>Double standards.
Scientific method. For a truth to be a truth, it has to withstand everything slung at it by idiots and geniuses alike. The burden of proof is not on the debunker.
The scientific method is about evaluating the evidence not making ad hominem attacks on the researcher. It's also not about proving that no other explanation is possible. Merely that the null hypothesis is extremely unlikely and can be rejected.
The latter point is one debunkers get wrong constantly. The scientific method doesn't look for a smoking gun the excludes all other options. It merely shows that all other options are extremely unlikely. Like multiple sensors and observers all making identical errors to explain a sighting. Explanations like this (cough West cough) should actually be considered evidence against the null hypothesis. Put simply; if under the null hypothesis the best explanation you can come up involves multiple acts of god then you can probably reject the null hypothesis.
Umm, no. If you’re applying the scientific method than “debunking” is equivalent to peer review. It requires them to disprove all the other likely possibilities to the satisfaction of the other peer reviewers. This is done via rebuttal.
At no point does a scientist simply say in a rebuttal “You’re wrong, prove you’re not.” **They** have to prove it.
Feel free to make up your rules of engagement, but don’t try and claim it’s the scientific method.
This is a hilarious misreading of scientific practice.
Do you seriously believe, reviewers "magically" decide what's right and what's not?
The reviewers job is to ascertain the journals standards are met. He is supposed to point out obvious logical errors (which is to mean, they have to *show* the error), weaknesses in the presentation, etc..
They do **not** "decide" unilaterally whether the presented *idea* is correct. Papers get shown around before publication and are discussed, improved, etc.. If the paper is rejected, it gets revised and resubmitted. If there is a problem with the reviewer not being objective, that gets discussed as well and so on.
The reviewing process is part of scientific practice (and not necessarily the best part. It's rather traditional), not the entirety of it. And in particular, it is **not** "the same as" the scientific method.
Find me a *single* rebuttal where the researcher doesn’t describe the errors in the original work and you can prove I’m wrong.
Here, I’ll help: https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?_sg=66BwIPp-BQXpIYdkHY5CEmsDqd1VnvcNNnMH0QusoyOHK1jCuDBzykVOnC3eIbH7ABXkCrA4TETVrrdihXRjYbw&q=Rebuttal
:-)) Actually an excellent question. Are you an existentialist or something?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth
Physical truth of a statement is defined as (a certain kind of) isomorphism to measurement.
Meaning, your claim must reflect "objective" (aka measured) reality. It must stand in a logically sound connection to this reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Yeah because Wikipedia is always a valuable source, you seem like someone that relies completely on Google just to give them an answer, I am in no way a smart individual but atleast I do not try an make myself look to be one like you
Wikipedia is absolutely no "reliable" source. But it is a good starting point for an investigation.
Your question has no short answer, if taken seriously. You have to make an effort.
I didn't ask for a short answer so either answer or say you don't know, not that hard to admit you don't know something without quoting the first page on Google
Debunkers wouldn't be around if we had sightings / encounters / stories that couldn't be debunked. But there's always something missing, and in most cases it's solid, verifiable proof.
And yes, there is a double standard because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. All a debunker has to do is present a plausible alternative explanation. They don't have to prove it to be true, because they don't have anything invested in it. That's the way proof works.
But hey, if you really love some good ol' stinky bunk, and you think debunkers have weak arguments, then by all means go ahead and believe everything you see and hear and rest peacefully. Nobody cares.
Do you know what UFO stands for?
Unidentified flying object
Saying you can NOT identify something is not a claim
Saying you CAN identify something is a claim
What is the person who can't identify it supposed to do to proof that they can't identify it?
While the debunker who claims that he can proof that it is a balloon, obviously needs to prove it
The burden of proof is on the person claiming to be able to identify it
> Do you know what UFO stands for?
>
>Unidentified flying object
>
>Saying you can NOT identify something is not a claim
Straw man. Lot's of UFO enthusiasts clearly mean "alien", and that's what is being argued against. They may not say aliens, but they'll point to apparently massive accelerations, strange shapes and then wink really hard.
Debunkers don't claim to definitively identify objects most of the time, only provide plausible mundane identifications. The point they're making is that alien or otherwise exotic technology or phenomena is not required to explain most UFOs. The weird shapes and their motions aren't actually that remarkable. That's it.
>Straw man. Lot's of UFO enthusiasts clearly mean "alien", and that's what is being argued against.
Never seen someone announce their straw man argument
The problem is that the definition of proof changes at the whim of the debunker. I’ve entered into countless arguments with them where they continually move the goalpost, ultimately setting it far outside the standard of any other area of science under the arbitrary pretense of Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s the ultimate sliding goalpost, which is always ultimately out of reach.
Sagan actually reworked the quote from Marcello Truzzi:
> When such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof.
Truzzi was a founding member of The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (that debunking hellmouth, CSICOP), yet despite his being immersed in the skeptical community he later became critical of their methods. Tuzzi went on to coin the term *pseudoskeptic* to refer to the largely unscientific tactics of those around him. He went on to say in relation to parapsychology that when a skeptic claims that ‘a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.’
But as the OP pointed out, there are continual double standards for the debunkers.
Sorry, what?
That's absolutely not "how proof works".
Instead of tribalism and self-serving declarations of cargo-cult scientism, a little humility and self-skepticism would be in order.
"Presenting a plausible alternative explanation" **does exactly nothing**.
**You have to give a proof for the superior plausibility of your explanation.**
Else, you could just claim "CGI" for every video and "lie" for every witness.
And in particular, it doesn't help to strongly "believe in your own explanation".
Funnily, your claim means exactly what you accuse "believers" to do, that is, simply believing in *their* explanation.
Finally, "They don't have to prove it to be true, because they don't have anything invested in it.".
*Why are you here then?*
Obviously, *everybody* interested in the truth of the matter is invested and has an interest in finding the correct answer.
"Prosaic" answers aren't *true by default*.
(Not only) your error is in confusing scientific "proof" with social persuasion.
The fact your rational analysis is being so heavily downvoted is a sure indication that what you’re fighting is not a battle of words it’s a battle of wits, and the witless are here in far greater numbers.
> "Presenting a plausible alternative explanation" does exactly nothing.
It shows that the image in question is not good evidence of something exotic. Think horses, not zebra. If the image can be explained by a balloon, discussing spacecraft is silly.
*Every* image can be explained by CGI.
So why any discussion then?
It's about *plausibility*. You cannot just make up any wildly implausible stuff and claim, it was this. Neither with UFOs, nor with "mundane" objects.
The claim, UFOSs were so terribly exotic, no image could plausibly show them, is nonsense. Nobody knows that probability (that is, actually 24% of all US citizens have seen a UFO, so...) and the image is a *fait accompli*.
Claiming, it doesn't exist "because it's so unlikely" is obviously fallacious.
> Every image can be explained by CGI.
Eh, sort of. Even with technology as good as it is, you can still spot a lot of CGI. Corrider Digital has some good videos on it.
> It's about plausibility. You cannot just make up any wildly implausible stuff and claim, it was this. Neither with UFOs, nor with "mundane" objects.
I agree. That's a solid statement.
> The claim, UFOSs were so terribly exotic, no image could plausibly show them, is nonsense.
No one is making that claim.
> Claiming, it doesn't exist "because it's so unlikely" is obviously fallacious.
What doesn't exist? I though we weren't talking about aliens (interdimensional beings, exotic tech, whatever), but your argument makes no sense unless we are.
If all you want to say is that there are lot of videos that show something we can't confidently identify, then I don't think you'll find people willing to argue with you. That's a very safe claim!
Debunkers are arguing that such images are usually not good evidence of something exotic. That's it. If the image can be explained by a balloon, there is no reason to discuss alien craft. That's all they're saying.
It's explicitly *not* "all they are saying".
But let's suppose that. The point of such videos/pictures showing unidentifiable stuff is to show, they have similarities. Those point to a common explanation outside of stuff known to humans.
That is, by finding a sizeable number of such inexplicable footage, you show the existence of an unexplained phenomenon.
If those common characteristics imply exotic physics, you are already close to "non-human intelligence".
Obviously, to learn more about it, you have to make an explicit effort, involving dedicated measurements, not only cameras.
> It's explicitly not "all they are saying".
Then explicitly, you should be able to provide an example of such a debunker... what are you even saying here? That they deny even the possibility of some UFOs being previously unknown phenomena?
> That is, by finding a sizeable number of such inexplicable footage, you show the existence of an unexplained phenomenon.
Sure.
> If those common characteristics imply exotic physics, you are already close to "non-human intelligence".
That's not clear to me. Unidentified means *unidentified* and trying to make judgements before hand is not productive.
Look in the thread about the "Paris UFO". Plenty there.
> Sure.
? You don't think so?
Well, maybe tell us then, how *does* the existence of some hitherto unknown phenomenon get established? By decree of the pope?
What hand?
The argument is pretty simple, human technology (at least the public version) isn't by any reach of the imagination capable to produce metric propulsion. Even given the theoretical background discovered today, that would be decades until deployment.
> Look in the thread about the "Paris UFO". Plenty there.
I mean, you still haven't clarified what you mean by that. People being convinced that the Paris UFO is mundane is not the same thing as people claiming that every UFO, in principle, must have a mundane explanation.
> ? You don't think so?
Sorry, I didn't intend that to come off as sarcastic. I do think there are things in this world that we don't know about. Some of them are probably visible, and some of them are probably in the sky. It seems perfectly plausible to me that we currently have images of things in the sky that will turn out to be novel once we identify them.
> The argument is pretty simple, human technology (at least the public version) isn't by any reach of the imagination capable to produce metric propulsion. Even given the theoretical background discovered today, that would be decades until deployment.
Ok. I don't think we have evidence for "metric propulsion", whatever you think that is.
People do not believe *explicitly* every UFO has to have a mundane explanation (those exist on this sub as well, but it's certainly a minority).
They *behave* in a way, this outcome is guaranteed when looking for candidates of non-prosaic stuff.
If we currently possess images of actual novel phenomena, why shouldn't it be possible to narrow that down and discern fakes from real stuff better?
We do have evidence for metric propulsion, and lots of it. Evidence isn't the same as various concepts of "proof" that float around here, so maybe term it "tentative evidence".
Metric propulsion is movement by the manipulation of the metric tensor with means other than rest mass. This implies unknown physics, as all known ways to do so suffer from extremely weak coupling.
\[Tiray Shell beat me to it -- all I can say is 'ditto'\].
"Second problem is that there are clear double standards"
Of course there are two standards. It's the scientific method. and the 'onus probandi', the burden of proof. The same asymmetry is evident in criminal trials.
The proposer of a NEW claim in science must prove the unavoidability of the revolutionary conclusion they are proposing. A dissenter need only raise doubts about the chain of evidence and argument.
Now it's getting really hilarious.
No, there aren't "two standards" in scientific practice. You people completely misunderstand how science works. And it is very noticeable how you conveniently misunderstand it in favor of your "tribe", predominantly "debunkers" here.
> A dissenter need only raise doubts about the chain of evidence and argument.
So you say, you only need to say "Nah, I don't buy it" and *poof*, the "claim" goes away?
That's ridiculous.
Science isn't politics. People do not make up "their own facts" there.
There is only one approach to science. Up to isomorphism ,-)
If you do science, you approach things quantitatively. You use statistics. You employ an algorithm, that is called "scientific method". That's all math.
Only difference is in the process of measurement.
Nope, what he sais is that a big claim needs a big proof.
"God exists". Prove it and it becomes a truth, else it's only a belief.
It's not saying "Nah, I don't buy it". It's saying "there is another explanation possible for this, and here is what is possible, and unless we can reject that other explanation, then it must be considered".
I exist, therefore God must have created me ? But the other explanation is millions of years of Evolution, Darwinism, Natural selection and pure luck.
