Let me make it clear for the hard of learning out there: I am NOT a "debunker".
In every field I have worked in no one would describe a person as a "debunker" unless it was meant as an insult. There are examples in ufology and cryptozoology and debunkers will stoop to any level, including twisting evidence, lying, threatening and even bribery so that their pronouncement is accepted (if not proven).
I am a sceptic and I look into something with an open mind and study all the available evidence until I can reach a decision but point out that my decision is based on available facts and evidence but if anyone can counter any of this I will look at that angle. If I cannot prove or disprove something then I say so.
"Debunkers" seem to be a big thing at the moment on You Tube and elsewhere and whereas some stick to what they can prove most do not. It's what they believe; "this is all crap so this case is crap or faked" About 95% of the debunkers are also (they claim not to be but watch their videos to prove the opposite). "I am good at what I do. I've debunked video clips for 10 years!" ahem. I have studied and proven fake photographs, film and video clips since 1976. I studied the photos and spot something off and take it from there -is that just an effect from the photography or is it a sign of doctoring a photo? Same with film and video. I offer the explanation based on evidence. No bragging (that I have decades more experience than the current "debunkers").
I am not doing the work for views or You Tube money and I certainly get absolutely no support from any reader of the blog (even if they very rarely comment).
So I am a sceptic. Remember that as it saves you getting a snarky reply from me.
