Best Evidence & Content that Counters Pseudo-Skepticism Regarding the Topic of UFOs
Monday, July 14, 2014
UFO Debunkers Hate Logical Thinking
Leslie Kean asks: "Is this the case UFO skeptics have been dreading?"
http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/11352800
Answer: It probably is! Ms. Kean has an article over at HuffPost: UFO Caught on Tape Over Santiago Air Base, and it's going viral!
Journalist Leslie Kean is the author of UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. The book has received praise from people as diverse as Dr. Michio Kaku, Astronomer Derek Pitts of the Franklin Institute, and Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
The case mentioned is a sighting from Chile in 2010, presented to the public in a March 13 press conference. In Ms. Kean's words:
The stunning conclusion: The Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO.
Please note: Chile's CEFAA is only one of a number of agencies established by governments that think UFOs are worthy of serious, scientific study. Those other countries are: Brazil, Peru, Equador, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, France and Britain. France's GEIPAN is part of their national space agency: CNES.
What makes this particular incident harder to dismiss?
CEFAA officials collected seven videos of the El Bosque UFO taken from different vantage points. Bermúdez commissioned scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions.
As I said, this has gone viral: There are articles on Business Insider, and MSNBC.com.
'Debunkers' like Robert Shaeffer are already weighing in on the case:
Sheaffer has admitted that he hasn't examined any of the videos: \
Here's one of the videos:
Answer: It probably is! Ms. Kean has an article over at HuffPost: UFO Caught on Tape Over Santiago Air Base, and it's going viral!
Journalist Leslie Kean is the author of UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go on the Record. The book has received praise from people as diverse as Dr. Michio Kaku, Astronomer Derek Pitts of the Franklin Institute, and Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
The case mentioned is a sighting from Chile in 2010, presented to the public in a March 13 press conference. In Ms. Kean's words:
It was a glorious, sunny morning on Nov. 5, 2010, when crowds gathered to celebrate the changing of the Air Force Command at El Bosque Air Base in Santiago. From different locations, spectators aimed video cameras and cell phones at groups of acrobatic and fighter jets performing an air show overhead. Nobody saw anything amiss.
But afterward, an engineer from the adjacent Pillán aircraft factory noticed something bizarre while viewing his footage in slow motion. He turned it over to the government's well known Committee for the Study of Anomalous Aerial Phenomena, or CEFAA, for analysis.
The stunning conclusion: The Chilean jets were being stalked by a UFO.
Please note: Chile's CEFAA is only one of a number of agencies established by governments that think UFOs are worthy of serious, scientific study. Those other countries are: Brazil, Peru, Equador, Uruguay, Argentina, Belgium, France and Britain. France's GEIPAN is part of their national space agency: CNES.
What makes this particular incident harder to dismiss?
CEFAA officials collected seven videos of the El Bosque UFO taken from different vantage points. Bermúdez commissioned scientists from many disciplines, aeronautical experts, and air force and army photogrametric technicians to subject the videos to intense scrutiny. They all came to the same conclusions.
As I said, this has gone viral: There are articles on Business Insider, and MSNBC.com.
'Debunkers' like Robert Shaeffer are already weighing in on the case:
"They're 'unexplained cases' only if you ignore the explanation. That's what's going to happen in this case."
Sheaffer has admitted that he hasn't examined any of the videos: \
Sheaffer said there wasn't yet enough data available to judge what really happened at El Bosque. "It's going to be like the Phoenix Lights in 1997. We're going to have to go and sit down and look at it," he said. (Coincidentally, Kean and Blumenthal's story came out on the 15th anniversary of the Phoenix Lights incident in Arizona.)
Here's one of the videos:
Ms. Kean has a Facebook page, linked from her website
Edited to add - for those who think the Phoenix Lights case has been thoroughly debunked: The explanation usually given was that witnesses saw flares dropped by Air Force jets during a training exercise. That's disputed by Ms. Kean and by Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington III:
Symington says he saw a large triangular "craft of unknown origin" with lights. "It was dramatic. And it couldn't have been flares because it was too symmetrical," he says. "It had a geometric outline, a constant shape."
