Why the skeptics fear UFOs; AKA The debunkers have something to hide

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the polarized views surrounding UFOs and the motivations behind skeptics' criticisms. It highlights that many skeptics may be driven by fear of the unknown rather than a genuine desire for truth, as they often attack the credibility of UFO enthusiasts instead of engaging with the evidence. The importance of informed opinions is emphasized, suggesting that those who ridicule the subject may lack sufficient knowledge. Additionally, the conversation critiques the tendency for debates to devolve into personal attacks rather than constructive dialogue. Ultimately, the discourse calls for a focus on evidence and reasoned discussion rather than emotional responses.
  • #31
I no longer respond to Q.

Yes, I’ve noticed – instead you now slink over to other forums and make false accusations against me.

Q, I won't tolerate the kind of garbage you hand out at Sciforums.

Call it what you will – the truth of the matter is corroborative - as is the case there as it is here, you are unable to formulate an argument in your favor and consider those responses that do not agree with your own views as hostile.

Consider yourself on notice.

Have I violated the terms of service? Please point out exactly why I am ‘on notice.’

Or are you abusing your power as a Mentor?

If you are so inclined to run me off the boards, so to speak, why don’t you just ask me to leave instead?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Ok children... play nicely.

We don't want another ad hominemathon.
 
  • #33
  • #34
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I make no ET claims.
What claims do you make then?
I suggest that everyone stop making claims and try to figure this this out.
The problem is that that implies a level playing field where none exists. There is a burden of proof on those who make extrordinary claims to provide the extrordinary evidence to back them up.

Backing up...
If this subject is all nonsense, then why do so many people spend so much time and energy trying to disprove it.
Where? I've never seen any widespread effort toward trying to disprove "it." (Uh - disprove WHAT exactly, BTW?). Most scientists simply ignore the issue because it lacks any scientific validity - there simply isn't anything for them to disprove.

If you mean places like this forum - you start most of the threads on the subject.
This is why no debunker ever changes his mind. This is also why they insist on equating ET to UFOs. This allows the luxury of denial based on an artificial construct.
I equate ET with UFOs because that is the ONLY claim I have ever seen from the UFO camp. And your post halfway down the first page certainly implies that you believe there is an ET origin to UFOs. You didn't say it explicitly though, so if you could, would you clarify that please? Do you believe some UFOs are of ET origin?

Also, Just posting a link and asking for opinions as you did in another thread, then knocking down other people's evaluations without making your own claim is not acceptable science. It doesn't help you prove anything (and I don't care how many times you say you have no point - if you post a link, you are implying something about that link). It simply isn't how science works. Heck, the best response to such a non-claim is simply "I don't know." Then there is nothing to argue, nothing proven or disproven.

And a denial isn't a luxury here - its an assumption. Again, burden of proof is on the one making the extrordinary claim. Thats how science works.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?
 
  • #37
This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up. [b(]
 
  • #38
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Look Russ its real simple. I'm from the UFO camp and I don't claim it's ET. I can't help the fact that other people do. It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.
The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.
This reminds me of most of the religious threads that used to pop up.
Agreed.
 
  • #39
Originally posted by russ_watters
The position of not having a position isn't much of a position, is it? It leaves nothing to argue for or against, no point to be made, and no reason for discussing anything.

In any case, I think your position is fairly unique.

My position is popular with virtually no one; which tells me that I'm probably close. Really I do have a few kindred spirits. Recently I have corresponded quite a bit with a trial lawyer who feels much the same as I do. Also, Allen J. Hynek - the father of modern Ufology, and before that the original govenment sponsored UFO debunker - died in a state of uncertainty about the whole subject. He had no doubt that they exist, but what UFOs are remained a mystery to Hynek after nearly 50 years of research. So in fact some percentage of the most serious researchers, and certainly the grand daddy of them all do [did] feel uncertain about the proper explanation. Unfortunately, these people get little attention.

Most debunkers don't realize this.

