Hoaxers, Believers, Researchers, & Debunkers: A Case Study

The following case was one of my sighting experience, I would like to share it as a case for further discussion of so called hoaxers, believers, researchers, and debunkers.

The Incidence:
It happened at around 1930hr when I was at position A at a summer night with perfect visibility. The first thing I noticed was an orb emitting continuous blue light hovering in the sky. Then I realized there was another orb emitting continuous red light circling around in small radius above a very thin cloud. The size of the orbs is almost the same. I watched those orbs for 10 minutes or so, then a jet with anti-collision lights flew through the middle of the two orbs at high speed. Around 30-40min later, I saw the blue orb hovering again at position B. This time, it looked bigger and I could tell the color of the blue light was never close to any artificial light I have ever seen. It was simply pure and soft blue with no tiny white or other colors mixed.



The Conclusion
I think what I have seen is UNIDENTIFIED flying objects.

1. Hoaxers
With certain purposes, some people tend to fake an incidence, in this case, tell a fake story. Mostly they tend to fake a picture or a video clip. In fact, hoaxers are on the one side, and the rest of believers, researchers, and debunkers are on the other side, because their basic attitude towards UFOs with which the latter seriously consider UFOs. They should just be ignored.

2. Believers
Believers are those who simply believe there exist extraterrestrials or even extraterrestrials are visiting earth as well as those, on the contrary, who simply don’t believe the existence of extraterrestrials or extraterrestrials are visiting earth. Since we just can’t exhaust every possibility of the non-existence of extraterrestrials, the former ones would most likely to stick on their believes. In this case, they would be quite happy if there is one more case proving the existence of extraterrestrials. Even if this case is proved to be identified flying objects, it is totally OK for them because it does not prove that extraterrestrials do not exist. The latter one would possibly change their believes if some day extraterrestrials show up in front of them. In this case, they would simply say no it can’t be UFOs and it must be something else. If you asked them what those things would be, most possibly they would say “I don’t know either and it just can’t be UFOs.”, because they have made up their minds unless they see extraterrestrials they will not admit the existence.

3. Researchers
Researchers are those who try to prove the existence of extraterrestrials based on reasoning or those who try to prove the non-existence of extraterrestrials based on reasoning. The most Interesting thing is for the former ones, what they need is in fact one case sufficiently support their conclusion and it is much more difficult for the latter ones because they either need to set up a very rigorous model to prove or exhaust all possibilities and that is why there is almost NOBODY doing the latter research and those who still like to fight turn to be debunkers who do not try to prove the non-existence of extraterrestrials but try to prove theories/hypothesis claiming the existence of extraterrestrials are wrong.

Since extraterrestrials are a field of the unknown world, a more feasible logic of studying such topic is exclusion and reasonable examination. In this sketch, you exhaust every possibilities as the chart shows and exclude possibility of a hoax, a natural phenomenon, a terrestrial thing and come to the conclusion of extraterrestrials related or something else you may come up with. Then you should examine the phenomenon based on the assumption of extraterrestrials in a reasonable way to see if it can better explain the whole thing. But since there is no perfect human and no one can claim he knows everything, the use of exclusion may have some flaws and therefore debunkers who may have better knowledge in certain field play a role to correct claims.



In this case, the conclusion of the UFOs are also deducted following the logic:
First, it is not a hoax because that is first-hand personal experience.
Second, those orbs are not like stars because of their colors, their movement as well as their size. They are not like some sort of light reflection because I saw them outdoor at night. Therefore my first conclusion is that they are certainly not natural.
Third, those orbs could be man-made crafts. The first possibility is that those orbs are kites with LED lights, which are quite common at summer nights. In fact this is also my first impression until the second orb is observed. The very thin cloud is a typical high altitude cirrus clouds emerging above 5,000 meters, a height kites never fly. Their way of movement do not like balloons either. Aircrafts can be identified by their anti-collision lights flashing in high frequency and therefore they are unlikely aircrafts. Also the hovering altitude and the small radius do not support aircraft assumption (choppers, jets, drones). Neither could they be satellites.
Fourth, to my knowledge, they are not natural, not man made, and I tend to conclude them as unidentified flying objects.
For a reasonable examination of the conclusion, I will emphasize the passing-by jet. The area is no-fly zone and all anti-collision lights you can see usually at nights are far around. However the anti-collision lights identified that night just flew over the no-fly zone at high speed. In my opinion, a fighter scrambled for emergency mission. And consider it flew through the middle of the two orbs, I doubt that the military also found those two orbs on their radar as unidentified objects and sent a fighter for close identification.