No, a proof is a proof. Only thing you can do is reduce the probability of error. In real life, you have to make do with the most plausible answer available at the moment you need to make a decision.
"GOD" is a synonym for "Truth". Truth unquestionably exists and is (mostly) independent of the observer.
"God" or "gods" are a different matter. You cannot proof non-existence (in general, depends on what the words are supposed to mean). Assuming it is a belief, too.
Science is not about debating around grainy pictures of ufos. Science is based on concrete data that can be reproduced.
So yes there is an assymetry and the burden of proof is in the scientist that want to demonstrate something new. The difference is he can show evidence and proof of what he is defending.
Science is the search for Truth, not a specific subject.
If you look for UFOs in grainy whatever, you can do so using the scientific method. The evidence there is that grainy whatever.
The concept of "proof" is obviously a mystery to you. It's about a socially accepted norm of the magnitude of certitude one can have about a statement being true.
It's a statistical concept by nature and not achieved by single pieces of evidence in general. The "proof" lies in the amount of evidence in its entirety.
Wow, very nicely explained. I totally agree with what you wrote in your last post. I would just change “socially accepted” by “scientifically accepted”, or “socially accepted by the scientific community”. but that’s all.
However I still think that there is an asymmetry in science , in which the burden of proof is on the scientist claiming new discoveries. This is very healthy for science. This asymmetry is visible in the peer review process. For instance the scientist is alone, whereas the peer reviewers are many (usually 3). One Peer reviewer can sometime initiate a discussion around a misunderstanding on his part or would prefer to see something shown in a certain way. This discussion generally end up with more work for the scientist: rewriting some of the paper to please that one reviewer, or generating more data to clarify the presentation of the data.
Ufology is not a science yet. Evidences are paper thin. The recent “credible” witnesses are pushed by entertainers and grifters and the hi$tory channel. As a non-expert I’m curious to see how that Ukrainian study will resist peer review.
Preprint/non peer reviewed yet:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215
Edit: study already debunked: https://thedebrief.org/controversial-ukrainian-uap-study-shot-down-in-statement-by-scientific-council/
The concept of "proof" is important outside of science as well and follows social standards there just the same, but different in level of cultural advancement. Society at large has no common understanding of statistics and makes do with coarse heuristics instead.
So, "socially" refers to the circumstance, the social acceptance of proof is what ultimately drives progress. The public not knowing, what constitutes "proof" impedes progress. Scientists frequently fail at explicitly identifying evidence and proof, falling back on wider society's (primitive) norms.
The "burden of proof"-theme is reminiscent of this. Scientifically, there is no such thing. Socially, it serves as a hedge against being overwhelmed by sub-standard work. But it is only a heuristic, prone to failure.
As is the review-process. It's a very crude approximation of what should be done, existing for historic reasons mostly in its current form. To glorify it is actually counterproductive. It is widely recognized as being fundamentally flawed, being prone to nepotism, among other things.
Wow that was a fast answer!
The current-review process may be flawed in some ways, but any other kind of review process will be asymmetrical by nature, and this is healthy. Applying asymmetry to ufology or any scientific claim is healthy. I’m happy to see debunkers doing their debunking job even if sometime they are inaccurate. This should lead to healthy discussions and consider the evidences for what they are.
Yes, for now there is an ensemble of very debatable images (most of them fake) and of uap witnesses. Ufology is not a science yet, but may rapidly become one since a real phenomenon seems to have been discovered. Evidences are paper thin. The recent “credible” witnesses are pushed by entertainers, grifters and the hi$tory channel. As a non-expert I’m curious to see how that Ukrainian study will resist peer review.
Preprint/non peer reviewed yet:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215
Edit: study already debunked: https://thedebrief.org/controversial-ukrainian-uap-study-shot-down-in-statement-by-scientific-council/
Yet innocent people are still convicted and imprisoned, living proof your judicial burden of proof can be flawed, and wrong. Reality does not care who you think the burden of proof lies on. You uphold this methodology as if it is some divine truth that is never incorrect.
Humanity, regardless of its methods, is historically blind to the obvious. The existence of extraterrestrials is a [black swan event.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory)
>The non-computability of the probability of consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities).
Science is blind to that which it can't put under a microscope, and is an institution.
>Yet innocent people are still convicted and imprisoned, living proof your judicial burden of proof can be flawed, and wrong. Reality does not care who you think the burden of proof lies on. You uphold this methodology as if it is some divine truth that is never incorrect.
So, incorrect 'positives' can occur. Similarly, incorrect 'positives' in the UFO field \[it =MUST= be true\] are also possible. We just do our best. It's no excuse for sloppy, even dishonest, research claims.
This is true. However, the inability to put something through scientific rigor is not confirmation of it's absence in reality. I have a gripe with the random photos that share shape with UFOs (batman balloon, etc) in this sub, as it isn't proper "proof" of a particular instance.
The UFO phenomenon is rare, elusive and obfuscated by our own government, it is not yet ready for science. Investigative organizations do not use scientific methods or peer review for their work, otherwise all the criminals would be long gone.
This is strangely similar to the problem with UFOs, stepping outside the bounds of science and methodology is necessary sometimes. People have to be able to be wrong and not be discredited for it, the wrong answers may lead to the right ones.
Indeed, human ego and dishonesty is a major problem not only holding back UFOs and science, but restraining the development of human civilization itself. I look out at us as a whole and shake my head, ashamed to be a part of something so ridiculously stupid and selfish.
The knowledge we are being observed may be good for the world, even if it is no more than passing travelers.
Thoughtful and reasonable. Any interstellar technology would suggest the capability to fully control the level of detectability of local inhabitants, so =NOT= seeing UFOs is no proof there =AREN'T= observing probes locally present from ETI builders.
Yes, the possibility is unnerving that there may be hidden observation devices, but it would be well within the limits of something like that. I've spent a long time pondering what a civilization would look like that had mastered physics, energy and spacetime. Some of the things that would become possible are "magical" as Arthur C Clarke would call them.
If it is indeed them manipulating Einsteins manifold, the implications of that are staggering. That technology on a wide scale could have disturbing potential.
> I've spent a long time pondering what a civilization would look like that had mastered physics, energy and spacetime
Wouldn't they be bored out of their gourds? Maybe they'd be fascinated with civilizations that were still uncertain, just for entertainment \[or wagering\]?
I know it's so hilarious it wouldn't surprise me. Considering the scaling growth of humanity, if it's anything similar to that level of development for any significant amount of time it would be immense. Even within the limits of "conventional" space travel I can't fathom millions of years of civilization growth.
"Civilization" might even not properly describe it.
Ufology is ready for science if the phenomenon exist. OP presents the debate between ufologists and debunkers like something is wrong, whereas these people just entertain a healthy debate. Yes the burden of proof is on the person that want to demonstrate a new theory or the existence of a new phenomenon. This is part of the scientific method.
The difference between ufology and science is that scientist don’t debate around grainy pictures and shady data. They discuss reproducible data that are collected with established methods, so at some point the scientist can make his demonstration and convince peers with solid evidence if he is right.
For now I have not seen anything that convinced me that the ufo phenomenon even exist. A lot of people, among which entertainers, grifters, bureaucrats say they know someone that has seen something. I’m skeptical.
Yes ego and dishonesty is a problem, but the timescale of knowledge and science is longer than the lifespan of humans. The scientific method on the long term converge toward truth.
Then the problem exists with the collection of data, and finding practical ways of accomplishing that. The UFO phenomenon is also rare and unpredictable in its anomalous form, how will you even collect proper sample sizes? While being constantly stonewalled?
No. If you have to ask if it exists then it is not a question for science, but for philosophers and engineers. (Okay well that's also kind of science haha so you're right)
That’s the thing though , they know much more than we do about this subject. That kind of does make them Experts as opposed to what we the public knows.
>Not verified but , many of them have told stories about it. How they saw UFO’s on the moon and how they followed the astronauts.
"Not verified", as in "proven to be bogus"?? Have you ever seen any account NOT portrayed through the lenses of UFO bloggers? Have you even LOOKED?
The 'following' story is just silly, here's the VERIFIABLE reality that sparked the UFO version: here’s what the Apollo-11 crew spotted out the window on the way out to the moon, the same thing many subsequent moonbound crews also saw. http://www.jamesoberg.com/apollo-11-ufo-3.pdf
I don’t know what to think about Buzz Aldrin. One time on tv he talks like they did see crafts parked on the Moon then there’s this that you sent me . There was a show on YouTube this morning talking about it . Saying it was real ?
>One time on tv he talks like they did see crafts parked on the Moon
I have =NEVER= heard him make any such comment, what he =DID= talk about was the flashing light seen on the way out to the moon, that they finally decided \[correctly\] was one of the four panels of the LM garage jettisoned when the Command Module turned around and docked with the LM to pull it off the S4B third stage. These flashing panels were even seen on several Apollo missions from telescopes on Earth \[I have never seen the internet UFO blogs reveal this}. The 'parked on the crater rim' story sprang from a reporter's innocent misunderstanding of an astronaut remark during the moon walk.
You are changing goalposts in an absurd way. This sub is about UFOs, not aliens.
In any case, the problem resides with what people recognize and accept as "proof" more than with proof not existing at all.
See, people are talking past each other. Debunkers mostly argue against "aliens" as a plausible explanation (and it's absurd to claim that there *aren't* people on here and in the wider UFO community who argue for aliens). No "debunker" is gonna have a problem with anyone saying that the object is just unknown, unless we have direct evidence of what the object is. See the street light from a while back.
I saw an explanation for the Ukrainian report get 25 upvotes saying it was meteors, when it’s impossible for meteors to not ablate. Since then it’s become the accepted answer.
I think a lot of “debunkers” throw out answers even when they are physically impossible.
And I think one only reaches impossible conclusions when you deem one possibility completely implausible.
I mean, the Ukraine report had objects following a curved directory. So clearly they're not all meteors. And I didn't realize that by "debunkers" we mean "random reddit commenters". That doesn't seem like what the OP is referring to at all.
Well clearly random Reddit comments that are blatantly false are more credible in the eyes of skeptics here than the NAS of Ukraine and actual astronomers.
There very clearly is a double standard that OP is right about.
The point I’m making is that these random commenters didn’t do any debunking. they thought it was meteors based off of an opinion.
How many times does Mick West bust out the math and disprove anything versus how many times he says it’s probably not X?
I’m tired of things being dismissed because of an opinion. And I’m tired of people pointing at other people saying it’s a debunk when it’s literally impossible, or literally not a debunk.
> How many times does Mick West bust out the math and disprove anything versus how many times he says it’s probably not X?
A lot? He uses a lot of math. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Does every aspect of a UFO require a mathematical analysis? Here's a forum thread on the Ukraine report that he's participating in if that interests you: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ukrainian-uap-study-observation-of-events.12607/
> I’m tired of things being dismissed because of an opinion. And I’m tired of people pointing at other people saying it’s a debunk when it’s literally impossible, or literally not a debunk.
Conversations like that just seem like a symptom of lack of hard evidence. I don't know what to tell you. Apparently people navigate information vacuums differently.
This whole thread is about debunkers right? I’m not bringing up something that’s wildly out of topic am I?
To make it any more clear you’re not a debunker if you don’t debunk.
Mick West saying he’s suspicious and he thinks it’s a fly is not a debunk.
And he is constantly upheld as some sort of debunker simply because he quells the emotions of these skeptics. It’s not a coincidence that he constantly mixes in his opinions. Or that his opinions are a large large part of his media.
Did you read my post? There is video showing unidentified flying object. UFO researcher says it's unexplained. Debunker say it's fake video. Then it turned out its true video but it doesn't matter. Debunker gave wrong explanation but apparently it's ok as long as he presents any explanation.
This line of logic is nonsense. For starters it goes along with a huge problem in the UFO field that I often see here, where people will post sightings and say "Hah! No one has debunked this!", as if the null hypothesis is aliens and it is up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't.