Other witnesses also related the fact that the lights maintained a constant spacing throughout the sighting, unlike parachute flares which would drift with the wind. Also, the timing is off:
People sometimes confuse the sightings of the objects at around 8:30 that evening with the row of lights videotaped at 10 p.m. and shown repeatedly on television news. These later lights most likely were flares, according to video analysts. People who saw the earlier objects were outside watching the Hale-Bopp Comet, and saw something entirely different.
Source.
Source.
Each video included three different, mainly horizontal loops flown by the UFO within seconds of each other. The object made elliptical passes either near or around each of three sets of performing jets. It flew past the Halcones, F5s and F16s at speeds so fast it was not noticed by the pilots or anyone on the ground below.
The UFO passes the F5s.
Images show it as a dome-shaped, flat-bottomed object with no visible means of propulsion. The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets.
Close up of the UFO from the Halcones video.
This extraordinary machine was flying at velocities too high to be man-made. Scientists have estimated the speed, depending on the size of the object, to be at least 4000 - 6000 mph. Humans inside this object could not survive. And, somehow, it made no sonic boom, a noise similar to thunder which occurs whenever something exceeds the speed of sound (750 mph at sea level).
The shock waves generated from an object at such high velocities would normally be enormous. But no known aircraft or drone could possibly fly this fast at such low altitudes anyway. Our fastest air-breathing jet, the SR-71, has a maximum speed of just over 2,000 mph, but that's at high altitudes.
And, this strange object is clearly operating under intelligent control. It zooms toward each set of jets at about their height, circles around and zooms back out again. Pilots who were shown the trajectory of the object in the three flybys were amazed that this maneuver is characteristic of reconnaissance aircraft coming in for a quick look at others in the sky.
Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.
"The object performed a risky flight maneuver in front of the Halcones from W-E-W, at low altitude and high speed," Barrera concluded. "It had intentional movements. It moved east with 25 degrees inclination, which is the same angle of spacecraft when entering the atmosphere."
Images show it as a dome-shaped, flat-bottomed object with no visible means of propulsion. The rounded top reflects the sun and appears metallic; the bottom is darker and flat, emitting some form of energy which is visible in photo analysis. Infrared studies show the entire object is radiating heat, just like the jets.
This extraordinary machine was flying at velocities too high to be man-made. Scientists have estimated the speed, depending on the size of the object, to be at least 4000 - 6000 mph. Humans inside this object could not survive. And, somehow, it made no sonic boom, a noise similar to thunder which occurs whenever something exceeds the speed of sound (750 mph at sea level).
The shock waves generated from an object at such high velocities would normally be enormous. But no known aircraft or drone could possibly fly this fast at such low altitudes anyway. Our fastest air-breathing jet, the SR-71, has a maximum speed of just over 2,000 mph, but that's at high altitudes.
And, this strange object is clearly operating under intelligent control. It zooms toward each set of jets at about their height, circles around and zooms back out again. Pilots who were shown the trajectory of the object in the three flybys were amazed that this maneuver is characteristic of reconnaissance aircraft coming in for a quick look at others in the sky.
Astronomer Luis Barrera from the Metropolitan University of Sciences in Chile, who has an asteroid named after him, was one of eight highly skeptical scientists who analyzed the footage. He was able to rule out a meteoroid, pieces of meteors or comets, space junk, a bird or an airplane.
"The object performed a risky flight maneuver in front of the Halcones from W-E-W, at low altitude and high speed," Barrera concluded. "It had intentional movements. It moved east with 25 degrees inclination, which is the same angle of spacecraft when entering the atmosphere."
Sunday, July 13, 2014
DEBUNKING EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
Excerpt from the article, "Zen ... and the Art of Debunkery Or, How to Debunk Just About Anything."
DEBUNKING EXTRATERRESTRIAL INTELLIGENCE
• Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is
just that, and cannot automatically be assumed to be an alien spacecraft. Do
this whether or not anyone involved has assumed it to
be an alien spacecraft.
