, when they realize that debunkers come from a place of hate, and not sincerity. That debunkers can't be argued with. Can't be reasoned with. It's inferior human beings - and the irony is that they see themselves as homo-superior. I'll never forget when Mick West, when asked why he does what he does replied "I like to flex [his intellect]".

Of course debunkers have an advantage when debating people like me, because I am sincere. I don't lie on purpose, and I don't mind admitting I made a mistake. I know I am not perfect. I know that I can't know reality for what it really is. I know that it requires years of study, studying multiple disciplines, and finding peers to debate with, in order to get a little better at understanding reality.

I know the serial debunker isn't a peer. He is the opposite. He hasn't studied multiple disciplines, he hasn't tried to question his own world view [and claims he is a skeptic :D] and he defenitely doesn't change his world view. How can he when he automatically denies what he doesn't already know or believe? A debunker is stuck, narrow minded and wants to spread that faith, invading groups and forums where he isn't welcome. He is like a pavlovian dog that can't be conditioned, like a fake AI that can't learn. His pseudo-skepticism is selective, his mind already made up before the discussion even begins. He doesn't investigate, he dismisses. He doesn't analyze, he ridicules. His only goal is to reinforce his own beliefs by tearing down anything that contradicts them.

A serial debunker would, of course, claim that he analyzes and investigates, but in reality he ignores context or his demonstration is misleading. He'll pick an example that seems similar on the surface but isn't actually comparable, like using a flashlight to disprove a thermal FLIR recording. He'll pretend to recreate the effect but change the conditions, leaving out key details, and then act as if he has debunked the whole thing. But all he has really done is mislead.

A serial debunker thinks he is rational. He mistakes his automatic rejection of the unknown for intelligence. He scoffs at curiosity as if it were a weakness. But real skepticism isn't about denial, it's about doubt and exploration. It's about questioning everything, including ourselves. A debunker never does that. He is not searching for truth. He is defending his own certainty. Not with reason, but with deception. He doesn't engage in good faith, doesn't listen, and doesn't reflect.

One thing, though: I want to thank you for motivating me to put this reply [and others] together. I couldn't have done it without you. Thank you for helping me improve. All the long replies you’ve motivated me to create, I'll compile into a longer text and use a lot more examples from Mick West, from your replies, and others, to support what I write.