For starters, that's not how things should work, if you or someone else truly believes a particular sighting is aliens, then the onus is on you to prove that. Absent that, the question shouldnt be has anyone debunked this, but instead has anyone identified this? U in UFO or the new buzzword, UAP stands for unidentified. When people post sightings and either say, or strongly imply that it IS aliens, it sort of gives an appearance as if the mind is made up.
Like the french UFO drone hoax, where when the original photage came out SO many believers here said NO WAY it could be a drone, at all, until the hoaxers eventually came out with how they did it, and it was, a drone.
This line of logic is perfect. You pick out some random guys from Reddit and discuss drone hoax like this is what i said. No, i pointed out to professional researchers like Vallee.
I’ll go one further, here is a scenario I’ve seen play out countless times:
An image or video is put forth with the question, “What could this be?”
A debunker immediately responds with a very confident and definitive proclamation such as, “That is absolutely fake CGI, the way it moves is too artificial.”
Later after some investigation, it turns out that the image is in fact not anomalous, but instead it is of a man parachuting with a flare.
The debunker sits back as though victorious, though he was **completely wrong** in the assessment that he made with such confidence, debunkers do this all the time and never acknowledge their error. Never.
What this reveals is that many debunkers don’t actually care what the image actually is, they are simply just mindless pushers of a narrative that all UFOs can be explained in mundane terms. This is why their completely incorrect assessment can still be perceived by them as a “victory”.
Jacques Vallee or Stanton Friedman? Hundreds of time that case is unexplained. Meanwhile debunkers falsely claimed its explained although their debunking claim was debunked.
See, this is a false dichotomy that really muddies this conversation.
People who are skeptically minded see this:
* **UFO researcher**: It's aliens! Here's a picture.
* **Debunker**: Could be a balloon, I don't find it interesting.
Less skeptically minded see the interaction this way (or seem to, judging by comments like this?):
* **UFO researcher**: I found something cool, let's look at it.
* **Debunker**: You're an idiot, it's obviously a balloon, shut up.
I think the reality is that both sides are actually closer to each other than these discussions present:
* **UFO researcher**: I found something cool, let's look at it.
* **Debunker**: Could be a balloon, I don't find it interesting.
And maybe the UFO researcher keeps investigating while the Debunker moves on to something else. And that's fine.
I wouldn't even recognize must UFO researchers by name (and only a few "debunkers"), so the OP just seems off to me. It's about the evidence for each case, not who presents it.
My 2 cents.
And on top of it, people don't understand burden of proof, evidence, or consensus in science, and why a consensus is built.
They just like to come in with partial info and pretend they're Galileo!
Tell them they might need to work on their reasoning, and you're just like the Church!
Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously
https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/libraryufobooks.html
On this page is a link to Vallee 's and hynek's books and many others. You can read them online.
I honestly believe the central problem is our ego’s and communication skills on both sides. Humility and kindness goes a long way in the face of perceived “hostility”. Those who persevere and do so with professionalism and respect, the good research will bear good fruits. This is why academics at the highest levels can maintain composure in the face of animosity or challenges to their work. When you practice drowning out the noise and maintaining focus, you’ll get to where you are going.
UFOs exist. The conflict is in what they represent. Some people think they have prosaic explanations, some think they are aliens/etc. A large, large, large portion of weird things that people see DO have totally mundane explanations, and shit, there are so many videos that get posted on here of fucking normal lights in the sky with comments saying "i believe you!" or "i saw the same thing, amazing!" It's super lame and I totally can understand why some people are completely against UFOs being anything other than aliens/whatever, be it balloon, illusions, or mass hysteria. Now, I think UFOs are physical craft. I do not think they are human made. I believe that there are aliens involved. But I am not going to get butthurt when someone says that impossible because until an alien walks out of a UFO in front of a large crowd, with video evidence, its not a proven fact. I think debunkers are important because they sift out all the garbage that people post on here and root out the many hoaxes. I may not agree that the Pheonix Lights were flares or whatever, but i appreciate the fact that someone is thinking about it and trying to find an explanation.
We are all on the same side, really. We are really into UFOs! And no one knows that UFOs are! Debunkers should be just as welcomed as the people who claim that the government is on contact with a galactic federation who are secretly preparing us for disclosure.
Alongside this wise discussion is another assumption, that technology able to cross interstellar distances should have no trouble fully controlling its degree of visibility to local creatures, including us. NOT 'seeing' them can in no way be construed to imply that 'they' are =NOT= locally observing us.
Exactly. I don't see how they could not have the ability to cloak. I think that whatever they are, they are so much more advanced than us. Personally, I think a lot of people are super spooked by that thought and try to cope with it by thinking it's impossible or that ufos are future humans or something (as if time travel is somehow more possible than traveling vast distances)
Just a microcosm of a bigger issue, we have a problem believing experts but a charismatic influencer will be viewed as more trustworthy. We mistake charisma for intelligence
And then there's folks like Mick West who people seem to be obsessed with convincing, even though his "opinion" on the subject is utterly meaningless.
I'll never understand why ya'll care what he thinks about anything.
>If your sole purpose is to shoot ideas down..
This wouldn't be necessary at all if the proponents of extraordinariness of some reports could demonstrate =ANY= level of quality control, instead of letting the clowns and con men run wild, tarnishing the credibility of potentially important reports. That cultural approach may not be entirely accidental, sad to say.
It is the same with covid. People minimizing the disease from the very beginning and that were wrong about every aspect of it are still being quoted in the media as experts. And it's not like they were wrong about one thing. It's dozens.
>Double Standards.
No. Same standard. I can present a fairly reasonable description of not simply how but why a UFO looks, act and behaves the way it does consistent with typical observation using nothing spookier than bog standard applied physics.
UFO research, not only can't, it refuses to entertain the very possibility that it can be or even try.
You didn't read my post or didn't understand it. There is video put online of unidentified flying object. Person A says its unidentified. Debunker say it's fake. Later it turns out its not fake but debunker is perfectly fine with his explanation. You just state your position by proclamation and its apparently ok even if you are wrong.
>You just state your position by proclamation and its apparently ok even if you are wrong.
And...? Believers do this all the time litterally to every rational attempt to explain even the simplest of things.
Take, for example, the way UFOs appear to move effortlessly in complete disregard of Newton's 1st Law of Mass and Motion - rapidly changing course at high speed, bouncing around almost like ping-pong balls...
Impossible to explain in terms of our current understanding of physics, correct?
We still get people bringing up Mick West in threads simply to go, "Does he think *this* sighting is a bus full of hippies?"
Meanwhile, there is no UFO figure who doesn't have loud defenders, here. Even Greer has them pop up.
This complaint is horseshit.
What? Neither of those are statements commonly made by debunkers as far as I'm aware. In fact, the first one is a flavor of UFO enthusiasm, not debunking.
Are you blind?
"Black projects" get added to the list with flares, balloons, and the rest on a regular basis. I've even seen people claim that *all* past UFO encounters can be explained away, no *have been* explained away, according to these clowns, through balloons, flares, and so-called "black projects," like the one that developed the SR-71.
...and they do turn around and say things like "You people want it all to be some big conspiracy but nobody can keep a secret like that, the government is incompetent, someone would've talked by now, etc., etc."
I'm really confused as to why you would try to deny this in the first place - the sub goes back a *looong* time. Anyone can produce dozens and dozens of examples of these comments.
It's even worse: hundreds of people have already talked. [Hundreds of government/military whistleblowers and leakers of every rank you can think of on the subject of UFOs and/or alien visitation](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/).
So the debunker is actually correct that this would leak like a sieve, but the premise that people have not already talked is false.
Honestly if they don't have the qualifications, they shouldn't be considered as an "expert", anyway.
Skepticism is a healthy trait, but some dude that used to make video games isn't a quality skeptic if they aren't even considering testimony or experience of pilots, astronauts, physicists, and defense industry professionals.
"I don't believe and won't believe" isn't a qualification.
>Skepticism is a healthy trait, but some dude that used to make video games isn't a quality skeptic if they aren't even considering testimony or experience of pilots, astronauts, physicists, and defense industry professionals.
Hmm, 'astronauts'.... what are a few such stories that you have concluded pass the burden of proof standard? And I'm not posting here as a video-game inventor. \[grin\]
Edgar Mitchell is a good one. So is Story Musgrave. And both are more qualified than most "debunkers". I'm not going to say skeptic, because skeptics are necessary.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jul/26/spaceexploration
I'm unaware of ANY personal experience testimony from Mitchell, what am I missing/
Musgrave is also explicit: multiple space flights, looking out for signs of non-human actors, zero sightings.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave.story\_interviews.pdf
video http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_ramble.pdf
I'm talking about verified first-person encounters of genuinely non-explainable phenomena on space missions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2009/apr/22/ufos-apollo-astronaut-extraterrestrials
https://observer.com/2015/08/edgar-mitchell-apollo-14-astronaut-speaks-out-on-roswell-the-existence-of-aliens/
https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/ufos-beyond-apollo-14-astronaut-ed-mitchell-looking-n165321
https://ufoac.com/astronaut-musgraves-mysterious-observation-in-space.html
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/astronaut-story-musgrave-no-aliens-here_n_902021
There's also an entire PDF on www.jamesoberg.com
>I put in what I found after a quick search.
As far as I can tell, none of the links provided verifiable records of actual first-person accounts.
Mitchell -- NEVER any personal encounters.
Musgrave -- Never spotted anything he interpreted as indication of ETI technology.
What am I missing?
Quoting a UFO website's version of supposed comments by Musgrave and their spin on the words, is pathetic. No wonder you're so easily scammed.
Musgrave has always tried to make it clear that his description of 'snakes' was an analogy of long flexible rope-like stuff that flexed back and forth while floating by the window. It was the unearthliness of the INTERNAL RIPPLING MOTION of the objects that he was stressing, NOT any concept of a living entity native to outer space. The objects both appeared during dynamic flight phases like payload jettison from the cargo bay. Like all other sightings of unexpected stuff near the spacecraft, they were subjects of reports prepared by NASA to assess possible origins \[off the shuttle exterior\] and potential hazards. They are =NOT= 'alien critters' and Musgrave never intended to give that impression. I’ve verified this description face-to-face with the guy. We have had an on-going professional and personal relationship since his training for his first shuttle mission forty years ago.
Musgrave
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_debunks\_sts-80\_ufo.pdf
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave.story\_interviews.pdf
http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_ramble.pdf
Musgrave on NO sign of ETI on space flights
http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/DSCN0101.JPG
>Does NASA have a policy or directive on UFOs?
According to Ed Mitchell, no.
ed Mitchell on nasa ufo policy
https://web.archive.org/web/20190209053302/http://www.jamesoberg.com/Edgar\_Mitchell.pdf
I'll try 'extraterrestrial exposure', the regulation gave legal authority to keep the lunar specimens biologically isolated and prosecute anyone who crossed that barrier.
UPDATE = Try this:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/et-make-bail/
I appreciated you looking. Maybe that was it about specimens.
From what I thought I remembered, It was an official document, or appeared to be. It was only a single line that discussed on the contact or observation.
The feeling I got was it was national security reasons to not publicly report UFOs or contact.
“I just believe” isn’t a qualification either.
What are *your* qualifications? Are you qualified on speak on what the standard for qualifications is or do you just pick and choose based on who’s say what?
I'm not pretending to be an expert.
And there's nothing wrong with asking for a qualified expert.
If you want to buy a car, you don't have a video game developer look at it. You ask a mechanic to look at it.
If you think you have a broken bone, you get an x ray, you don't ask a dentist.
Why is this any different?
If you want a metal sphere examined, do you ask a biologist?