• Label all concepts such as antigravity or
interdimensional mobility as "mere flights of fancy" because "phenomena having
no conventional explanation cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft
is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic
speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the
report.
• Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.
• Concede that life elsewhere in the universe is statistically probable, but that if it existed it couldn't possibly get here from there because we can't get there from here.
• Point out that the SETI program (which believes ET civilizations communicate via Earth's 20th-century radio technology, and which listens fruitlessly for such signals from deep space) assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this faith-based assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.
• If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the military project.
• When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, declare that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only possible exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn -- the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of debunkers as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!
• If crack military pilots flying state-of-the-art aircraft report having closely pursued or radar-tracked UFOs, assert that in most cases they must have seen Venus or Jupiter, and that pilot incompetence and poor equipment must have accounted for the rest. If one of these objects was confirmed to have hovered motionlessly for a matter of minutes before taking off at blinding speed, attribute it to a "government missile test gone wrong."
• If photographs or videos depicting anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!
• Declare that "95 percent of all UFO sightings have been explained, and the remaining five percent are probably cases of mistaken identity." This will get people arguing about the remaining five percent, effectively heading off any embarrassing questions about the actual grounds upon which the claimed 95 percent might originally have been "explained."
• Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if alien visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.
• Insist that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of extraterrestrial behavior suits your arguments!
• Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already well established in the popular imagination. If a reported ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"
• When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward, accuse them of "seeking the limelight with their outlandish stories!"
• Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science-fiction" the notion that alien understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation of the matter.
• Travel to an isolated, indigenous village in the heart of the Amazonian jungle. Upon returning, report that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves no UFOs are reported outside cultures whose populations are overexposed to trashy science fiction.
• Though hypnotic regression by a multitude of therapists and researchers has yielded consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent cases, declare that hypnosis is unreliable at the best of times and is always worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the ET-contact literature, and that, regardless of their skills, credentials and codes of ethics, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading questions.
• Avoid mentioning the many contact and abduction cases in which the experiencers' memories were readily recalled, with no need for hypnosis.
• If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a sighting or contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.
• Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government coverup of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!
• When government agencies, with their state-of-the-art security measures, multiple clearance levels, impenetrable compartmentalization and so forth, are accused of a UFO coverup, insist that a coverup is impossible because "everyone knows the government can't keep secrets!" Ignore the legacy of the Manhattan Project, any number of other top-secret military and intelligence operations , and the entirety of those incalculably costly, utterly opaque activities funded by the United States Congress' Black Budget.
• Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in the existence of conspiracies! Insist that only accidentalist theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.
• If you represent the military, assure the public that the military doesn't study UFOs because "it's been determined that UFOs are not a threat to national security." Sidestep the questions of how in heaven's name such a determination could even have been made, and why the military, which has always been first in line to diligently analyze advanced foreign technology, has abandoned all curiosity and is now diligently looking the other way.
Saturday, July 12, 2014
Stellar UFO Coverage from the Spooky Weather Blog
06 Jun 2014
06 Jun 2014
Richard Dolan: UFOs and 9/11 (Understanding the Two Greatest Conspiracies of our Time). Richard Dolan speaks about the parallels, overlaps and significance of the UFO and 9/11 cover-ups. Talk given at Conspiracycon ...
29 Jan 2014
29 Jan 2014
The overall problem with Tyson's declaration that UFOs do not necessarily equate to aliens, and that your own lack of expertise requires you to not jump to conclusions, and that the sightings could be anything mundane, is the ...
02 May 2013
02 May 2013
The photographer, Rob Hartland, discovers the UFOs when reviewing the thousands of photos he takes of the sky. According to Perth Now, Hartland has taken more than 20,000 photos of the day-time sky in the past six ...
13 Nov 2007
13 Nov 2007
Several pilots offered dramatic accounts of witnessing UFOs - including a transparent flying disc and a triangular craft with mysterious markings - as they insisted their questions needed to be taken seriously more than 30 ...