4. Debunkers
Debunkers are those who cast their doubts on theories/hypothesis claiming the existence of extraterrestrials and try to prove the claims are in fact natural or terrestrial or even a hoax. Since there are tens of thousands of sightings especially hoaxes, to me, debunkers play a role helping eliminating noises from real evidence. In this way, debunkers are complementary and believers, researchers, and debunkers are in a same circle.

Wow! I really enjoyed the read. Thank you for the time and effort.

I completely agree with you in that the hoaxes are entirely irrelevant to this line of discussion. What I find particularly appealing (besides the awesome diagrams!) is the fact that you view the debunkers as colleagues rather than enemies!

Too many posters believe that skeptics have no right even replying to ufo related topics. A true scientist will seek to debunk every claim fully, leaving only the tried, true and tested left for investigation.

Props!

edit: Just thought of this one, but what about one of those small hobbyist drones? Is there any way you may have seen one of those?

SnF I have a particular thought regarding the blue lights, I will with hold those till I can articulate better. I really do not know what to say about your OP here I sent you a U2U.

a reply to: Paperjacket

Where does a hallucinated UFO fall in your logic chart? Natural? Not Natural? Terrestrial? Extraterrestrial? Known? Unknown?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

What if it was an experience this person had that isn't described so well but has substance?

a reply to: Brotherman

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

originally posted by: JBurns
Wow! I really enjoyed the read. Thank you for the time and effort.

I completely agree with you in that the hoaxes are entirely irrelevant to this line of discussion. What I find particularly appealing (besides the awesome diagrams!) is the fact that you view the debunkers as colleagues rather than enemies!

Too many posters believe that skeptics have no right even replying to ufo related topics. A true scientist will seek to debunk every claim fully, leaving only the tried, true and tested left for investigation.

Props!

edit: Just thought of this one, but what about one of those small hobbyist drones? Is there any way you may have seen one of those?

Yes I don't understand why one would treat debunkers as opposite ones. I will applaud those debunkers who make wonderful analysis or find out nearly perfect hoaxes. If you are a really serious UFO researcher, you would hate to waste your time on hoaxes.

However I notice there are another attitude with which guys do not dig evidence to prove his point of view, instead just keep asking you to prove more. Those are not debunkers.

Small drones may make maneuver to circle in small radius but I am afraid small drones could not fly at that altitude and even if it could reach that altitude, it is highly impossible for small ones to hover.

originally posted by: Brotherman
SnF I have a particular thought regarding the blue lights, I will with hold those till I can articulate better. I really do not know what to say about your OP here I sent you a U2U.

I am looking forward to it. It is really pure blue while airtificial lights are more or less contaminated. Very strange.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

Where does a hallucinated UFO fall in your logic chart? Natural? Not Natural? Terrestrial? Extraterrestrial? Known? Unknown?

Since it is not real, it shoulf be categorized as hoax, though not intended.

Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.

a reply to: Paperjacket

Since it is not real, it shoulf be categorized as hoax, though not intended.

I don't think so, otherwise, you would have to classify all the misidentifications as hoaxes too. Who is to say some other worldly beings aren't inducing hallucinations? Also, how do you exclude any psychological explanation once it falls through your logic tree? There certainly could be unknown psychological phenomenon.

and if you need proof that it was a hoax, how do you prove it was a hallucination?

a reply to: Paperjacket

I disagree with your flow chart.