EDIT: Also, my position is clear. I am convinced that something real, rare, unknown, and highly energetic does fly around the skies; interfere with aircraft, burn people, leave physical evidence upon touchdown [land], that sometimes show up on RADAR, and that are often interpreted as being alien spacecraft . They also appear to cause electrical systems to fail in unusual ways, and they act in a manner that is often interpreted as being controlled by some intelligence.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Actually, though, I want to be clear that I'm not saying I think it is up to Ivan to prove Flying Discs exist. I'm more interested in him taking us through the chain of info in one case or another that he finds compelling to explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study. People don't read things and come away with the same impression. Ivan needs to point out step by step why certain things strike him as different than the kind of report that can be dismissed, if he wants to be better understood.
Well said.

How about it Ivan?

And, just to be boringly repetitious, "... explain as he goes along why these reports deserve more serious study"

Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful. Those of us who wish to view the source can always do so, and will also surely write back if they find your summary has significant shortcomings.
 
  • #41
Originally posted by Nereid Some minor logistics; if the original reports are in a form that causes folks without a cable modem internet connection to reboot their PCs in frustration, a succinct summary in your own words Ivan would be very helpful.
This part would still be a problem for me because, as was demonstrated in the case of the Hoover note, being able to see the actual note turned out to be the key to unlocking its lack of signifigance.

It was a lot of trouble to figure out a way to put this document in a place I could get to it, as it turned out, which is why I suggested Ivan select one really convincing case and do some planning and work to put the info where it's easy to get to.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by radagast
Ivan,
I will tell you I haven't explored UFO claims extensively. I have explored some. The fact that the UFO community (believers in UFOs) seem to be accepting of any evidence, with little/no criticism, has lead me to dismiss them, without further investment of my time.


Like any subject, one must be smart about their sources. Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens. It takes quite a bit of work to sort through the information and get a reasonable picture of what goes on. I hear almost no references to any of the information that interests me; only the obvious boloney that most serious investigators also dismiss. Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

Also, we don't assume that the people standing in line for two weeks to see Star Wars are representive of movie-goers; nor should we look to a bunch of people howling at the moon as representing the UFO crowd. There was recently a big UFO convention in Vegas. As I'm told, of the 500 people [or so] that attended, one idiot shows up with antennas on his head. Guess where all the news cameras were pointing?

People like this really have nothing to do with the subject any more than skin heads represent the republican party, or that tree hugging dope smokers represent the democrats.
 
  • #43
I have refrained from posting a summary of the event since there are so many critical details. I guess in all fairness to Zooby I should. I will convey the details of the report as it is written.

What we have is an intelligence report to the DIA [ Defense Intelligence Agency] from a DAO [Defense Agency Officer], and distributed to the CIA, NSA, White house, CMC, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and a number of other agencies. The report describes events over Tehran, Iran, on Sept 19th, 1976. The credibility of the report is listed as high, with high ranking witnesses, RADAR confirmation, effects on the crews night vision [due to the brilliance of the object], and onboard electronics were affected.

The command center at [Iranian] Shamrokhi AFB – then an ally of the US hence our presence in the area – received a number of calls from citizens reporting unusual lights and objects over the city. From the command center, the officer in charge could see a bright light near the area reported. After it was confirmed that no helicopters were in the air, command scrambled an F-4 to investigate at about 12:30 AM. The object was so brilliant that it could be seen from 70 miles away. On approach and when at 25 NM [Nautical Miles] from the UFO, the plane lost all communication and instrumentation. When the plane turned away, [specifically the statement is made] apparently when the F-4 was no longer a threat, the electronics returned to normal. The first plane returned to base. Another F-4 was dispatched for intercept at 12:40 AM. As the “backseater” with RADAR then approached the object and obtained a lock at 27NM, the UFO began to move away so as to pace the F-4 and maintain a constant distance of 25 NM. . This motion was confirmed on RADAR.

