Floyd Remained a Devout UFO Skeptic Until the Bitter End

Two Pilots That Went from UFO Debunkers to UFO Believers

"Listed here in the chronology section of NICAP's 'UFO Evidence' report there's a pretty fascinating UFO encounter from over Jackson, Alabama on November 14th, 1956 where a pilot and co-pilot both witnessed a 'brilliant bluish-white light' perform highly unusual flight characteristics near their aircraft.

The UFO's maneuvers were said to last for 30 seconds and described as 'rising and falling, darting back and forth, instant 90° turns, then hovering motionless again' - when the control tower radioed the aircraft the object began another series of 'crazy gyrations, lazy 8's, square chandelles with undulating motion' and then shot out over the Gulf of Mexico in a steep climb at 'fantastic speed'.

What makes this case all the more interesting (or 'splendidly ironic' as it mentions in this book) is the fact that the main witness pilot Captain W. J. Hull was a published anti-UFO skeptic who had already written a 'debunking' article in an Airline Pilot magazine three years before."...

https://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien-discussions/54518-ufo-skeptic-pilot-witnesses-ufo-near-aircraft.html

"An 83-year-old Air Force pilot tasked with debunking alien sightings in the 1950s has revealed how he himself once saw a UFO."...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/15/air-force-ufo-richard-french_n_3277318.html

"Lt. Col. Richard French, a 29 1/2 year veteran of the US Air Force describes an encounter where he came upon a down UFO that was underwater and the beings who were working on the ship."

Debunking the UFO Debunkers by Patrick Cooke

A common phrase, often heard in our modern world, is "that's a bunch of bunk", or some variation of that phrase. The word "bunk" has become synonymous with nonsense, lies, and myth, and is even tied to the type of criminal known as the con man, also called a Bunko artist. The word has a recent etymology, being a shortened version of the word "bunkum", which is an alternate spelling of Buncombe. In a February, 1820 session of the U.S. House of Representatives Representative Felix Walker from Buncombe County, North Carolina gave a rambling speech before that body. The speech had little relevance to the concurrent debate in the House, and Walker refused to yield the floor, informing his colleagues that his speech was not intended for Congress, but that he was "speaking for Buncombe." It became a widely-accepted synonym in Washington for any bombastic political posturing or an oratorical display not accompanied by conviction. To "debunk" now means to expose the sham or falseness of something, thus implying that the debunker is presumed to be unmasking, poking fun at, or exposing an imposter, or something that is pure nonsense.

As a ufologist, an autonomous theologian, and social researcher, I am the target of debunkers from the broadest range of debunkers imaginable. My work reveals the cover-up of UFOs and challenges the common concepts of UFOs, it uncovers the contradictions and misconceptions of mainstream Christian doctrines and beliefs, and calls into question many social, academic, scientific, political, and historical improprieties and misinformation and disingenuousness. Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham. I found, through years of experience that his tactics were very similar to those used by almost every UFO skeptic in the field. Anyone armed with the knowledge of how debunkers operate can see common threads in the way they argue their points and counter them.

 It almost always starts with a condescending and self-assured attitude, which suggests that the debunker's points are backed by the full faith and credit of God. Dismissive terms such as ridiculous, absurd, trivial, or even pathetic are used to make the UFO believer seem ignorant and gullible. Science is used as the Holy Grail of reality, which bravely defending common sense against the unruly hordes of quacks and myth-worshiping infidels. Arguments are as abstract and theoretical as possible, but presented in a manner that makes science superior to any actual evidence that might challenge it, making such evidence seem to be completely worthless. They constantly reinforce the popular misconception that anything that challenges the status quo must be inherently unscientific. They deliberately confuse the “process” of science with the “content” of science.

The use of socially accepted authority figures, whether their expertise is in any discipline even related to the UFO field, or not, is common. The degree to which they can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of authorities they cite. This gives them the latitude of asserting that their statements are "facts", while those of the UFO believers are only "claims". They can, therefore, completely avoid examining the actual evidence and say, with impunity, that there is absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims as the existence of UFOs. This technique has withstood the test of time and dates back to before the time of Galileo, when the Church, by simply refusing to look through his telescope, gave the ecclesiastical authorities centuries worth of denial that the world was not the center of the universe. It then becomes possible to dismiss a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests as without substance.

The debunkers use the science as a weapon and accuse UFO believers of viewing science in fuzzy, subjective, or metaphysical terms and downplay the fact that free inquiry, legitimate disagreement and respectful debate are a normal part of science. At every opportunity, they reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is, therefore, irrational and, consequently, inadmissible as evidence and, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional. They also maintain that in investigations of unconventional phenomena, a single flaw or misstep invalidates the whole. They assert that if absolute proof is lacking, there is no evidence. Conversely, they claim that if sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomenon, evidence alone proves nothing. This will eliminate the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation, particularly if no criteria of proof have yet been established for the phenomenon in question. And, in a seemingly logical argument, they insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist. No matter the weight of evidence proving the existence of UFOs, they simply claim that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" taking care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow them to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon, which always lies just out of reach.