You have "proof needed" under "Terrestrial", but not under "Extra Terrestrial". It seems you are saying if we can't find proof that it is terrestrial, then that automatically and necessarily makes it "Extra Terrestrial"; however, I think that is flawed logic.

Not finding proof of it being terrestrial does NOT automatically mean it is Extra terrestrial -- it simply means there is no proof that it is terrestrial. In order to further classify it as bieng ET, then further proof of it actually being an ET craft should be required. If that proof cannot be found, then it becomes "undetermined". If there is no proof as to whether an object is terrestrial or extraterrestrial, then there is nothing wrong with simply saying "I don't know".

Her's how that part of the flowchart should be:



Just because something cannot be proven as terrestrial does not automatically make it ET. It could simply be that it is terrestrial, but no proof has been found to definitely classify it as such.

For example, say a real ET craft flies above some farm, and the farmer spots it as an unidentified light that moved in a slightly odd manner, but in a manner that still could be explained as a terrestrial/human aircraft. That farmer may not have proof that what they saw was and ET craft...

...but that doesn't mean that it wasn't -- in fact, in this example it WAS and ET craft. It just could not be proven to be.


Now, let's take this very same example, but instead of the craft being an actual ET craft, let's say it was a military craft. The farmer sees it moving in the same manner as the ET example above, and thinks that it could be a military craft, although he can't prove it. His son sees it also, but says he thinks it's an ET craft. The farmer has no proof to offer to his son that it was a military craft...

...but that doesn't mean that it wasn't -- in fact, in this example it WAS a military craft. It just could not be proven to be.

So I don't think the flow chart logic is proper. I don't think that something that cannot be proven to be Terrestrial automatically and necessarily becomes classified as "ET". If proof can be found that it is definitely ET, then at that point we can say it is ET. However, if no definite proof is found, then "Undetermined" should be the proper term.



EDIT TO ADD:

By the way, the flowchart above shows the onus being FIRST on the skeptic to prove whether or not it was a terrestrial craft. However, the chart also works the same way if the onus is first on the person making the claim that what he saw might be an ET craft, as in the similar, but different, flowchart below:

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Not finding proof of it being terrestrial does NOT automatically mean it is Extra terrestrial

Correct. There is no way to deduce ET. I think the best you can do is say "unknown" and if you did have evidence for et, you wouldn't need the flowchart.

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.

I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.

I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.

You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

Since it is not real, it shoulf be categorized as hoax, though not intended.

I don't think so, otherwise, you would have to classify all the misidentifications as hoaxes too. Who is to say some other worldly beings aren't inducing hallucinations? Also, how do you exclude any psychological explanation once it falls through your logic tree? There certainly could be unknown psychological phenomenon.

and if you need proof that it was a hoax, how do you prove it was a hallucination?

Well I think you confuse illusion with intangible phenomenon. For example if somebody thinks that he/she sees a UFO which is however not exists and makes a claim, that is in fact an illusion, not real. Of course, however, if you want to claim that he makes wrong claim, you should prove it. In another scenario, if somebody can feel strong electromagnetic field wich is however not visible and true, it is not an illusion. Of course, if you want to claim that he makes wrong claim, you should also prove it.

a reply to: Paperjacket

Well I think you confuse illusion with intangible phenomenon

Intangible phenomenon by default are intangible. Illusions are intangible as well. What is the difference?

In another scenario, if somebody can feel strong electromagnetic field wich is however not visible and true, it is not an illusion

That is incorrect.

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Paperjacket

I disagree with your flow chart.

You have "proof needed" under "Terrestrial", but not under "Extra Terrestrial". It seems you are saying if we can't find proof that it is terrestrial, then that automatically and necessarily makes it "Extra Terrestrial"; however, I think that is flawed logic.