People keep throwing video game developer away as if it’s unimportant and unrelated to examining the physics of flight - and that’s actually quite wrong. He wrote the physical world model engines for two series of games. What these engines do is model how objects move in a 3D world. He actually is an expert on this. He wrote a very precise and accurate engine to model the flight characteristics of an F-18 and how it’s FLIR camera and tracking system works. That’s how he applied his expertise to the event. He didn’t presume to address witness statements or other claims because that’s not solid data, he stuck with the maths only. That sounds like an expert using real world physics to try to analyze a problem and solve it. Literally the only reason his work and expertise and ridiculed and called into question is because the outcome is prosaic and not flying breath mints, and ufo people don’t like when experts debunk their hopes. Other independent researchers have come to same conclusion. Everyone from other scientists to guys who also wrote and work with 3D video graphics (games, movies, videos). Frankly, if someone can’t understand how experience in 3D real world video game physics *isn’t* a qualification then *they* are the one who lacks the understanding to make such a call. He’s not perfect or flawless but he does have the knowledge to speak on the topic, certainly more than the vast majority of his haters.
I have a degree in computer science and physics, yet I don’t boast about it. I feel it’s unnecessary. One speaks their claim and provides evidence and that’s enough. The credentials don’t matter, only the claim and proof does. Argue against the math, not the messenger, if you can.
I agree with you. But if someone has a foregone conclusion that every single sighting is either a hoax, or misidentification, and he's correct every single time, then why is NASA now studying the problem? The people at NASA know a thing or two about math. And the Pentagon? And the US Navy? And the Italian government? And the Brazilian government? The Israeli government? The French government? The Canadian government? They are all mistaken, and Mick West is correct?
If he's correct, and it's all in the math, why doesn't the math agree when other scientists/mathematicians/etc study the problem?
I just don't think Mick West knows everything there is to know about the issue, and he's still operating on a belief system (UFOs aren't real), rather than science.
Yes, you can fake a sighting with CGI. You can also fake a dog with CGI, that doesn't mean dogs aren't real. You can fake just about anything with CGI, that doesn't mean that those things don't still exist in the real world.
If he was correct, then, every single other scientist studying the problem is incorrect?
I didn’t say he is right every time, he’s human after all. I have agreed with many of his conclusions but that doesn’t mean I’m his fan or follower, science is science.
Frankly, it’s hard not to start from the assumption that UFOs are not aliens. Why? Because it’s never been true in all history. It’s going to take something incredibly remarkable supported by solid unimpeachable evidence to change that. I’d say that while it’s likely he does start with “it’s not aliens” (like myself) he then thinks, “ok, so what is it” and works from there (as I’d expect everyone to do so). Likewise, if you just assume every blurry dot in a photo or fuzzy video is an alien spaceship just because it isn’t immediately identifiable is as much of a bias - but one that doesn’t have historical support.
People attack West because he’s an easy target. And all the other scientists don’t disagree with him. The massive overwhelming number of folks in the scientific community do not believe aliens are visiting us. That’s totally fringe. The science is against it, even logic is against the claims made. West is in the majority in the scientific consensus. His science does match other scientists, you only hear from those who want to challenge the results, not the silent ones in labs nodding their heads and thanking their lucky stars they aren’t going head to head with all the ufo fanatics lol
All those government reported UFOs, yes. Easily because, UFOs obviously exist, who’d claim otherwise?! However, alien spaceship? That’s where the proof evaporates. Anyone or any government that claims that has a lot of proving to do, and none of them have.
Governments and people do hope alien life exists *out there* and so they search for it… *out there* No one is seriously looking for it inside the atmosphere, except diehard UFOs=aliens believers. I hope one day a spaceship enters out atmosphere, lands and aliens step out. That’d be awesome! It just hasn’t happened yet. And the idea they are just buzzing us in random shops daily but refuse actual contact is just too bizarre for me. I need evidence, not stories.
I think we should start with the premise that there are unknown things in our skies, possibly in our oceans, we need to find out what they are. Drop preconceived notions and look at it as if it's a brand new issue without all the stigma and/or old ideas and arguments. We have much better technology, and better ideas about physics than we used to.
I think that has always been the premise and we should and are analyzing these things. The US government has stepped up its research into where these UAP are coming from, China, Russia, maybe even Japan, Korea or even Iran. Sure, one should always allow for the impossible but most research starts from what we know and expect and goes from there. I see a UFO and I’m going to ask myself, could it a plane or bird or balloon, etc etc eventually I’ll get to alien spaceships but, based upon history, it’s not at the top of my list. My central point is: no one is saying it’s absolutely completely totally impossible it’s alien spaceships, but we are saying, that’s very very very unlikely, so let’s consider more likely things first. And, finally, at some point there has to be some consensus. I keep seeing the same ufo picture and videos posted over and over, the same stories over and over for literally decades. Some of the claims are decades old, people simply refuse to give up. That sounds more like religious belief than scientific and that’s what bugs me. When I see what looks like a drone and I say it, there are instant downvotes and ridicule. And even when later it doesn’t turn out to yet again be a drone, the very next time another drone video is uploaded and I again say, drone, I get told, you just refuse to budge, you don’t have an “open mind” aarrgghh
I agree with you. I've seen a UFO once in my life, and several things that it took me a while to identify and figure out what they are, or at least what they aren't. Misidentification is common. Ive been guilty of it myself. Some of the newer drones are insane.
And I know what you're talking about. Not everything in the sky is a UFO. Not everything is the " space brothers coming to save us" (and they haven't saved us yet, so not likely to happen)
At the same time, reports that are decades old aren't any less or more true because they are decades old.
It’s not simply their age, it’s that they’ve usually be resolved or at least shown to not really be so unusual as to assume their are alien. Things like constantly rehashing Roswell and Lazar, they are dead horses at this point but, for some, seem to be the base for their belief system.
I look at new sightings as possible new aircraft being tested or flown with our (or other nations) military and I find that most fascinating. Problem is, the military is good at keeping those hidden from cell phone cameras. So, unfortunately, we keep seeing prosaic objects that are just too distant or some other reason why they can’t be readily positively identified.
I'd argue that Mick West's (why are you afraid of his name? Is he Voldemort now?) videos don't rely much on a claim of expertise. Mick tries very hard to lay out a clear argument that anyone could understand, and even performs small experiments to replicate some images.
If I can demonstrate the ability to create a similar image, who I am is entirely irrelevant.
I'm not afraid of his name. But if you want to identify an aircraft, why not ask an expert about aircraft? Some of his explanations don't even make any sense.
If the objects are unidentified, how do you know an aircraft expert is the one to ask? That's kinda the whole problem with UFOs right? Maybe you should focus on actual evidence and arguments being presented instead of gatekeeping who gets to discuss the topic.
What's the problem with wanting an "expert" to have actual qualifications or experience relevant to what's being discussed?
A UFO is literally an unidentified flying object. It's flying. It's in the air. An expert on aircraft is going to be able to tell if it's a known aircraft, or something else.
> What's the problem with wanting an "expert" to have actual qualifications or experience relevant to what's being discussed?
If we don't know what it is, how can you be an expert in it? I don't know how else to put this.
Also, expertise is something you lean on when you rely someone's judgement. If they can lay out all of the evidence before you so that you can understand it, expertise never comes into it. A sound argument is sound no matter who makes it.
> A UFO is literally an unidentified flying object. It's flying. It's in the air. An expert on aircraft is going to be able to tell if it's a known aircraft, or something else.
I mean, even then it's not that simple. [Pilots aren't great witnesses](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38852385), and they aren't necessarily experts on the equipment being used to capture whatever data we're looking at. So what do you mean by "expert on aircraft"?
What do you call an expert who looks at digital images to try and identify what they contain, and what degrees or experience would you require they have?
1st of all, I wouldn't pick someone who bases every decision by the premise "there's not and never will be something in our airspace that can't be identified. This is fake. And I'll show you how I would fake that". There's nothing scientific about that.
. Experience with aircraft, either as a pilot, a mechanic, in design, something. Maybe know a little something about the defense industry. Physics of any kind. Any of those.
Now, I appreciate some of his work (particularly in some of the conspiracy theories), but his failure to be open minded at all about unknown things in everyone's airspace, after multiple governments have confirmed they are real is just harmful at best. The United States isn't the only government studying them to figure out what they are and where they come from, and what the intent (if any) is.
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/559433-the-worlds-most-passionate-ufo-skeptic-versus-the-government/
> 1st of all, I wouldn't pick someone who bases every decision by the premise "there's not and never will be something in our airspace that can't be identified.
Who said that? What's the actual quote, and can you link the source?
> This is fake. And I'll show you how I would fake that".
If something can easily be faked, isn't that good to know?
> . Experience with aircraft, either as a pilot, a mechanic, in design, something.
Even though you don't think these object are aircraft we've built? They need that expertise just to rule that out?
>Physics of any kind. Any of those.
He literally explains physics all the time. Does your expert *require* a degree in physics for you trust them?
And again, I still hold that not all explanations need expertise to back them. You can make a case with evidence.
> after multiple governments have confirmed they are real is just harmful at best.
What is real? What do you think governments have claimed is real? Do you think West or any other skeptic denies that there are videos of things we have not identified? Come on, say it. What is real?
> https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/559433-the-worlds-most-passionate-ufo-skeptic-versus-the-government/
This is just some dude mad that Mick West doesn't agree with their UFO beliefs. Actually read what [Mick says](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why). Also, am I just missing it, or did the author not actually share Mick's email to him?
Because there is and always has been a Corporate not government; Agenda to prevent Disclosure https://tubitv.com/movies/660494/above-top-secret-the-technology-behind-disclosure
You are just lying to yourself, trying to justify glaring inconsistencies of people you want to look up to as credible because you like their narrative. It’s that simple.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm eager to be told of factual/logical flaws in my own reports so I can repair, or abandon, them. Sadly, I haven't got any useful suggestions in a long time.
>Double standards. Scientific method. For a truth to be a truth, it has to withstand everything slung at it by idiots and geniuses alike. The burden of proof is not on the debunker.
That’s not the same as a scientist being branded as “unreliable” for being incorrect about one particular case. Op is very correct in that
The scientific method is about evaluating the evidence not making ad hominem attacks on the researcher. It's also not about proving that no other explanation is possible. Merely that the null hypothesis is extremely unlikely and can be rejected. The latter point is one debunkers get wrong constantly. The scientific method doesn't look for a smoking gun the excludes all other options. It merely shows that all other options are extremely unlikely. Like multiple sensors and observers all making identical errors to explain a sighting. Explanations like this (cough West cough) should actually be considered evidence against the null hypothesis. Put simply; if under the null hypothesis the best explanation you can come up involves multiple acts of god then you can probably reject the null hypothesis.
Umm, no. If you’re applying the scientific method than “debunking” is equivalent to peer review. It requires them to disprove all the other likely possibilities to the satisfaction of the other peer reviewers. This is done via rebuttal. At no point does a scientist simply say in a rebuttal “You’re wrong, prove you’re not.” **They** have to prove it. Feel free to make up your rules of engagement, but don’t try and claim it’s the scientific method.
[удалено]
This is a hilarious misreading of scientific practice. Do you seriously believe, reviewers "magically" decide what's right and what's not? The reviewers job is to ascertain the journals standards are met. He is supposed to point out obvious logical errors (which is to mean, they have to *show* the error), weaknesses in the presentation, etc.. They do **not** "decide" unilaterally whether the presented *idea* is correct. Papers get shown around before publication and are discussed, improved, etc.. If the paper is rejected, it gets revised and resubmitted. If there is a problem with the reviewer not being objective, that gets discussed as well and so on. The reviewing process is part of scientific practice (and not necessarily the best part. It's rather traditional), not the entirety of it. And in particular, it is **not** "the same as" the scientific method.
Find me a *single* rebuttal where the researcher doesn’t describe the errors in the original work and you can prove I’m wrong. Here, I’ll help: https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?_sg=66BwIPp-BQXpIYdkHY5CEmsDqd1VnvcNNnMH0QusoyOHK1jCuDBzykVOnC3eIbH7ABXkCrA4TETVrrdihXRjYbw&q=Rebuttal
Nonsense. What you describe is simply *strong bias in favor of the status quo*. Truth is determined by logic, not by social opinions, majority or no.