07 Dec 2011
07 Dec 2011
The Skeptics on the issue of UFOs are absolutely wrong in their analysis of the data. Official studies into the sighting reports actually confirm that a significant percentage represent real and unique phenomena (ie UFOs).
17 Mar 2013
17 Mar 2013
Abby then talks to BTS producer, Manuel Rapalo, about UFO phenomena by highlighting a few notable cases of UFO sightings in the US. Abby then talks to Max Keiser, host of the 'Keiser Report', banks that are 'too big to ...
18 Nov 2008
18 Nov 2008
“Since when is name-calling a scientist's appropriate response to something?” he says. “He calls me a charlatan without giving any reason for it, and he labels UFOs a pseudoscience without stating why. It's science by ...
07 Jul 2009
07 Jul 2009
It's like UFO enthusiasts. The mainstream knows there's something crazy about UFOs. But they just right now don't know what, so they don't give the UFO enthusiasts very much airtime at all, unless it's some 'human interest' ...
12 Dec 2010
12 Dec 2010
There is actually a large element of truth to the claims that the US Government is concealing information about UFOs. Despite the opinions of some great anti-corruption commentators, there is more to the UFO/disclosure ...
14 Oct 2010
14 Oct 2010
Well, if one considers various military documents that take seriously the UFO situation then it is likely that as part of the cover up a decision was made by those managing NASA (in the early days) to downplay evidence of life ...
01 Jan 2009
01 Jan 2009
Whenever they present you, in any kind of public discussion, it's most often in the context of the other crazies like you, ...the ones who think UFOs and aliens were responsible, or those who have been listening to Elvis for ...
10 Nov 2013
10 Nov 2013
The idea that reports of UFOs could not represent the visitation to the Earth of a technological civilisation, or a number of them, in the face of this data, seems very unlikely. If we are being observed by advanced forms of life we ...
http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/
Check back at the site from time to time and search for "ufos" in the search box bottom-right.
Check back at the site from time to time and search for "ufos" in the search box bottom-right.
Skeptics vs. Believers: Let’s Do the Math on UFOs
It seems every time I peruse a website addressing the UFO subject, I see articles from skeptics that usually begin with a title such as “Is this a UFO, or a tractor?” This just seems like shooting fish in a barrel. Of course it’s a tractor. Or a balloon. Or Jupiter. Or swamp gas!
The fact is that most all who are interested in the subject would agree that all but a few percent of sightings reported are explainable as some kind of natural object or phenomena. So do we really need an article that exemplifies that well known fact? Of course it is a tractor. It’s just a tractor that looks a lot like a space ship when seen in the right light.
Stanton Friedman has a very good formula that defines skeptics at his website. And though the “Father of Roswell Ufology” is pretty savage in the way he treats skeptics, they are usually no less so in their treatment of believers. But Stan can cite decades of research on one incident, which obviously leads to expertise. Most skeptics spend very little time researching one incident, comparatively speaking. But then, that’s what happens when you only have five percent of the total with which to work.
But seriously, with all the new science happening and the building consensus that we will find life outside this planet, isn’t it time to quit talking about swamp gas? A good first step in this process would be if the mainstream media would become less snarky on the subject. Is it any wonder that true experts tend to avoid mainstream news shows? James Fox, an otherwise well respected UFO researcher, learned this lesson when he agreed to star in Chasing UFOs on the National Geographic Channel. He seemed more surprised than anyone at the final cut made by the network, which as usual made a mockery of the entire subject. James found out that he was appearing in just one more show where people run around at night with fancy equipment, but this one just features more profanity. How many more “___ Hunter” shows do we need anyway?
What a weird paradox. We have been trained well by the mainstream media, who cannot broach the subject without wearing smirks on their faces and acting as if the whole subject is beneath them and worth derision and ridicule. Yet these are the same media who devoted weeks to coverage of Anna Nicole‘s death and whether or not to tube-feed Terri Schiavo. The same media who spent all day watching O.J. Simpson being driven in his getaway car at a blazing 35 mph, puts something as potentially life changing as extraterrestrial visitation at the end of the newscast with the puppy stories and other weird news. In fact, The Huffington Post will publish this under “Weird News.” My question is, why is this subject “weird”? It seems to me that it is of extreme national security
concern that unknown objects are invading our air space, messing with our nukes, and our military seems powerless to intervene. If people really are being abducted and experimented upon, is everyone alright with that?