The object yielded the same RADAR return as a 707 tanker. The actual size of the object could not be determined due to its intense brilliance. Blue, green, orange, and red strobe lights are seen arranged in a rectangle and flashing so quickly that all could be seen at once. As the chase ensues to the south of Tehran, another bright object about 1/3 the size of the original came out of the object heading directly towards the F-4. The pilot attempted to fire and AIM missile, but at that exact moment his weapons and communications systems failed. The plane took evasive actions to avoid collision with the smaller orb which then followed the F-4 in the evasive dive at about 3-4 NM, and then cut across the inside chord of the flight path for a “perfect rejoin” with the main object.

Next, the crew regains their electronics and then observes another bright object come out of the other side of the original and head straight down at high speed. An explosion was expected, but the object slowed to a gentle landing and then cast a bright light over a 2-3 km area. After circling the landing zone a couple of time, the planes attempted to return to base. They lost communications every time the plane heading approached 150 degrees [presumably the direction of the UFO wrt their heading to base]. Another civil airliner on approach lost communications at this time as well. On final approach, the F-4 crew observed a cylindrical object in flight – about the size of a T-bird – at about 10 miles, and with bright steady lights on each end and a flasher in the middle. This was not detected on RADAR, but the object was visually confirmed by the tower.

The next day the landing area was inspected by helicopter. A very noticeable beeper sound was heard. [presumably on their radio, this is not indicated] They landed and interviewed some people living near the landing area. The locals reported a very loud noise and a bright light like lightning the night before. The area was being checked for radiation. This information was obtained through a sub-source and the pilot of the second F4

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo20.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/docs/efoia/released/ufo/ufo17.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Here's a place to start: can someone figure out in lumens how bright it would have to have been to be visible 70 miles away?
 
  • #45
Shall I take my physics from Star Trek? This is effectively what most skeptics do when they investigate UFOs. The look to nonsense sources for information. They may not realize this - that there is a difference - but this is what happens.

This is of course farthest from the truth. Most believers know little of the facts behind interstellar travel aside from their TV nighttime soap operas.

Honestly, most debunking arguments would be laughable if they weren't so tiresome.

From a believer’s point of view, any argument that begins to bring science to the forefront is tiresome. It’s not possible to retain a belief system with facts.
 
  • #46
I'm not sure how to do that one Zooby...at least not off the top of my head. Maybe someone will know a shortcut.

Also, I should note that the report also indicates that this was confirmed by other sources.

In my experience we find most of the major components of the typical [credible] UFO here.

Obviously we find high strangeness.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
The object could split and then rejoin again
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner

These types of observations are common in the best cases. One thing that we don't see here is any evidence of fantastic flight capabilities. Accelerations in excess of 20Gs, and speeds in excess of 4000 mph are also seen in some cases that resemble this one.
 
  • #47
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Listing its apparent characteristics is a good idea.
Obviously we find high strangeness.
"High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. Uninformative. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.
The objects appears to react to aircraft.
Electronics are effected
Multiple reliable eyewitnesses confirm RADAR data
The object seems to be highly energetic - capable of producing bright light and strong EM.
The UFO was capable of sustained, steady motion, and course changes
Sounds right.
The object could split and then rejoin again
Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.
The object appeared to act in a controlled manner
Yes.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
High strangeness"? Technical term? If not, eshew it. If yes, fill me in on the denotation.

Seemingly inexplicable behavior and/or characteristics.


Incorrect. Secondary objects appeared to "come out of" the primary object. The phenomenon of "splitting" is nowhere mentioned or implied.

Point taken.

The calculation of lumens is probably a very simple matter for many PFers. Someone will be able to do it. From there we can probably calculate how many joules of energy it was expending
in the generation of light. This, we compare to known things, start poking, prodding, get ideas of what else to consider.

I'll post the question about lumens in general physics. [/B]

The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Seemingly inexplicable behavior.
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.
The problem is that we don't know how bright the object is at 70 miles. I guess we could set a lower boundary, but this does not account for ambient light, smog and haze, and the background lighting against which the UFO is viewed. Also, we don't know the frequencies of the emitted light, or any frequencies emitted above or below that of the visible spectrum. So at least, the information that we might guess at is very limited...
We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?
 