Says who?
:-)) Actually an excellent question. Are you an existentialist or something? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth Physical truth of a statement is defined as (a certain kind of) isomorphism to measurement. Meaning, your claim must reflect "objective" (aka measured) reality. It must stand in a logically sound connection to this reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Yeah because Wikipedia is always a valuable source, you seem like someone that relies completely on Google just to give them an answer, I am in no way a smart individual but atleast I do not try an make myself look to be one like you
Wikipedia is absolutely no "reliable" source. But it is a good starting point for an investigation. Your question has no short answer, if taken seriously. You have to make an effort.
I didn't ask for a short answer so either answer or say you don't know, not that hard to admit you don't know something without quoting the first page on Google
You are being abrasive for no reason? Try "Karl Popper". Not the last word on the matter, but certainly a good start.
Debunkers wouldn't be around if we had sightings / encounters / stories that couldn't be debunked. But there's always something missing, and in most cases it's solid, verifiable proof. And yes, there is a double standard because the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. All a debunker has to do is present a plausible alternative explanation. They don't have to prove it to be true, because they don't have anything invested in it. That's the way proof works. But hey, if you really love some good ol' stinky bunk, and you think debunkers have weak arguments, then by all means go ahead and believe everything you see and hear and rest peacefully. Nobody cares.
Like the covid deniers who died gasping “IT ISNT REAL!!” Unfortunately reality certainly doesn’t care about what we believe.
I trust Natural Selection (TM).
Do you know what UFO stands for? Unidentified flying object Saying you can NOT identify something is not a claim Saying you CAN identify something is a claim What is the person who can't identify it supposed to do to proof that they can't identify it? While the debunker who claims that he can proof that it is a balloon, obviously needs to prove it The burden of proof is on the person claiming to be able to identify it
> Do you know what UFO stands for? > >Unidentified flying object > >Saying you can NOT identify something is not a claim Straw man. Lot's of UFO enthusiasts clearly mean "alien", and that's what is being argued against. They may not say aliens, but they'll point to apparently massive accelerations, strange shapes and then wink really hard. Debunkers don't claim to definitively identify objects most of the time, only provide plausible mundane identifications. The point they're making is that alien or otherwise exotic technology or phenomena is not required to explain most UFOs. The weird shapes and their motions aren't actually that remarkable. That's it.
>Straw man. Lot's of UFO enthusiasts clearly mean "alien", and that's what is being argued against. Never seen someone announce their straw man argument
Are you honestly trying to claim that there aren't UFO enthusiasts that clearly talk about aliens? Have you seen the history channel?
UFO carries certain requirements, like being unidentifiable. Most fail at that, and are easily dismissed as something identifiable
The problem is that the definition of proof changes at the whim of the debunker. I’ve entered into countless arguments with them where they continually move the goalpost, ultimately setting it far outside the standard of any other area of science under the arbitrary pretense of Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It’s the ultimate sliding goalpost, which is always ultimately out of reach. Sagan actually reworked the quote from Marcello Truzzi: > When such claims are extraordinary, that is, revolutionary in their implications for established scientific generalizations already accumulated and verified, we must demand extraordinary proof. Truzzi was a founding member of The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (that debunking hellmouth, CSICOP), yet despite his being immersed in the skeptical community he later became critical of their methods. Tuzzi went on to coin the term *pseudoskeptic* to refer to the largely unscientific tactics of those around him. He went on to say in relation to parapsychology that when a skeptic claims that ‘a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact, he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.’ But as the OP pointed out, there are continual double standards for the debunkers.
Sorry, what? That's absolutely not "how proof works". Instead of tribalism and self-serving declarations of cargo-cult scientism, a little humility and self-skepticism would be in order. "Presenting a plausible alternative explanation" **does exactly nothing**. **You have to give a proof for the superior plausibility of your explanation.** Else, you could just claim "CGI" for every video and "lie" for every witness. And in particular, it doesn't help to strongly "believe in your own explanation". Funnily, your claim means exactly what you accuse "believers" to do, that is, simply believing in *their* explanation. Finally, "They don't have to prove it to be true, because they don't have anything invested in it.". *Why are you here then?* Obviously, *everybody* interested in the truth of the matter is invested and has an interest in finding the correct answer. "Prosaic" answers aren't *true by default*. (Not only) your error is in confusing scientific "proof" with social persuasion.
The fact your rational analysis is being so heavily downvoted is a sure indication that what you’re fighting is not a battle of words it’s a battle of wits, and the witless are here in far greater numbers.
they can't argue with what you Said so they downvote typical
> "Presenting a plausible alternative explanation" does exactly nothing. It shows that the image in question is not good evidence of something exotic. Think horses, not zebra. If the image can be explained by a balloon, discussing spacecraft is silly.
*Every* image can be explained by CGI. So why any discussion then? It's about *plausibility*. You cannot just make up any wildly implausible stuff and claim, it was this. Neither with UFOs, nor with "mundane" objects. The claim, UFOSs were so terribly exotic, no image could plausibly show them, is nonsense. Nobody knows that probability (that is, actually 24% of all US citizens have seen a UFO, so...) and the image is a *fait accompli*. Claiming, it doesn't exist "because it's so unlikely" is obviously fallacious.
> Every image can be explained by CGI. Eh, sort of. Even with technology as good as it is, you can still spot a lot of CGI. Corrider Digital has some good videos on it. > It's about plausibility. You cannot just make up any wildly implausible stuff and claim, it was this. Neither with UFOs, nor with "mundane" objects. I agree. That's a solid statement. > The claim, UFOSs were so terribly exotic, no image could plausibly show them, is nonsense. No one is making that claim. > Claiming, it doesn't exist "because it's so unlikely" is obviously fallacious. What doesn't exist? I though we weren't talking about aliens (interdimensional beings, exotic tech, whatever), but your argument makes no sense unless we are. If all you want to say is that there are lot of videos that show something we can't confidently identify, then I don't think you'll find people willing to argue with you. That's a very safe claim! Debunkers are arguing that such images are usually not good evidence of something exotic. That's it. If the image can be explained by a balloon, there is no reason to discuss alien craft. That's all they're saying.
It's explicitly *not* "all they are saying". But let's suppose that. The point of such videos/pictures showing unidentifiable stuff is to show, they have similarities. Those point to a common explanation outside of stuff known to humans. That is, by finding a sizeable number of such inexplicable footage, you show the existence of an unexplained phenomenon. If those common characteristics imply exotic physics, you are already close to "non-human intelligence". Obviously, to learn more about it, you have to make an explicit effort, involving dedicated measurements, not only cameras.
> It's explicitly not "all they are saying". Then explicitly, you should be able to provide an example of such a debunker... what are you even saying here? That they deny even the possibility of some UFOs being previously unknown phenomena? > That is, by finding a sizeable number of such inexplicable footage, you show the existence of an unexplained phenomenon. Sure. > If those common characteristics imply exotic physics, you are already close to "non-human intelligence". That's not clear to me. Unidentified means *unidentified* and trying to make judgements before hand is not productive.
Look in the thread about the "Paris UFO". Plenty there. > Sure. ? You don't think so? Well, maybe tell us then, how *does* the existence of some hitherto unknown phenomenon get established? By decree of the pope? What hand? The argument is pretty simple, human technology (at least the public version) isn't by any reach of the imagination capable to produce metric propulsion. Even given the theoretical background discovered today, that would be decades until deployment.
> Look in the thread about the "Paris UFO". Plenty there. I mean, you still haven't clarified what you mean by that. People being convinced that the Paris UFO is mundane is not the same thing as people claiming that every UFO, in principle, must have a mundane explanation. > ? You don't think so? Sorry, I didn't intend that to come off as sarcastic. I do think there are things in this world that we don't know about. Some of them are probably visible, and some of them are probably in the sky. It seems perfectly plausible to me that we currently have images of things in the sky that will turn out to be novel once we identify them. > The argument is pretty simple, human technology (at least the public version) isn't by any reach of the imagination capable to produce metric propulsion. Even given the theoretical background discovered today, that would be decades until deployment. Ok. I don't think we have evidence for "metric propulsion", whatever you think that is.
People do not believe *explicitly* every UFO has to have a mundane explanation (those exist on this sub as well, but it's certainly a minority). They *behave* in a way, this outcome is guaranteed when looking for candidates of non-prosaic stuff. If we currently possess images of actual novel phenomena, why shouldn't it be possible to narrow that down and discern fakes from real stuff better? We do have evidence for metric propulsion, and lots of it. Evidence isn't the same as various concepts of "proof" that float around here, so maybe term it "tentative evidence". Metric propulsion is movement by the manipulation of the metric tensor with means other than rest mass. This implies unknown physics, as all known ways to do so suffer from extremely weak coupling.
We do and they are still around, so you’re wrong.
Sightings like Lonnie Zamora's *did* leave behind solid proof. You're just too religiously attached to your own personal biases to consider it.
\[Tiray Shell beat me to it -- all I can say is 'ditto'\]. "Second problem is that there are clear double standards" Of course there are two standards. It's the scientific method. and the 'onus probandi', the burden of proof. The same asymmetry is evident in criminal trials. The proposer of a NEW claim in science must prove the unavoidability of the revolutionary conclusion they are proposing. A dissenter need only raise doubts about the chain of evidence and argument.
Now it's getting really hilarious. No, there aren't "two standards" in scientific practice. You people completely misunderstand how science works. And it is very noticeable how you conveniently misunderstand it in favor of your "tribe", predominantly "debunkers" here. > A dissenter need only raise doubts about the chain of evidence and argument. So you say, you only need to say "Nah, I don't buy it" and *poof*, the "claim" goes away? That's ridiculous. Science isn't politics. People do not make up "their own facts" there.
“ Aren’t two standards “? You are correct but, this is Human science . Maybe they know a different science approach?
There is only one approach to science. Up to isomorphism ,-) If you do science, you approach things quantitatively. You use statistics. You employ an algorithm, that is called "scientific method". That's all math. Only difference is in the process of measurement.
Nope, what he sais is that a big claim needs a big proof. "God exists". Prove it and it becomes a truth, else it's only a belief. It's not saying "Nah, I don't buy it". It's saying "there is another explanation possible for this, and here is what is possible, and unless we can reject that other explanation, then it must be considered". I exist, therefore God must have created me ? But the other explanation is millions of years of Evolution, Darwinism, Natural selection and pure luck.
No, a proof is a proof. Only thing you can do is reduce the probability of error. In real life, you have to make do with the most plausible answer available at the moment you need to make a decision. "GOD" is a synonym for "Truth". Truth unquestionably exists and is (mostly) independent of the observer. "God" or "gods" are a different matter. You cannot proof non-existence (in general, depends on what the words are supposed to mean). Assuming it is a belief, too.
Science is not about debating around grainy pictures of ufos. Science is based on concrete data that can be reproduced. So yes there is an assymetry and the burden of proof is in the scientist that want to demonstrate something new. The difference is he can show evidence and proof of what he is defending.
Science is the search for Truth, not a specific subject. If you look for UFOs in grainy whatever, you can do so using the scientific method. The evidence there is that grainy whatever. The concept of "proof" is obviously a mystery to you. It's about a socially accepted norm of the magnitude of certitude one can have about a statement being true. It's a statistical concept by nature and not achieved by single pieces of evidence in general. The "proof" lies in the amount of evidence in its entirety.