These are questions that deserve serious, well-funded study. But presently, it is a very rare scientist who does not do his research on UFOs by paying his own way. Virtually no one receives grants for funding, like those who study more traditional subject matter. And while there is no doubt in my mind that greenhouse gasses will gravely wound civilization if left unchecked, it will take years. And that can be seen asa
Source:
http://www.etupdates.com/2012/08/31/skeptics-vs-believers-lets-do-the-math-on-ufos/#.U8ID-stOUdU
The fact is that most all who are interested in the subject would agree that all but a few percent of sightings reported are explainable as some kind of natural object or phenomena. So do we really need an article that exemplifies that well known fact? Of course it is a tractor. It’s just a tractor that looks a lot like a space ship when seen in the right light.
- Let’s Get Serious
Stanton Friedman has a very good formula that defines skeptics at his website. And though the “Father of Roswell Ufology” is pretty savage in the way he treats skeptics, they are usually no less so in their treatment of believers. But Stan can cite decades of research on one incident, which obviously leads to expertise. Most skeptics spend very little time researching one incident, comparatively speaking. But then, that’s what happens when you only have five percent of the total with which to work.
But seriously, with all the new science happening and the building consensus that we will find life outside this planet, isn’t it time to quit talking about swamp gas? A good first step in this process would be if the mainstream media would become less snarky on the subject. Is it any wonder that true experts tend to avoid mainstream news shows? James Fox, an otherwise well respected UFO researcher, learned this lesson when he agreed to star in Chasing UFOs on the National Geographic Channel. He seemed more surprised than anyone at the final cut made by the network, which as usual made a mockery of the entire subject. James found out that he was appearing in just one more show where people run around at night with fancy equipment, but this one just features more profanity. How many more “___ Hunter” shows do we need anyway?
- This Subject Deserves Better
What a weird paradox. We have been trained well by the mainstream media, who cannot broach the subject without wearing smirks on their faces and acting as if the whole subject is beneath them and worth derision and ridicule. Yet these are the same media who devoted weeks to coverage of Anna Nicole‘s death and whether or not to tube-feed Terri Schiavo. The same media who spent all day watching O.J. Simpson being driven in his getaway car at a blazing 35 mph, puts something as potentially life changing as extraterrestrial visitation at the end of the newscast with the puppy stories and other weird news. In fact, The Huffington Post will publish this under “Weird News.” My question is, why is this subject “weird”? It seems to me that it is of extreme national security
concern that unknown objects are invading our air space, messing with our nukes, and our military seems powerless to intervene. If people really are being abducted and experimented upon, is everyone alright with that?These are questions that deserve serious, well-funded study. But presently, it is a very rare scientist who does not do his research on UFOs by paying his own way. Virtually no one receives grants for funding, like those who study more traditional subject matter. And while there is no doubt in my mind that greenhouse gasses will gravely wound civilization if left unchecked, it will take years. And that can be seen asa
Source:
http://www.etupdates.com/2012/08/31/skeptics-vs-believers-lets-do-the-math-on-ufos/#.U8ID-stOUdU
Friday, July 11, 2014
Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies on ET/UFO
A reader comments on the article below:
Cheers .... I particularly like this opening para that sums up the fact that people have to take into consideration the evidence, the facts accumulated, and then draw conclusions from that ... rather than dismiss or make up stuff that is not draw from the data ..."That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic."
DebunkingSkeptics.com
by Indigo Child
I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.
I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.
I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.
I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.
I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.
That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.
From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.
Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.
Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.
Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.
My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.
The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.
In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.
Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.
All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.
In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.
Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.
Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.
Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.
Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.
Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.
Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.
Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc
Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.
There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.
So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.
I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.
Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.
Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.
The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities
Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.
Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.
If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:
The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.
Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:
1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"
The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.
These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.
Cheers .... I particularly like this opening para that sums up the fact that people have to take into consideration the evidence, the facts accumulated, and then draw conclusions from that ... rather than dismiss or make up stuff that is not draw from the data ..."That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic."
DebunkingSkeptics.com
by Indigo Child
I had composed the following article for the Above Top Secret UFO forum. I am reposting it here because it is very relevant to this forum.
I think there is a very severe problem of pseudoskepticism in the UFO community that impairs progressive research. I think the UFO community can benefit from clear thinking, and thus I am writing this brief primer on logic focussed particularly on the subject matter of Aliens and UFO’s. I will discuss the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics and offer a rebuttal.
I first want to clarify what I am not attempting to do.
I am not attempting to prove anything. Simply because I am going to debunk common pseudoskeptical arguments, does not mean that the believers arguments have been proven. Rather, all I am going to do is use the principle of non-contradiction in logic and show that the arguments used by pseudoskeptics are logically contradictory.
I am not vilifying skepticism. It is not possible for me to vilify skepticism without contradicting my own skepticism. We are all believers and skeptics, only that what we believe and what we are sceptical about varies from person to person.
That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgement until they have explored all available evidence in a case. A skeptic is thus an investigator and their job is to investigate. Then, after the investigation is complete, the skeptic is able to offer a hypothesis which can account for all of the available data. Somebody who does not investigate a case is not a skeptic, they are merely doubters. Somebody who attempts to investigate, but makes suppositions and does not take into account all available evidence, but distorts evidence to fit their hypothesis is a pseudoskeptic.
From hereon we will look at the common fallacious arguments used by pseudoskeptics in the context of Aliens and UFO’s. I do not claim to be exhaustive, I can only look at a limited set of arguments. If there are arguments not covered that that you think are fallacious and want me to debunk them, just request it and I will attempt to do so in another post.
Now let us look at the common fallacies one by one.
Argument: There is no proof or evidence that ET exists. Yes, it is true that the SETI equation shows that the probability of ET is very likely, but this is not proof in and of itself, only a mathematical possibility. Therefore ETH is not a valid explanation.
Rebuttal: This is an invalid and logically contradictory argument. For the following reasons
1) There is significant evidence and proof that ET exists. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate this evidence and 'proof' and come to a judgement on it.
2) The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact. Planet Earth is a planet and it is teeming with very diverse life, and it is commonly accepted by science that life appeared on this planet quickly after the Earth was born. It is an empirical fact that the phenomenon of life on planets is a part of our observable universe. Therefore there is no reason to speculate that life cannot be possible elsewhere.
My opponent may argue that it is possible that life only formed on planet Earth and nowhere else. They may even point out that sample size I have of life in the universe is only one instance and this is not enough to make a generalization.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from possibility fallacy. It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life. Mere possibility is not enough to make a case.
The opponents argument is also self-contradictory. It is possible that there are no other minds in the world, I am the only one that has mind and everybody else is either a machine or imaginary. There is only one instance of mind, my own mind, so can I generalise from such a sample? The chances are the opponent takes this generalization for granted in his everyday life. In which case I can take ET for granted as well.
In conclusion: ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.
Argument: It impossible for ET to travel here. The distances in space are astronomical, it would take thousands, if not millions of years to reach planet Earth even at the speed of light. But it is impossible to travel at the speed of light.
Rebuttal: This is an argument from incredulity. The opponent does not believe a ET would make a trip from their home planet to Earth because the time it would take to get here is perceived to be too long and so it is unbelievable that ET would try. Just because something seems unbelievable it does not mean it cannot happen. It is unbelievable that somebody would survive a fall from a very high building, but it does happen. It is assumed that that the ET would be using FTL. Not necessarily. There are space craft planned on Earth that can reach a high percentage of the speed of light and they use as propulsion sources of energy available in the universe(hydrogen, sunlight) Thus an ET craft could do the same. Finally, the limitation of the speed of light does not apply to ET. This is because the speed limit of the speed light is one based on the predicates of General Relativity theory which states that if a mass is accelerated towards the speed of light its mass would become infinite and thus it would need an infinite amount of energy. Therefore FTL is impossible This is only a theory, there is no scientific theory which is conclusive or proven. A theory is only based on observations made in an observable universe and when new observations are made theories have to be adjusted, sometimes even rejected. As ET’s are a part of an unobservable universe, we cannot generalise any of our scientific theories to them. So none of the predicates of GR actually apply to them.