Another common practice of UFO debunkers is by lumping all phenomena, popularly deemed paranormal, together. In this way they can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines from one case to another to support their views, as needed. If a claim, having some superficial similarity to the one at hand, has been or is assumed to have been exposed as fraudulent, it is cited as if it were an appropriate example. As in real estate where "location, location, location" is the best selling tactic, UFO debunkers use "ridicule, ridicule, ridicule" to hammer at the concept they are attacking As, far and away, the single most effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation, ridicule has the unique power to make people completely limp, and fails to wither only those few of sufficiently independent thought.

Trivializing the case by trivializing the entire field in question is common with debunkers. Simply characterizing the study of unorthodox phenomena as "bogus" allows the debunker to state emphatically that there is nothing there to study. They accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in invisible forces and extrasensory realities. They also try to discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit part of the story, taking one element of a case completely out of context and finding something prosaic that hypothetically “could” explain it. With one element having been "explained" away, they can then claim that the entire case has been "explained". They know that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and will tend to reject the whole of a concept, if only part seems to be in question.

The tactic of labeling any phenomenon as occult, paranormal, metaphysical, mystical, or supernatural will turn off most mainstream scientists or people with religious or conservative leanings immediately, on purely emotional grounds. Asking unanswerable questions based on arbitrary criteria of proof is popular, as well. For instance, why hasn't religion or science addressed this, or if UFOs were real why aren't there clear pictures or videos? And, of course, as a last resort, why haven't they landed on the White House lawn? Another effective strategy used, with a long history of success, if the media reports UFO sightings, is to claim that it is for the shock or comedy value alone. Pointing out that the area where the sighting has occurred is using it for profit, (selling T shirts, etc.), or that those reporting the sightings are only looking for that elusive "15 seconds of fame" gives it an air of pure "hype". If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, they hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth. When a witness states something in a manner that is scientifically imperfect, they instantly treat this statement as if it were not scientific, at all. If the claimant is not a credentialed scientist, they argue that his or her cliams cannot possibly be scientifically correct. And, the assertion that only scientists, particularly astronomers, are "trained observers" immediately dismisses police officers, pilots, air controllers, or virtually anybody else reporting a sighting as totally unqualified to verify anything they see.

If they are unable to attack the facts of the case, they attack the participants or the journalists who reported the case. Ad hominem arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue. If an investigator or chronicler of the unorthodox has profited financially from activities connected with their research, this is positive proof that they are only in it for the money. If their research, publishing, or speaking tours constitute their normal line of work or sole means of support, that is used as conclusive proof that they are only profiteers of sensationalism. If they have labored to achieve public recognition of their work, they characterize them as publicity seekers. The tactic of "shooting the messenger" to ignore the message is common, and even extends to the ridiculous practice of claiming that if someone just investigating the incident is blemished, the whole incident is questionable. If experts in related fields are involved, debunkers focus on the most minor details of their credentials, again pointing out the erroneous assertion that only astronomers are experts on the UFO question, with the necessary knowledge to speak on such issue. This, even though, course credit in ufology has never been a prerequisite for a degree in astronomy. If all else fails, they fabricate entire research projects, by declaring that such claims have been thoroughly discredited by the “top experts in the field”, whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.

Finally, the tactic of choice is to debunk UFOs by debunking the concept of extraterrestrials. Debunkers declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. They argue that all reports of extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of life on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. They completely avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place. They use nature's laws as proof that interstellar travel by extraterrestrials is impossible, because it would, obviously, violate nature's laws. They base their notions of logic on how terrestrials would, or wouldn't, behave on how "they" determine such behavior should be. Since terrestrials can behave in all kinds of ways, they can theorize whatever kind of behavior they want extraterrestrials to exhibit, to suit their arguments. They, of course, point out that the government-sponsored SETI program assumes, in advance, that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth and, thus, this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

There are, of course, many other tactics used by UFO debunkers and this writing covers only the most common tactics used. The important thing to consider is that debunkers are probably guiltier of practicing the very tactics they claim UFO believers are guilty of using. Being aware of the tactics debunkers use is important, but using logic in answering them, and not being intimidated by their self-assured and dismissive attitudes, is essential. They prey on weakness, thrive on ignorance, and survive, only on their ability to baffle the believer with the power of ridicule. While the attacked is defending against the attack, the debunker is constantly and rapidly shifting the argument in several different directions and changing the strategy of attack. They answer questions with questions, challenges with dismissal, and logic with unsupported facts. They must be nailed down and not allowed to bob and weave around the issue. Insisting that they back their assertions, answer questions and challenges, and engage in the debate, instead of skirting every issue with a constant attack on the credibility of any issue they confront, will change the outcome. They do not deal in honest discourse; they only know how to use the tactics they have learned, and any diversion from those tactics will turn the tide against them.

Hindsight is 20/20, and there is seldom a better time to realize how the debunker has won the argument or “seemed” to have, then by reviewing the encounter after the fact. In the heat of battle the obvious flaws in the debunker’s methods are blurry, but in reviewing the encounter those methods become blatantly obvious. Having appeared on many talk shows, several times with veteran debunkers, I have learned this, all too well. The best way to counter debunkers is to listen to their rhetoric, learn their methods, and how to counter them. This takes study and careful attention to the subtle details of the debunker’s methods. They are as weak as their baseless arguments and can be easily defeated, with patience and determination. They will always be with us, but they will always use the same time-worn and easily countered tactics. With minds filled with swamp gas and eyes that can only see Venus, they are easy to defeat.

http://ufodigest.com/news/0108/debunkers.html

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:

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.