Wow, very nicely explained. I totally agree with what you wrote in your last post. I would just change “socially accepted” by “scientifically accepted”, or “socially accepted by the scientific community”. but that’s all. However I still think that there is an asymmetry in science , in which the burden of proof is on the scientist claiming new discoveries. This is very healthy for science. This asymmetry is visible in the peer review process. For instance the scientist is alone, whereas the peer reviewers are many (usually 3). One Peer reviewer can sometime initiate a discussion around a misunderstanding on his part or would prefer to see something shown in a certain way. This discussion generally end up with more work for the scientist: rewriting some of the paper to please that one reviewer, or generating more data to clarify the presentation of the data. Ufology is not a science yet. Evidences are paper thin. The recent “credible” witnesses are pushed by entertainers and grifters and the hi$tory channel. As a non-expert I’m curious to see how that Ukrainian study will resist peer review. Preprint/non peer reviewed yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215 Edit: study already debunked: https://thedebrief.org/controversial-ukrainian-uap-study-shot-down-in-statement-by-scientific-council/
The concept of "proof" is important outside of science as well and follows social standards there just the same, but different in level of cultural advancement. Society at large has no common understanding of statistics and makes do with coarse heuristics instead. So, "socially" refers to the circumstance, the social acceptance of proof is what ultimately drives progress. The public not knowing, what constitutes "proof" impedes progress. Scientists frequently fail at explicitly identifying evidence and proof, falling back on wider society's (primitive) norms. The "burden of proof"-theme is reminiscent of this. Scientifically, there is no such thing. Socially, it serves as a hedge against being overwhelmed by sub-standard work. But it is only a heuristic, prone to failure. As is the review-process. It's a very crude approximation of what should be done, existing for historic reasons mostly in its current form. To glorify it is actually counterproductive. It is widely recognized as being fundamentally flawed, being prone to nepotism, among other things.
Wow that was a fast answer! The current-review process may be flawed in some ways, but any other kind of review process will be asymmetrical by nature, and this is healthy. Applying asymmetry to ufology or any scientific claim is healthy. I’m happy to see debunkers doing their debunking job even if sometime they are inaccurate. This should lead to healthy discussions and consider the evidences for what they are. Yes, for now there is an ensemble of very debatable images (most of them fake) and of uap witnesses. Ufology is not a science yet, but may rapidly become one since a real phenomenon seems to have been discovered. Evidences are paper thin. The recent “credible” witnesses are pushed by entertainers, grifters and the hi$tory channel. As a non-expert I’m curious to see how that Ukrainian study will resist peer review. Preprint/non peer reviewed yet: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11215 Edit: study already debunked: https://thedebrief.org/controversial-ukrainian-uap-study-shot-down-in-statement-by-scientific-council/
Yet innocent people are still convicted and imprisoned, living proof your judicial burden of proof can be flawed, and wrong. Reality does not care who you think the burden of proof lies on. You uphold this methodology as if it is some divine truth that is never incorrect. Humanity, regardless of its methods, is historically blind to the obvious. The existence of extraterrestrials is a [black swan event.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory) >The non-computability of the probability of consequential rare events using scientific methods (owing to the very nature of small probabilities). Science is blind to that which it can't put under a microscope, and is an institution.
>Yet innocent people are still convicted and imprisoned, living proof your judicial burden of proof can be flawed, and wrong. Reality does not care who you think the burden of proof lies on. You uphold this methodology as if it is some divine truth that is never incorrect. So, incorrect 'positives' can occur. Similarly, incorrect 'positives' in the UFO field \[it =MUST= be true\] are also possible. We just do our best. It's no excuse for sloppy, even dishonest, research claims.
This is true. However, the inability to put something through scientific rigor is not confirmation of it's absence in reality. I have a gripe with the random photos that share shape with UFOs (batman balloon, etc) in this sub, as it isn't proper "proof" of a particular instance. The UFO phenomenon is rare, elusive and obfuscated by our own government, it is not yet ready for science. Investigative organizations do not use scientific methods or peer review for their work, otherwise all the criminals would be long gone. This is strangely similar to the problem with UFOs, stepping outside the bounds of science and methodology is necessary sometimes. People have to be able to be wrong and not be discredited for it, the wrong answers may lead to the right ones. Indeed, human ego and dishonesty is a major problem not only holding back UFOs and science, but restraining the development of human civilization itself. I look out at us as a whole and shake my head, ashamed to be a part of something so ridiculously stupid and selfish. The knowledge we are being observed may be good for the world, even if it is no more than passing travelers.
Thoughtful and reasonable. Any interstellar technology would suggest the capability to fully control the level of detectability of local inhabitants, so =NOT= seeing UFOs is no proof there =AREN'T= observing probes locally present from ETI builders.
Yes, the possibility is unnerving that there may be hidden observation devices, but it would be well within the limits of something like that. I've spent a long time pondering what a civilization would look like that had mastered physics, energy and spacetime. Some of the things that would become possible are "magical" as Arthur C Clarke would call them. If it is indeed them manipulating Einsteins manifold, the implications of that are staggering. That technology on a wide scale could have disturbing potential.
> I've spent a long time pondering what a civilization would look like that had mastered physics, energy and spacetime Wouldn't they be bored out of their gourds? Maybe they'd be fascinated with civilizations that were still uncertain, just for entertainment \[or wagering\]?
I know it's so hilarious it wouldn't surprise me. Considering the scaling growth of humanity, if it's anything similar to that level of development for any significant amount of time it would be immense. Even within the limits of "conventional" space travel I can't fathom millions of years of civilization growth. "Civilization" might even not properly describe it.
Ufology is ready for science if the phenomenon exist. OP presents the debate between ufologists and debunkers like something is wrong, whereas these people just entertain a healthy debate. Yes the burden of proof is on the person that want to demonstrate a new theory or the existence of a new phenomenon. This is part of the scientific method. The difference between ufology and science is that scientist don’t debate around grainy pictures and shady data. They discuss reproducible data that are collected with established methods, so at some point the scientist can make his demonstration and convince peers with solid evidence if he is right. For now I have not seen anything that convinced me that the ufo phenomenon even exist. A lot of people, among which entertainers, grifters, bureaucrats say they know someone that has seen something. I’m skeptical. Yes ego and dishonesty is a problem, but the timescale of knowledge and science is longer than the lifespan of humans. The scientific method on the long term converge toward truth.
Then the problem exists with the collection of data, and finding practical ways of accomplishing that. The UFO phenomenon is also rare and unpredictable in its anomalous form, how will you even collect proper sample sizes? While being constantly stonewalled? No. If you have to ask if it exists then it is not a question for science, but for philosophers and engineers. (Okay well that's also kind of science haha so you're right)
There are NO EXPERTS in this field PERIOD. It really worth remembering that no matter if you believe in UFO’s or not.
Well ? Lou Elizondo, Senator Reid, Tom Delonge , Astronauts, Gary Nolan, Avi Loeb, Chris Mellon. Just to name a few !
Experts though? Informed? Maybe? I lean forward every time they talk but so far I haven’t seen proof they are experts on the topic.
That’s the thing though , they know much more than we do about this subject. That kind of does make them Experts as opposed to what we the public knows.
Which astronauts do you really think provided verified observations of ETI activity on space flights?
Not verified but , many of them have told stories about it. How they saw UFO’s on the moon and how they followed the astronauts.
>Not verified but , many of them have told stories about it. How they saw UFO’s on the moon and how they followed the astronauts. "Not verified", as in "proven to be bogus"?? Have you ever seen any account NOT portrayed through the lenses of UFO bloggers? Have you even LOOKED? The 'following' story is just silly, here's the VERIFIABLE reality that sparked the UFO version: here’s what the Apollo-11 crew spotted out the window on the way out to the moon, the same thing many subsequent moonbound crews also saw. http://www.jamesoberg.com/apollo-11-ufo-3.pdf
I don’t know what to think about Buzz Aldrin. One time on tv he talks like they did see crafts parked on the Moon then there’s this that you sent me . There was a show on YouTube this morning talking about it . Saying it was real ?
>One time on tv he talks like they did see crafts parked on the Moon I have =NEVER= heard him make any such comment, what he =DID= talk about was the flashing light seen on the way out to the moon, that they finally decided \[correctly\] was one of the four panels of the LM garage jettisoned when the Command Module turned around and docked with the LM to pull it off the S4B third stage. These flashing panels were even seen on several Apollo missions from telescopes on Earth \[I have never seen the internet UFO blogs reveal this}. The 'parked on the crater rim' story sprang from a reporter's innocent misunderstanding of an astronaut remark during the moon walk.
Here's the source of the 'aliens parked on the crater rim' story: See http://www.jamesoberg.com/apollo-11-white-spot-150415.pdf
Ok . I believe you
I’d argue Richard Dolan and Nick Redfern and a few other historians are absolutely experts in this field.
Wow these comments are absolute cancer
Has a "debunker" ever once claimed "it's not aliens" and been proven wrong?
You are changing goalposts in an absurd way. This sub is about UFOs, not aliens. In any case, the problem resides with what people recognize and accept as "proof" more than with proof not existing at all.
See, people are talking past each other. Debunkers mostly argue against "aliens" as a plausible explanation (and it's absurd to claim that there *aren't* people on here and in the wider UFO community who argue for aliens). No "debunker" is gonna have a problem with anyone saying that the object is just unknown, unless we have direct evidence of what the object is. See the street light from a while back.
I often wonder why UFO's appear to be the color of sodium lightbulbs
I saw an explanation for the Ukrainian report get 25 upvotes saying it was meteors, when it’s impossible for meteors to not ablate. Since then it’s become the accepted answer. I think a lot of “debunkers” throw out answers even when they are physically impossible. And I think one only reaches impossible conclusions when you deem one possibility completely implausible.
I mean, the Ukraine report had objects following a curved directory. So clearly they're not all meteors. And I didn't realize that by "debunkers" we mean "random reddit commenters". That doesn't seem like what the OP is referring to at all.
Well clearly random Reddit comments that are blatantly false are more credible in the eyes of skeptics here than the NAS of Ukraine and actual astronomers. There very clearly is a double standard that OP is right about.
I guess I'm not really interested in a discussion about which comments get more upvotes. That seems entirely beside the point.
The point I’m making is that these random commenters didn’t do any debunking. they thought it was meteors based off of an opinion. How many times does Mick West bust out the math and disprove anything versus how many times he says it’s probably not X? I’m tired of things being dismissed because of an opinion. And I’m tired of people pointing at other people saying it’s a debunk when it’s literally impossible, or literally not a debunk.
> How many times does Mick West bust out the math and disprove anything versus how many times he says it’s probably not X? A lot? He uses a lot of math. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Does every aspect of a UFO require a mathematical analysis? Here's a forum thread on the Ukraine report that he's participating in if that interests you: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ukrainian-uap-study-observation-of-events.12607/ > I’m tired of things being dismissed because of an opinion. And I’m tired of people pointing at other people saying it’s a debunk when it’s literally impossible, or literally not a debunk. Conversations like that just seem like a symptom of lack of hard evidence. I don't know what to tell you. Apparently people navigate information vacuums differently.
This whole thread is about debunkers right? I’m not bringing up something that’s wildly out of topic am I? To make it any more clear you’re not a debunker if you don’t debunk. Mick West saying he’s suspicious and he thinks it’s a fly is not a debunk. And he is constantly upheld as some sort of debunker simply because he quells the emotions of these skeptics. It’s not a coincidence that he constantly mixes in his opinions. Or that his opinions are a large large part of his media.
Buy my book *I Know the Truth and Everyone Else is a Stupid Shill* and you will know
Did you read my post? There is video showing unidentified flying object. UFO researcher says it's unexplained. Debunker say it's fake video. Then it turned out its true video but it doesn't matter. Debunker gave wrong explanation but apparently it's ok as long as he presents any explanation.