All observations made in science are effects only, not causes. Mass itself is an effect, not a cause. Therefore finding a way to manipulate causes will manipulate effects. Take for example electricity, an electric current produced by a generator is an effect. When one learns the antecedent causes for the generation of electricity, one can manipulate the electric current generated with a transformer. There is no reason to believe that an ET race cannot learn to manipulate the mass-effects caused by the speed of light travel or overcome the speed of light barrier.
In conclusion: The argument that ET cannot get to Earth is invalid.
Argument: It is completely absurd that that an advanced ET race would come here and fly around in our skies like drunk pilots, abduct humans, make crop circles and mutilate cows.
Rebuttal: This is again the fallacy of incredulity. If something seems unbelievable to us, it does not mean it does not happen. The behaviour of an alien race may seem strange to us, but then again behaviours of other cultures on our planet seem strange. Some cultures have rituals where the offspring kills their parents when they reach old age. That’s even stranger to me than some alien race doing any of the aforementioned.
Abduction for the purposes of scientific investigation is not really strange at all. We humans are constantly abducting animals for the purpose of scientific investigation. So we have no valid objection to the abduction phenomena, other than perhaps an ethical objection.
Argument: If ET exists and are visiting us, why don’t they just reveal themselves? Why would they hide? Its illogical.
Rebuttal: But who says they are hiding? They maybe hiding from some, but it does not mean they are hiding from everyone. There are many people who claim they have encountered ET directly and many high-level witnesses in the government that have claimed contact has taken place. If their claims are true, ET is only hiding from some and not everyone.
Why would ET not reveal themselves? I am tempted to give the usual speculative explanation of an intergalactic prime directive, but I will desist. Instead the objection of the opponent can be dismissed like the previous argument. It is another argument from incredulity fallacy.
Argument: There is no scientific physical evidence of UFO‘s. No UFO samples. No ET DNA samples etc
Rebuttal: This is an impossible demand. If any of this evidence even existed, what are the chances that this evidence would be mailed to the opponents home address for their personal inspection? Highly unlikely. Most people will have to rely on the authority of scientific experts who have handled the evidence. As they cannot handle the evidence themselves, they will have to simply trust the scientists.
There is a big problem with evidence from testimony. It is subject to whether you believe the authority or disbelieve them. There are many authority figures who have actually claimed to have handled UFO’s, ET’s and ET metal samples. Marcel Vogel, the award winning scientist from IBM, publicly stated that the metal sample Billy Meier(the ET contactee) gave him could not have been manufactured on this Earth. The officials in the Roswell case who claim to have handled the UFO metal debris claim the metal has alien properties(it sounds very similar to modern shape memory alloys) Some scientists have testified that transistors are actually reverse engineered ET technology.
So it is not the case that there are not authorities figures who have not handled ET physical evidence. If the opponent is genuinely sincere about their argument, now that it has been demonstrated such evidence allegedly exists and some scientists have handled it, they should accept it as proof. If not, the opponent must withdraw their argument as invalid because of their duplicity.
I anticipate an objection. The objection is that there are no peer reviewed scientific physical evidence of UFO’s, therefore any scientific evidence that is not peer reviewed must be dismissed. This argument is invalid, because it commit’s the fallacy of appealing to an authority of some entity(a peer group) If some authority dismisses a scientists evidence, it does not mean that the scientists evidence is false, it simply means the authority doesn't like it.
Argument: If we accept ET UFO’s exist and is visiting us, then we may also have to accept goblins, big foot, loch ness monster and whatever to exists.