Not finding proof of it being terrestrial does NOT automatically mean it is Extra terrestrial -- it simply means there is no proof that it is terrestrial. In order to further classify it as bieng ET, then further proof of it actually being an ET craft should be required. If that proof cannot be found, then it becomes "undetermined". If there is no proof as to whether an object is terrestrial or extraterrestrial, then there is nothing wrong with simply saying "I don't know".

Her's how that part of the flowchart should be:

Just because something cannot be proven as terrestrial does not automatically make it ET. It could simply be that it is terrestrial, but no proof has been found to definitely classify it as such.

For example, say a real ET craft flies above some farm, and the farmer spots it as an unidentified light that moved in a slightly odd manner, but in a manner that still could be explained as a terrestrial/human aircraft. That farmer may not have proof that what they saw was and ET craft...

...but that doesn't mean that it wasn't -- in fact, in this example it WAS and ET craft. It just could not be proven to be.


Now, let's take this very same example, but instead of the craft being an actual ET craft, let's say it was a military craft. The farmer sees it moving in the same manner as the ET example above, and thinks that it could be a military craft, although he can't prove it. His son sees it also, but says he thinks it's an ET craft. The farmer has no proof to offer to his son that it was a military craft...

...but that doesn't mean that it wasn't -- in fact, in this example it WAS a military craft. It just could not be proven to be.

So I don't think the flow chart logic is proper. I don't think that something that cannot be proven to be Terrestrial automatically and necessarily becomes classified as "ET". If proof can be found that it is definitely ET, then at that point we can say it is ET. However, if no definite proof is found, then "Undetermined" should be the proper term.



EDIT TO ADD:

By the way, the flowchart above shows the onus being FIRST on the skeptic to prove whether or not it was a terrestrial craft. However, the chart also works the same way if the onus is first on the person making the claim that what he saw might be an ET craft, as in the similar, but different, flowchart below:

Thx for the long explaination of your point of view. However, there are simply MANY methodologies we can use in reasoning. What you guys keep saying is just one which is called DEDUCTION（Direct Proof）. However, besides deduction（direct proof), we still can use such as mathematical induction, method of exclusion, contradiction to make a conclusion. In the case of alien study, however, deduction(direct proof) is extremly limited because it is a world we do not understand therefore we can't set up persuasive assumptions, definitions and of course lack of analytical tools. On the contary, exclusion is a much feasible logical frame we can apply in the study. Since we have exhaust every possibility, it is reasonable and logical. For example, if you see something flying in the sky, you can tell it is not natural, it is not human made craft, what else it can be?

In your example, the farmer can make claims based on his knowledge and follow the logic frame I have mentioned, but at the same time, as what I have writen "... since there is no perfect human and no one can claim he knows everything, the use of exclusion may have some flaws and therefore debunkers who may have better knowledge in certain field play a role to correct claims", he may make mistakes and so a debunker can correct his claim. That is it.

What you guys are confused of is the difference between a reasonable conclusion and a right conclusion. A reasonable conclusion comes out under a logical analysis. It can be right as well as be wrong. Even if we use deduction, we may make mistakes.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Paperjacket

originally posted by: draknoir2
Still having a problem with the arbitrary nature and flawed logic of your flow chart.

I don't see how you get "the arbitary nature and flawed logic" thing.

You arbitrarily decided that ET and Not Natural by default do not require proof while holding Terrestrial and Natural to a different, higher standard of proof.You've built a burden of proof logic flaw into your chart that favors the exotic over the mundane. It doesn't work that way.

Soylent also pointed this out.

It is not arbitary, there are many methodologies, that is all.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Paperjacket

Well I think you confuse illusion with intangible phenomenon

Intangible phenomenon by default are intangible. Illusions are intangible as well. What is the difference?

In another scenario, if somebody can feel strong electromagnetic field wich is however not visible and true, it is not an illusion

That is incorrect.

Hallucinations can occur in any sensory modality—visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The right logic is "illusions are intangible does not imply intangible phenomena are illusions"