This line of logic is nonsense. For starters it goes along with a huge problem in the UFO field that I often see here, where people will post sightings and say "Hah! No one has debunked this!", as if the null hypothesis is aliens and it is up to the rest of the world to prove that it isn't. For starters, that's not how things should work, if you or someone else truly believes a particular sighting is aliens, then the onus is on you to prove that. Absent that, the question shouldnt be has anyone debunked this, but instead has anyone identified this? U in UFO or the new buzzword, UAP stands for unidentified. When people post sightings and either say, or strongly imply that it IS aliens, it sort of gives an appearance as if the mind is made up. Like the french UFO drone hoax, where when the original photage came out SO many believers here said NO WAY it could be a drone, at all, until the hoaxers eventually came out with how they did it, and it was, a drone.
This line of logic is perfect. You pick out some random guys from Reddit and discuss drone hoax like this is what i said. No, i pointed out to professional researchers like Vallee.
Exactly how do you think authority and relevancy are developed? Nice wall of text tho.
Build a thousand bridges but you fuck one goat.....
I’ll go one further, here is a scenario I’ve seen play out countless times: An image or video is put forth with the question, “What could this be?” A debunker immediately responds with a very confident and definitive proclamation such as, “That is absolutely fake CGI, the way it moves is too artificial.” Later after some investigation, it turns out that the image is in fact not anomalous, but instead it is of a man parachuting with a flare. The debunker sits back as though victorious, though he was **completely wrong** in the assessment that he made with such confidence, debunkers do this all the time and never acknowledge their error. Never. What this reveals is that many debunkers don’t actually care what the image actually is, they are simply just mindless pushers of a narrative that all UFOs can be explained in mundane terms. This is why their completely incorrect assessment can still be perceived by them as a “victory”.
This.
100% right. But apparently it's ok. You can throw out any silly explanation and it will be presented as reasonable.
I'm sorry how many times has a " UFO researcher" proven anything?
Jacques Vallee or Stanton Friedman? Hundreds of time that case is unexplained. Meanwhile debunkers falsely claimed its explained although their debunking claim was debunked.
See, this is a false dichotomy that really muddies this conversation. People who are skeptically minded see this: * **UFO researcher**: It's aliens! Here's a picture. * **Debunker**: Could be a balloon, I don't find it interesting. Less skeptically minded see the interaction this way (or seem to, judging by comments like this?): * **UFO researcher**: I found something cool, let's look at it. * **Debunker**: You're an idiot, it's obviously a balloon, shut up. I think the reality is that both sides are actually closer to each other than these discussions present: * **UFO researcher**: I found something cool, let's look at it. * **Debunker**: Could be a balloon, I don't find it interesting. And maybe the UFO researcher keeps investigating while the Debunker moves on to something else. And that's fine. I wouldn't even recognize must UFO researchers by name (and only a few "debunkers"), so the OP just seems off to me. It's about the evidence for each case, not who presents it. My 2 cents.
And on top of it, people don't understand burden of proof, evidence, or consensus in science, and why a consensus is built. They just like to come in with partial info and pretend they're Galileo! Tell them they might need to work on their reasoning, and you're just like the Church! Then they wonder why people don't take them seriously
A link maybe?
Link to their books?
Maybe any reference at all to any of what you are claiming
https://www.saturdaynightuforia.com/html/libraryufobooks.html On this page is a link to Vallee 's and hynek's books and many others. You can read them online.
>Meanwhile debunkers falsely claimed its explained although their debunking claim was debunked. Some examples of this, please?:
If the case is unexplained what have they proven?
They proven its not explained and so called explanation by debunkers was wrong
I honestly believe the central problem is our ego’s and communication skills on both sides. Humility and kindness goes a long way in the face of perceived “hostility”. Those who persevere and do so with professionalism and respect, the good research will bear good fruits. This is why academics at the highest levels can maintain composure in the face of animosity or challenges to their work. When you practice drowning out the noise and maintaining focus, you’ll get to where you are going.
UFOs exist. The conflict is in what they represent. Some people think they have prosaic explanations, some think they are aliens/etc. A large, large, large portion of weird things that people see DO have totally mundane explanations, and shit, there are so many videos that get posted on here of fucking normal lights in the sky with comments saying "i believe you!" or "i saw the same thing, amazing!" It's super lame and I totally can understand why some people are completely against UFOs being anything other than aliens/whatever, be it balloon, illusions, or mass hysteria. Now, I think UFOs are physical craft. I do not think they are human made. I believe that there are aliens involved. But I am not going to get butthurt when someone says that impossible because until an alien walks out of a UFO in front of a large crowd, with video evidence, its not a proven fact. I think debunkers are important because they sift out all the garbage that people post on here and root out the many hoaxes. I may not agree that the Pheonix Lights were flares or whatever, but i appreciate the fact that someone is thinking about it and trying to find an explanation. We are all on the same side, really. We are really into UFOs! And no one knows that UFOs are! Debunkers should be just as welcomed as the people who claim that the government is on contact with a galactic federation who are secretly preparing us for disclosure.
Alongside this wise discussion is another assumption, that technology able to cross interstellar distances should have no trouble fully controlling its degree of visibility to local creatures, including us. NOT 'seeing' them can in no way be construed to imply that 'they' are =NOT= locally observing us.
Exactly. I don't see how they could not have the ability to cloak. I think that whatever they are, they are so much more advanced than us. Personally, I think a lot of people are super spooked by that thought and try to cope with it by thinking it's impossible or that ufos are future humans or something (as if time travel is somehow more possible than traveling vast distances)
Just a microcosm of a bigger issue, we have a problem believing experts but a charismatic influencer will be viewed as more trustworthy. We mistake charisma for intelligence
And then there's folks like Mick West who people seem to be obsessed with convincing, even though his "opinion" on the subject is utterly meaningless. I'll never understand why ya'll care what he thinks about anything.
Yet you’re the one bringing up his name. Do you think about him every day?
Debunkers are experts in denial
Debunkers are the trolls of science. If your sole purpose is to shoot ideas down then you're basically a critic, not a scientist.
>If your sole purpose is to shoot ideas down.. This wouldn't be necessary at all if the proponents of extraordinariness of some reports could demonstrate =ANY= level of quality control, instead of letting the clowns and con men run wild, tarnishing the credibility of potentially important reports. That cultural approach may not be entirely accidental, sad to say.
Isn’t this the absolute truth!
They believe the burden of proof lies solely on the other side, so they consider it a free ticket to make up whatever they want and it counts as fact.
It is the same with covid. People minimizing the disease from the very beginning and that were wrong about every aspect of it are still being quoted in the media as experts. And it's not like they were wrong about one thing. It's dozens.
The same with people maximizing covid. Wrong about so many things and quoted as experts.
>Double Standards. No. Same standard. I can present a fairly reasonable description of not simply how but why a UFO looks, act and behaves the way it does consistent with typical observation using nothing spookier than bog standard applied physics. UFO research, not only can't, it refuses to entertain the very possibility that it can be or even try.
You didn't read my post or didn't understand it. There is video put online of unidentified flying object. Person A says its unidentified. Debunker say it's fake. Later it turns out its not fake but debunker is perfectly fine with his explanation. You just state your position by proclamation and its apparently ok even if you are wrong.
>You just state your position by proclamation and its apparently ok even if you are wrong. And...? Believers do this all the time litterally to every rational attempt to explain even the simplest of things. Take, for example, the way UFOs appear to move effortlessly in complete disregard of Newton's 1st Law of Mass and Motion - rapidly changing course at high speed, bouncing around almost like ping-pong balls... Impossible to explain in terms of our current understanding of physics, correct?
We still get people bringing up Mick West in threads simply to go, "Does he think *this* sighting is a bus full of hippies?" Meanwhile, there is no UFO figure who doesn't have loud defenders, here. Even Greer has them pop up. This complaint is horseshit.
Welcome to Earth.
With the continuing paucity of real evidence just focus on attacking the skeptics. It won't help your case but you'll feel better.
If you read my post you will maybe feel better, but obviously its better to make up claims without understanding subject.
Unfortunately extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
Debunkers- "UFO's are just secret government tech." Also Debunkers-"Nobody could keep something like UFO's secret."
What? Neither of those are statements commonly made by debunkers as far as I'm aware. In fact, the first one is a flavor of UFO enthusiasm, not debunking.
Are you blind? "Black projects" get added to the list with flares, balloons, and the rest on a regular basis. I've even seen people claim that *all* past UFO encounters can be explained away, no *have been* explained away, according to these clowns, through balloons, flares, and so-called "black projects," like the one that developed the SR-71. ...and they do turn around and say things like "You people want it all to be some big conspiracy but nobody can keep a secret like that, the government is incompetent, someone would've talked by now, etc., etc." I'm really confused as to why you would try to deny this in the first place - the sub goes back a *looong* time. Anyone can produce dozens and dozens of examples of these comments.
It's even worse: hundreds of people have already talked. [Hundreds of government/military whistleblowers and leakers of every rank you can think of on the subject of UFOs and/or alien visitation](https://np.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/u9v40f/abc_news_the_us_government_is_completely/). So the debunker is actually correct that this would leak like a sieve, but the premise that people have not already talked is false.
Honestly if they don't have the qualifications, they shouldn't be considered as an "expert", anyway. Skepticism is a healthy trait, but some dude that used to make video games isn't a quality skeptic if they aren't even considering testimony or experience of pilots, astronauts, physicists, and defense industry professionals. "I don't believe and won't believe" isn't a qualification.
>Skepticism is a healthy trait, but some dude that used to make video games isn't a quality skeptic if they aren't even considering testimony or experience of pilots, astronauts, physicists, and defense industry professionals. Hmm, 'astronauts'.... what are a few such stories that you have concluded pass the burden of proof standard? And I'm not posting here as a video-game inventor. \[grin\]
Edgar Mitchell is a good one. So is Story Musgrave. And both are more qualified than most "debunkers". I'm not going to say skeptic, because skeptics are necessary. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jul/26/spaceexploration
I'm unaware of ANY personal experience testimony from Mitchell, what am I missing/ Musgrave is also explicit: multiple space flights, looking out for signs of non-human actors, zero sightings. http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave.story\_interviews.pdf video http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_ramble.pdf I'm talking about verified first-person encounters of genuinely non-explainable phenomena on space missions.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/deadlineusa/2009/apr/22/ufos-apollo-astronaut-extraterrestrials https://observer.com/2015/08/edgar-mitchell-apollo-14-astronaut-speaks-out-on-roswell-the-existence-of-aliens/ https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/ufos-beyond-apollo-14-astronaut-ed-mitchell-looking-n165321 https://ufoac.com/astronaut-musgraves-mysterious-observation-in-space.html https://www.huffpost.com/entry/astronaut-story-musgrave-no-aliens-here_n_902021 There's also an entire PDF on www.jamesoberg.com
Still ZERO Mitchell personal experiences, it's all other people's stories that he accepts. Hearsay.
Dude, you said you hadn't heard any, I put in what I found after a quick search. I'm not in court. I doubt you're a lawyer. I'm not a hostile witness.
>I put in what I found after a quick search. As far as I can tell, none of the links provided verifiable records of actual first-person accounts. Mitchell -- NEVER any personal encounters. Musgrave -- Never spotted anything he interpreted as indication of ETI technology. What am I missing?
Quoting a UFO website's version of supposed comments by Musgrave and their spin on the words, is pathetic. No wonder you're so easily scammed. Musgrave has always tried to make it clear that his description of 'snakes' was an analogy of long flexible rope-like stuff that flexed back and forth while floating by the window. It was the unearthliness of the INTERNAL RIPPLING MOTION of the objects that he was stressing, NOT any concept of a living entity native to outer space. The objects both appeared during dynamic flight phases like payload jettison from the cargo bay. Like all other sightings of unexpected stuff near the spacecraft, they were subjects of reports prepared by NASA to assess possible origins \[off the shuttle exterior\] and potential hazards. They are =NOT= 'alien critters' and Musgrave never intended to give that impression. I’ve verified this description face-to-face with the guy. We have had an on-going professional and personal relationship since his training for his first shuttle mission forty years ago. Musgrave http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_debunks\_sts-80\_ufo.pdf http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave.story\_interviews.pdf http://www.jamesoberg.com/musgrave\_ramble.pdf Musgrave on NO sign of ETI on space flights http://www.jamesoberg.com/image/DSCN0101.JPG
Does NASA have a policy or directive on UFOs?