Rebuttal: This is a slippery slope fallacy. There is absolutely no premise that entails that if you accept ET’s existence you have to accept other paranormal claims. All different paranormal claims, just like any claim, is to be treated individually.
The opponent may counter by saying that it is difficult to distinguish a UFO from other claimed paranormal phenomena(spirits, plasma balls, orbs). This maybe true in some cases, but not all. In cases which describe actual physical crafts, sometimes in rather vivid details, except these physical craft are displaying alien behaviour and look alien, one can eliminate all of the other paranormal possibilities
Argument: The UFO and ET reports by individuals are not necessarily true. They may claim a physical aircraft, but their data could be wrong. They could be lying, they could have misidentified something else for the UFO such as planet Venus, car headlights, swamp gas.
Rebuttal: Merely argument from possibility is not enough. Yes, all the above counter-hypothesis may be true, but they may be false as well. It is the job of the skeptic to investigate all the available data, eliminate all hypothesis that do not fit the data, and then come up with a hypothesis that explains the available data.
If the skeptic does not do that and instead makes suppositions, distorts the data, dismisses available data ,then it is invalid. Here is a simple hypothetical example of a distortion of data:
UFO witness: I saw it as clear as I can see you right now. It was metallic, it was emitting a bright orange glow and it hovered right above me on the road. You know like that film Independence day, the mother ship just hovers above. It was just like that. It wasn't only me who saw it, but my girlfriend as well. I am not lying I swear. I never believed in this stuff before, but I guess seeing is believing.
Skeptic: You said it was on the road, how do you know that it was not just the headlight of a car or truck?
UFO witness: Dude, I know what the headlight of a car or truck looks like. I've been driving on the road for 20 years. This was not a headlight.
Skeptic: How can you be sure? If you were the on road and a very bright headline shines in your face, it is hard to see anything clearly and then its easy to imagine that there is something large in front of you. Are you telling me it is impossible that you are not mistaken?
UFO witness: No, I am not saying that. Its always possible that one can be mistaken, but is it possible that both me and my girlfriend are mistaken.?
Skeptic: Yes, loads of people may all agree they see a ghost, only to later find out it was a lighthouse. Shared delusions are possible.
UFO witness: Look, I see what you are saying, but I believe 100% that I saw a UFO. I have never had an experience like this ever in my entire life.
Skeptic: Then you agree it is just a belief you saw the UFO. Then my job is done. Case dismissed.
The dialogue above is inspired slightly by the movie contact, when Jodie Foster in the end has to admit to the skeptics that as a scientist it is possible that she did not experience her journey. The tactics employed by the skeptic above are similar to tactics lawyers use in court rooms. It is not scientific at all and nor is it ethical. It is a bastardization of scientific research.
Let us look at the problems in the skeptics dialogue with the UFO witness:
1. The skeptic is overtly influencing the UFO witness and asking him leading questions
2. The skeptic is using arguments from possibility to negate the UFO witness experience - "It is possible you saw a car headlight" it is also possible that he did not see a headlight, but a UFO. Therefore it is an invalid argument.
3. The skeptic is not listening to the UFO witness, everything the witness says is explained away using the argument from possibility fallacy - "My girlfriend also saw it" - "But it is possible it was a shared delusion"
The skeptic fails to account for the available evidence in this witness testimony. He claims that it was a headlight of some car, but the witness tells him he knows what a headlight looks like. The skeptic should be rejecting his hypothesis now, but instead he ends up debating it with the UFO witness. Then the UFO witness reveals that more than one witness say it, making it unlikely that two people would be seeing a hovering metallic, orange light emitting mothership in a headlight. Nor does the skeptic explain how a car headlight could look like the described UFO.
These tactics are all fallacies and rhetoric, but regularly used by pseudoskeptics to dismiss everything they don't like. Pilot testimonies - "It is possible that the pilot was dreaming" Radar reports - "It is possible the radar equipment malfunctioned" In all these cases the skeptic is debating a counter-claim and thus has a burden of proof themselves, but they behave as if they are immune from it.