  • #50
I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII. Now, the pilot of the F-4 describes the phenomenon as a brighly lit object. Aside from the retangular lights, he describes no structure.
 
  • #51
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
In what discipline is this a term? Aeronautics? Military? My concern is that if it is a UFOlogist term, like "close encounters of the third kind" it is already coming from a perspective that takes ET Discs as a reasonable alternative to think about. We're not there yet.

Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.

We must be able to arrive at some reasonable minimun for visibility with the unaided human eye at 70 miles. We may have to stipulate reasonable levels of fog and haze
and background lighting. You will need to go to this part and get info that can be used to form a useful idea as to how bright it looked at 70 miles. Was it stopping people it their tracks at this distance to look, or did a remote military person who heard the reports go out and look for 10 minutes before he saw a speck he thought might be what they were talking about?

You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.
 
  • #52
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I should point out that reports of this kind, sightings and even some interactions with aircraft go back to WWII.
Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.(Aside to judge) Your honor, I would ask that the defences' remarks concerning other cases not under consideration here be stricken from the record. He is trying to prejudice the jury.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Its a UFO word but not an ET word. "Seemingly inexplicable", "strange", whatever, it was meant to be subjective really.
Ok, in that case I don't think it's useful to describe this crafts characteristics. Describing what was reported is sufficient. The "high strangeness" is gratuitous editorializing.
You really have all of the information available...I think. It is bugging me that it seems that I have another source for this with some additional comments...this may have been lost two computers ago. I will see if Maccabee [UFO buff, optical physicist] has done anything here. I have a couple of books of his that I have only skimmed through.
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?
 
  • #54
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Whoooooops!

Nothing is going to get you tied up in knots better than creating a mix-and-match UFO encounter from bits and pieces of different reports. You will begin not to be able to separate them in your mind. You start to assume that similar sounding things are in fact the same. You begin to have confidence that one thing supports the other, when, in fact, none at all have been definitely explained as anything.

I understand your objection...more later.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It would seem that the reasonable position is not allowed - an ad homimen argument.

Originally posted by radagast
I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently referring to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.
 
  • #56
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
A light being visible at 70 miles must have some signifigance as data. Is a helicopter searchlight visible at 70 miles under similar weather conditions? Car headlamp?

I don't see this as being of value. We could probably see a flashlight at 70 miles under the right conditions. One significant measure of the energy is the claimed inteference with weapons systems at 3-4 NM minimum, and communications at up to 25 NM. This requires a lot of energy. I have no idea how to calculate the amount...especially when it involves weapons systems. Since this happened in a metal box - a faraday cage - this really takes a lot of energy. I don't know what else we can say about this aspect of the event.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Like radagast, I'm confused by what you said.

Here's how the Webster's defines ad hominem:adj[NL, lit., to the person] (1598) 1: an appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect 2: marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

So it is confusing to hear you apparently referring to the ad hominem argument as the "reasonable" one.

The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.

Edit: This happens because we can't explain what people claim they saw, or what wouild seem to be the facts.

Edit: It doesn't matter what they think they saw; only what they saw.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The effort is to discredit the subject and the claimants by insisting that they either saw ET or nothing; therefore it was nothing.
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?
 
  • #59
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Io no capito. How does this make ad hominem arguments reasonable?

Sorry, I'm not sure where you got that idea. I will have to look at my post again. What I intended is restated in my last post. Somehow you did get the wrong idea.
 
  • #60
Originally posted by radagast
Dismissing all ideas of UFOs/ETs/etc., what exactly do you mean by the above statement?

I'm assuming I'm misintepreting what you're saying, but how can an argument flaw be a reasonable position?

Sorry, I had missed this. Now I see where I created the confusion. Like I said, my intent is clarified above.
 

Similar threads

Replies
705
Views
140K
Replies
98
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
14K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K