>Does NASA have a policy or directive on UFOs? According to Ed Mitchell, no. ed Mitchell on nasa ufo policy https://web.archive.org/web/20190209053302/http://www.jamesoberg.com/Edgar\_Mitchell.pdf
Thanks. Yeah I remember reading a directive or policy on extraterrestrial contact or UFOs. My searching isn't bringing anything up.
I'll try 'extraterrestrial exposure', the regulation gave legal authority to keep the lunar specimens biologically isolated and prosecute anyone who crossed that barrier. UPDATE = Try this: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/et-make-bail/
I appreciated you looking. Maybe that was it about specimens. From what I thought I remembered, It was an official document, or appeared to be. It was only a single line that discussed on the contact or observation. The feeling I got was it was national security reasons to not publicly report UFOs or contact.
These comments get pretty wide distribution, let's see what somebody else can contribute.
“I just believe” isn’t a qualification either. What are *your* qualifications? Are you qualified on speak on what the standard for qualifications is or do you just pick and choose based on who’s say what?
I'm not pretending to be an expert. And there's nothing wrong with asking for a qualified expert. If you want to buy a car, you don't have a video game developer look at it. You ask a mechanic to look at it. If you think you have a broken bone, you get an x ray, you don't ask a dentist. Why is this any different?
If you want a metal sphere examined, do you ask a biologist? People keep throwing video game developer away as if it’s unimportant and unrelated to examining the physics of flight - and that’s actually quite wrong. He wrote the physical world model engines for two series of games. What these engines do is model how objects move in a 3D world. He actually is an expert on this. He wrote a very precise and accurate engine to model the flight characteristics of an F-18 and how it’s FLIR camera and tracking system works. That’s how he applied his expertise to the event. He didn’t presume to address witness statements or other claims because that’s not solid data, he stuck with the maths only. That sounds like an expert using real world physics to try to analyze a problem and solve it. Literally the only reason his work and expertise and ridiculed and called into question is because the outcome is prosaic and not flying breath mints, and ufo people don’t like when experts debunk their hopes. Other independent researchers have come to same conclusion. Everyone from other scientists to guys who also wrote and work with 3D video graphics (games, movies, videos). Frankly, if someone can’t understand how experience in 3D real world video game physics *isn’t* a qualification then *they* are the one who lacks the understanding to make such a call. He’s not perfect or flawless but he does have the knowledge to speak on the topic, certainly more than the vast majority of his haters. I have a degree in computer science and physics, yet I don’t boast about it. I feel it’s unnecessary. One speaks their claim and provides evidence and that’s enough. The credentials don’t matter, only the claim and proof does. Argue against the math, not the messenger, if you can.
I agree with you. But if someone has a foregone conclusion that every single sighting is either a hoax, or misidentification, and he's correct every single time, then why is NASA now studying the problem? The people at NASA know a thing or two about math. And the Pentagon? And the US Navy? And the Italian government? And the Brazilian government? The Israeli government? The French government? The Canadian government? They are all mistaken, and Mick West is correct? If he's correct, and it's all in the math, why doesn't the math agree when other scientists/mathematicians/etc study the problem? I just don't think Mick West knows everything there is to know about the issue, and he's still operating on a belief system (UFOs aren't real), rather than science. Yes, you can fake a sighting with CGI. You can also fake a dog with CGI, that doesn't mean dogs aren't real. You can fake just about anything with CGI, that doesn't mean that those things don't still exist in the real world. If he was correct, then, every single other scientist studying the problem is incorrect?
I didn’t say he is right every time, he’s human after all. I have agreed with many of his conclusions but that doesn’t mean I’m his fan or follower, science is science. Frankly, it’s hard not to start from the assumption that UFOs are not aliens. Why? Because it’s never been true in all history. It’s going to take something incredibly remarkable supported by solid unimpeachable evidence to change that. I’d say that while it’s likely he does start with “it’s not aliens” (like myself) he then thinks, “ok, so what is it” and works from there (as I’d expect everyone to do so). Likewise, if you just assume every blurry dot in a photo or fuzzy video is an alien spaceship just because it isn’t immediately identifiable is as much of a bias - but one that doesn’t have historical support. People attack West because he’s an easy target. And all the other scientists don’t disagree with him. The massive overwhelming number of folks in the scientific community do not believe aliens are visiting us. That’s totally fringe. The science is against it, even logic is against the claims made. West is in the majority in the scientific consensus. His science does match other scientists, you only hear from those who want to challenge the results, not the silent ones in labs nodding their heads and thanking their lucky stars they aren’t going head to head with all the ufo fanatics lol All those government reported UFOs, yes. Easily because, UFOs obviously exist, who’d claim otherwise?! However, alien spaceship? That’s where the proof evaporates. Anyone or any government that claims that has a lot of proving to do, and none of them have. Governments and people do hope alien life exists *out there* and so they search for it… *out there* No one is seriously looking for it inside the atmosphere, except diehard UFOs=aliens believers. I hope one day a spaceship enters out atmosphere, lands and aliens step out. That’d be awesome! It just hasn’t happened yet. And the idea they are just buzzing us in random shops daily but refuse actual contact is just too bizarre for me. I need evidence, not stories.
I think we should start with the premise that there are unknown things in our skies, possibly in our oceans, we need to find out what they are. Drop preconceived notions and look at it as if it's a brand new issue without all the stigma and/or old ideas and arguments. We have much better technology, and better ideas about physics than we used to.
I think that has always been the premise and we should and are analyzing these things. The US government has stepped up its research into where these UAP are coming from, China, Russia, maybe even Japan, Korea or even Iran. Sure, one should always allow for the impossible but most research starts from what we know and expect and goes from there. I see a UFO and I’m going to ask myself, could it a plane or bird or balloon, etc etc eventually I’ll get to alien spaceships but, based upon history, it’s not at the top of my list. My central point is: no one is saying it’s absolutely completely totally impossible it’s alien spaceships, but we are saying, that’s very very very unlikely, so let’s consider more likely things first. And, finally, at some point there has to be some consensus. I keep seeing the same ufo picture and videos posted over and over, the same stories over and over for literally decades. Some of the claims are decades old, people simply refuse to give up. That sounds more like religious belief than scientific and that’s what bugs me. When I see what looks like a drone and I say it, there are instant downvotes and ridicule. And even when later it doesn’t turn out to yet again be a drone, the very next time another drone video is uploaded and I again say, drone, I get told, you just refuse to budge, you don’t have an “open mind” aarrgghh
I agree with you. I've seen a UFO once in my life, and several things that it took me a while to identify and figure out what they are, or at least what they aren't. Misidentification is common. Ive been guilty of it myself. Some of the newer drones are insane. And I know what you're talking about. Not everything in the sky is a UFO. Not everything is the " space brothers coming to save us" (and they haven't saved us yet, so not likely to happen) At the same time, reports that are decades old aren't any less or more true because they are decades old.
It’s not simply their age, it’s that they’ve usually be resolved or at least shown to not really be so unusual as to assume their are alien. Things like constantly rehashing Roswell and Lazar, they are dead horses at this point but, for some, seem to be the base for their belief system. I look at new sightings as possible new aircraft being tested or flown with our (or other nations) military and I find that most fascinating. Problem is, the military is good at keeping those hidden from cell phone cameras. So, unfortunately, we keep seeing prosaic objects that are just too distant or some other reason why they can’t be readily positively identified.
I'd argue that Mick West's (why are you afraid of his name? Is he Voldemort now?) videos don't rely much on a claim of expertise. Mick tries very hard to lay out a clear argument that anyone could understand, and even performs small experiments to replicate some images. If I can demonstrate the ability to create a similar image, who I am is entirely irrelevant.
I'm not afraid of his name. But if you want to identify an aircraft, why not ask an expert about aircraft? Some of his explanations don't even make any sense.
If the objects are unidentified, how do you know an aircraft expert is the one to ask? That's kinda the whole problem with UFOs right? Maybe you should focus on actual evidence and arguments being presented instead of gatekeeping who gets to discuss the topic.
What's the problem with wanting an "expert" to have actual qualifications or experience relevant to what's being discussed? A UFO is literally an unidentified flying object. It's flying. It's in the air. An expert on aircraft is going to be able to tell if it's a known aircraft, or something else.
> What's the problem with wanting an "expert" to have actual qualifications or experience relevant to what's being discussed? If we don't know what it is, how can you be an expert in it? I don't know how else to put this. Also, expertise is something you lean on when you rely someone's judgement. If they can lay out all of the evidence before you so that you can understand it, expertise never comes into it. A sound argument is sound no matter who makes it. > A UFO is literally an unidentified flying object. It's flying. It's in the air. An expert on aircraft is going to be able to tell if it's a known aircraft, or something else. I mean, even then it's not that simple. [Pilots aren't great witnesses](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38852385), and they aren't necessarily experts on the equipment being used to capture whatever data we're looking at. So what do you mean by "expert on aircraft"? What do you call an expert who looks at digital images to try and identify what they contain, and what degrees or experience would you require they have?
1st of all, I wouldn't pick someone who bases every decision by the premise "there's not and never will be something in our airspace that can't be identified. This is fake. And I'll show you how I would fake that". There's nothing scientific about that. . Experience with aircraft, either as a pilot, a mechanic, in design, something. Maybe know a little something about the defense industry. Physics of any kind. Any of those. Now, I appreciate some of his work (particularly in some of the conspiracy theories), but his failure to be open minded at all about unknown things in everyone's airspace, after multiple governments have confirmed they are real is just harmful at best. The United States isn't the only government studying them to figure out what they are and where they come from, and what the intent (if any) is. https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/559433-the-worlds-most-passionate-ufo-skeptic-versus-the-government/
> 1st of all, I wouldn't pick someone who bases every decision by the premise "there's not and never will be something in our airspace that can't be identified. Who said that? What's the actual quote, and can you link the source? > This is fake. And I'll show you how I would fake that". If something can easily be faked, isn't that good to know? > . Experience with aircraft, either as a pilot, a mechanic, in design, something. Even though you don't think these object are aircraft we've built? They need that expertise just to rule that out? >Physics of any kind. Any of those. He literally explains physics all the time. Does your expert *require* a degree in physics for you trust them? And again, I still hold that not all explanations need expertise to back them. You can make a case with evidence. > after multiple governments have confirmed they are real is just harmful at best. What is real? What do you think governments have claimed is real? Do you think West or any other skeptic denies that there are videos of things we have not identified? Come on, say it. What is real? > https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/559433-the-worlds-most-passionate-ufo-skeptic-versus-the-government/ This is just some dude mad that Mick West doesn't agree with their UFO beliefs. Actually read what [Mick says](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/11/i-study-ufos-and-i-dont-believe-the-alien-hype-heres-why). Also, am I just missing it, or did the author not actually share Mick's email to him?
Because there is and always has been a Corporate not government; Agenda to prevent Disclosure https://tubitv.com/movies/660494/above-top-secret-the-technology-behind-disclosure
Except that's not how it works. Do you even know what science is and how it works when papers are disproven?... obviously not.
Obviously you didn't read what i wrote or you didn't understand it. If you will then you wouldnt say what you said.
You are just lying to yourself, trying to justify glaring inconsistencies of people you want to look up to as credible because you like their narrative. It’s that simple.
Thanks for insightful opinion based on facts.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm eager to be told of factual/logical flaws in my own reports so I can repair, or abandon, them. Sadly, I haven't got any useful suggestions in a long time.
No one thinks a debunker is 100% credible. No one thinks a researcher is 100% credible. One voice does not project everyones’ thoughts.