Undebunking UFOs

Friday, February 7, 2014

Response to Neil De Grasse Tyson quote: UFOs are only unidentified, Not necessarily aliens.

Me: true, but depending on the type of observation made, and post observation analysis by experts (astronomers for instance), one can rationally rule out certain things in certain circumstances. Often we can say that it cannot possibly be X (Venus) or X (aircraft) or X (meteors) leaving the observation something outside what we can easily categorise. The question here is whether the observation represents new phenomena without having to answer using the ET hypothesis. IMHO some observations certainly appear to represent new phenomena - following this line of conservative arguing. I wonder if Tyson thinks there is nothing worth investigating or says that there is nothing worth investigating, whilst understanding the opposite is true.

An online response to my comment: Traveling at the speed of light, which is impossible, it would take around 100,000 years to reach the earth from the nearest possibly inhabited planet in our galaxy. Then one could ask why make such a trip in the first place and if such a journey was accomplished why not announce one

Me: I was addressing the observations without referencing the ETH - just as Tyson was doing with his conservative argument. In this case speculation about ETs is a secondary matter compared to whether new phenomena have been observed in the atmosphere. It's a classic case of not putting the cart before the horse. Thus when unusual objects are observed, being scientifically minded, we need to evaluate what was seen or recorded first and then consider very carefully what known phenomena they may correspond with. When we have good observations of phenomena that do not correspond with known phenomena then that should be considered a mystery to science and worth further investigation. If we find data indicating new phenomena we can then speculate as to its origins - whether it is a local natural occurrence or whether it may represent an impossible extra solar incursion.

And, as scientists investigating the natural world, if we were able to send probes to other star systems, of which there are estimated to be 2000 habitable worlds within 60 light years of the Earth (based on analysis of the Kepler space telescope data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), we would logically avoid direct contact with any intelligent life so as to make observations on their existing society. If we did announce ourselves our probes would risk upsetting their culture and we'd lose the chance to make predictions on how intelligence species evolve - whether certain types of eco systems generate intelligent life forms that self destruct. On planets with no intelligent life then we could probably be more adventurous without causing any culture shocks.

Also, if there is intelligent life on the planets in our neighbourhood and they have technology 100,000 years ahead of us then they may be able to bridge the gap between the stars. And if you travel at the speed of light for 100,000 years you would have crossed the entire galaxy. Accelerating at 1g you could attain near light speed in about a year. However, avoiding obstructions would certainly be an issue. Surprisingly Wikipedia's entry on 'faster than light' travel provides a good summation of space travel to nearby stars at close to light speeds and effects of time dilation:

QUOTE: Since one might not travel faster than light, one might conclude that a human can never travel further from the earth than 40 light-years if the traveller is active between the age of 20 and 60. A traveller would then never be able to reach more than the very few star systems which exist within the limit of 20-40 light-years from the Earth. This is a mistaken conclusion: because of time dilation, the traveller can travel thousands of light-years during their 40 active years. If the spaceship accelerates at a constant 1 g (in its own changing frame of reference), it will, after 354 days, reach speeds a little under the speed of light (for an observer on Earth), and time dilation will increase their lifespan to thousands of Earth years, seen from the reference system of the Solar System, but the traveller's subjective lifespan will not thereby change. END QUOTE
________________________________________

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 wrongful implication that ALL unusual sightings do not represent new phenomena. Some sighting reports are well documented and may show evidence of real phenomena. Nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman points out similarly erroneous statements regarding this subject made by Carl Sagan:

Source:

http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/2014/01/response-to-neil-de-grasse-tyson-quote.html

Debunking the UFO Debunkers by Patrick Cooke

Patrick Cooke, is the editor / author of The Bible UFO Connection. He is an independent researcher residing in Berkeley, California. He is an author, publisher, eschatologist, an autonomous theologian, and is recognized by the Religion Newswriters Association as a nontraditional scholar. His work is not associated with any religious organization or movement. He is the author of The Greatest Deception, The Doctrines of Men, and The Real Apocrypha, and has produced the videos Spirits in the Sky and UFOs - The Flying Gods. He is always available to discuss anything related to his work. Visit Patrick's websites: bibleufo.com and doctrinesofmen.com or email him at admin@bibleufo.com

Debunking the UFO Debunkers
by Patrick Cooke

Posted: 13:30 January 24, 2008

Donald Sutherland From
Invasion of the Body Snatchers

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.

Source:

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

UFO Debunkers Have To Get It Right Every Time

UFO Debunkers Have To Get It Right Every Time By Ives Lewis Iveslewis@yahoo.com
3-15-2
How do we know something to be true or to exist? It is perhaps the most vexing of questions, with even philosopher Rene Descartes concluding that at a minimum, he knew he existed, because he knew he was thinking about the question. That he in fact existed was about all Descartes could establish for himself. The waters between science and philosophy become muddy as we think about this question and when it comes right down to it, we know very few facts as true absolutes. With absolute truths being rare, we instead usually deal with the practical "facts" that are relevant to our daily lives. Over time, we have tried to construct procedures for fact verification in various fields of human activity. The UFO mystery provides a good subject for examining how we decide we "know" something, as opposed to simply believing something. A little time reading the UFO literature and perusing the Internet establishes that while there are countless belief systems about UFOs, overall there seem to be two basic camps of people who spend some time contemplating the subject: 1. The proponents, who believe that there is enough evidence to conclude that the Earth is being visited by some kind of unknown craft, and 2. Those who maintain that the proof for the unknown craft hypothesis is lacking. Not satisfied with merely rebuking the claims of the proponents, this camp actively tries to color the entire subject as a fringe topic. Ironically, the goal of my work is somewhat parallel to that of the debunker. As a criminal defense attorney, I am presented in each case with an allegation or theory. It is my job to challenge that theory. I must try to "debunk" it; show how the witnesses might be unreliable, or the forensic evidence tainted. I may have to show how the obvious, easy conclusion arising from a fact pattern doesn,t look so obvious after careful thought and analysis. It sure sounds like debunking! Both the debunker and the defense attorney are faced with allegations or a hypothesis, and it is their job to defend the "status quo". For the debunker, that status quo is a worldview skeptical of visits from presumably interstellar travelers, and for the defense attorney the status quo is represented by the presumption of innocence. There are some profound differences. My "debunking" work happens in a context designed for dispute resolution. First, there are rules that control what evidence is admitted into the debate. These are called the Rules of Evidence which were designed and modified over centuries with the goal of admitting only the more reliable, credible evidence. Second, there is a "trier of fact"; either a judge or a jury that will make the final decision on the proposition. We should note a dynamic that exists in criminal justice that may also be at work in the UFO debate. In reality, good defense lawyers make for good police work. Lawyers sometimes win cases because police work was sloppy, or records not kept, assumptions made, or shortcuts taken. For example, perhaps the police entered a house and found evidence of a crime, but failed to obtain a search warrant. The case gets dismissed on a defense motion to suppress the evidence. How does this lead to better police work? That cop, and probably many others, will not make that mistake again. Their next case will be fully documented, and they will obtain a search warrant before they enter the next house. The police know that the defense attorney will carefully scrutinize their case. Ultimately, this leads to more convictions as police polish their skills at careful case building. The same dynamic exists in UFOLOGY. Investigators know that debunkers are waiting to look for weaknesses. In may be that good debunking will eventually lead to the carefully investigated case for UFOs that will establish their reality for the world. The UFO dispute exists in the absence of a trier of fact or rules of evidence. Many debates on the subject are never resolved because of these absences. We struggle to demonstrate that this or that fact is sufficiently proved; there is little resolution because there is little structure for the debate, no agreement on the standard of proof and there is no judge; no one to make the final call. The debunkers take full advantage of this by assuming that they should set the standards of proof, and that they adhere to them. They pretend that this is a purely scientific question and that there are two acceptable levels of proof: 1) a level of "proof" sufficient for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and 2) absolute physical proof, preferably in artifact form. The data that exists is then often summarily dismissed as failing to meet either standard. Out of all the areas of human endeavors and quests, the debunkers "premiered" the "absolute proof" test for the UFO phenomena. A brilliant move, really, to somehow establish that absolute proof must be attained before a topic gains enough respectability to be seriously discussed. The very nature of the UFO phenomenon renders the standards espoused by the debunkers inappropriate; an elusive and unpredictable phenomenon that appears to value its own unknown status, and a government with a proven history of lies, secrecy and hypocrisy on the subject. Does the nature of the UFO phenomenon lend itself to the scientific method as traditionally applied, ala laboratory test? Can we perform experiments and then have others try to duplicate the work? Most often not, and we all knew that going in. The cry from the debunkers about the lack of such an approach has a hollow, circular ring; they claim the evidence isn't verified scientifically, while likewise claiming that the existing data doesn't warrant a scientific approach. They can't have it both ways, and common sense dictates that the advancement by the debunkers of the absolute proof and peer-reviewed standards is a bit disingenuous. It appears designed to further an erroneous public impression that there is no credible data supporting the existence of UFOs. As a side note, the claim of lack of evidence of manipulation or conspiracy by the government is also galling. It is hardly unreasonable to assert that somewhere, in the deepest, most secret rooms of the Pentagon, attempts to manipulate public belief on this issue are undertaken. Especially in a context of a government that refuses to declassify documents about UFOs while claiming they are of no significance. It is unrealistic to expect a standardized dispute resolution system for the UFO debate anytime soon. We can, however, take the first steps towards much needed structure for the discussion. Above I wrote about the debunkers, posture that only absolute proof would bestow legitimacy upon the UFO discussion. Let's agree to settle that question. What exactly does constitute enough evidence to legitimize the subject and deem it fit for national discussion and study? What is the standard of proof? Who shall be the trier of fact? Sadly, there is no entity available to serve as a neutral trier of fact. For now, we shall have to settle with the court of public opinion. We can set a standard of proof, though. The "reasonable doubt" test, sufficient enough for human executions, is appropriate for the UFO debate. The debunkers may cry foul and claim that there is no substitute for the scientific method. Remember, we are establishing whether the subject is fit for national debate and study, not resolving the question in the ultimate sense. I'm also proposing that the burden of proof be placed on the UFO proponents, so any debunker arguments that this is a way out of the scientific method are not well taken. The reasonable doubt test is the most demanding test available from the justice system. If debunkers and UFO proponents could agree on a standard of proof, both parties would have taken a good step towards the establishment of protocols for UFO study. There are rough times ahead for the debunkers. Let,s look at the pretend standards they have espoused. The fatal flaw is that the facts must adhere to their theories 100% of the time, or their entire worldview crumbles completely. There are no exceptions to this. They must argue, that in every case there was a misidentification, or fraud. Every single case. Every UFO with double rows of windows, sighted by pilots. Every UFO at a nuclear base. The dogfight over Iran. Paul Hill,s sighting. The military helicopter in Ohio bathed in green light and controlled by a UFO, corroborated by ground witnesses. Every single one of the unexplained incidents in Blue Book and Condon. The Brazilian cases. Every single abduction. Bentwaters. Lonnie Zamora. Every single pilot, citizen, astronomer, astronaut, air-traffic controller, from every country in the world. Each incident ever reported in any manner anywhere. In each and every incident in which a human being observed what appeared to be a non-human, intelligently controlled craft, the observer was wrong, says the debunker. The debunker maintains that UFO sightings that appear to be unknown craft, have a 100% error rate, without fail. That's a tough, one might say impossible burden for the debunkers. To have a worldview that demands to be correct 100% of the time, or else it all falls apart. To cover the bases, debunkers give unsolved cases labels like "leftovers" and "residue". This is intended to signal that they are just a small, expectable percentage of sightings with prosaic explanations that we just haven't figured out yet. To claim that the unsolved cases are simply the "residue" of all sightings is really a statistical sleight of hand used to make their worldview appear to have a stronger foundation than it really does. It arbitrarily chooses to include the unknowns as part of a category that includes all things humans see moving in the sky. Who made that decision? Those unknowns should be studied as a category in their own right, not dismissed as a statistical aberration of all sightings. Consider: for the believers, they only have to get it right once. Every other incident in history can be a fraud or mistake. For the debunkers, well. . . . they only have to get it right every time. Source: http://rense.com/general21/debunk.htm http://rense.com/general21/debunk.htm

I Know What I Saw - Full Length

Great documentary about ufo`s.

This thing is as real as the air you`re breathing.

watch it!

UFO Debunker Whipped on Paracast

http://www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_090830.mp3

Source:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

UFOTV® Presents : UFOs OUT OF THE BLUE - HD FEATURE FILM

From UFOTV®, accept no imitations. Narrated by Peter Coyote, OUT OF THE BLUE is widely considered one of the best documentary films ever made about UFOs and was directed by celebrated filmmakers James Fox, Tim Coleman and Boris Zubov. The films producers traveled around the world to investigate some of the most famous UFO events on record. Through exclusive interviews with high-ranking military and government personnel, this award-winning film supports the theory that some UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

This film features Governor Fife Symington, Astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Russian General Leonid Aleviev, President Jimmy Carter, Cosmonaut Major General Pavel Popovich, UK Admiral Lord Hill Norton, Physics Professor Dr. Brian Greene, President Gerald Ford, Astronaut Colonel Gordon Cooper. White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, and many more. Presents an International Scope, Quality Testimony, and Scientific Perspectives. OUT OF THE BLUE provides a Definitive Investigation of the UFO Phenomenon.

"The weirdest thing about the documentary OUT OF THE BLUE is how weird it isn't." - TV Guide

"...methodically lays out out an argument that something is out there." - Associated Press

"OUT OF THE BLUE emerges as one of the very best films ever produces on this, one of the most interesting in the history of science." - Skeptic Magazine

NOW AVAILABLE IN A 2-DVD SPECIAL EDITION from UFOTV - Out of the Blue: The Definitive Investigation on the UFO Phenomenon - LOADED with Bonus Features and Interviews - Cat# U81112, Go to http://www.UFOTV.com