Meet the Guerrilla Skeptics, the "fact checkers" rewriting thousands of UFO wikipedia articles

originally posted by: quintessentone

Some yes, some no.

Yet. Those “some” are still practicing “ufology”.
Is that false.

So what does it mean for a “discipline” like ufology where individuals can practice fraud unchecked.

What does it take to even be a “ufologist”? Just likes on YouTube?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Mulder11
The problem is that people like this regard Mainstream media sources as the gospel. The end all, be all. As if nothing in the world happens without it being reported on by the MSM. If the MSM doesn't report on it, it's consider bunk or psuedoscience or a conspiracy theory.

WIth virtually all MSM outlets owned by 6 companies/individuals, it becomes very easy to ignore stories or even selectively report certain facts while ignoring others to "debunk" them.

For me, I don't rely on mainstream anything, I'm in the trenches with the Ufologists trying to find real, concrete evidence and so far nadda. So I'll remain on the fence keeping my mind open.

You’re in the trenches with the ufologists ?

You’re actually here in support of a group of propagandists that are trying to disappear the ufologists and their opinions / work.

I love it when someone claims to be both sides. Nice little tactic to keep the discussion screwed up.

Just wait a dargon minute…..am I the only one on ATS with a matchbook cover mail order degree?



I paid the small fortune of $1.99 for that sheepskin.

😂🤣

👽

deleted cos Im idiot

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

We are not worthy. (Insert bowing ingrate emogee)

Take a bow Ophi, its earned.



But always remain humble, as one newly degreed PhD'er once said to me - PhD stands for 'piled high and deep' and he was one of the smartest people I have ever met.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, they are not science deniers. Therein lies the issue for some of you.

Nobody is a science denier. It’s what’s been called “scienctism” that people are rightly sceptical of. That is the attempt to use science to back up your claims when it does know such thing.

You should have a read of Bill Bryson A Short History of Nearly Everything. You will be surprised at what has been claimed in the name of science.

Where is the science, where is anything or nearly everything in relation to UFOs and woo woo?

I’ll go with the military pilots who recently presented very hi tech data and records of sightings.

Kinda science-like, eh ?

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

It had nothing to do with balloons, and the radar and other technologies had a lot of astounding data on speeds, altitudes, turning, accelerating, and so on.

I say sciency enough, by a country mile.

You can say no, if you don’t care how bad that looks.

U - Unidentified F - Flying O - Object....unidentified is what UFO's are and the same with UAPs - so your sciency speeds, altitudes, turning, accelerating and so on mean nothing without identifying the object.

What looks bad again?

I think you may not be understanding this entire thing.

The data is not “nothing” because we haven’t yet jumped to a final conclusion.

We need the data permanently, as we build theories and hypotheses. It’s literally the base of the whole exercise.

This may be the single most ridiculous thing I’ve read at ATS.

a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

I think it's terrible that a bunch of Skeptic who can't/haven't been able to experience or repeat the phenomena they are debunking have the ability to write over the accounts of those who have experienced or have had successes with the topics they are going after.

Sad times, indeed.

@Mulder11

Just reading a little bit about Wikipedia and how they take themselves very seriously as an encyclopedia-type entity, they have everything in place to ensure the truth and the science prevail to squash disinformation within the alien/UFO and paranormal fields. They also provide a historical archiving system of changes for those who want to scrutinize their decisions, so I mean really, who else does that?

a reply to: quintessentone

Enron had integrity as one of its core corporate values. Theory and practice don't always add up. If truth and science is to prevail, deleting topics like this adds to the ignorance and disinformation going on.

Chibolton Code Analysis

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

Enron had integrity as one of its core corporate values. Theory and practice don't always add up. If truth and science is to prevail, deleting topics like this adds to the ignorance and disinformation going on.

Chibolton Code Analysis

Take it up with the Wikipedia folks as I've posted above, they keep historical archives of all their changes and the reasons for the changes. Any challenges need to be put to them and how they arrived at their decisions (plural) to change - NOT delete - information.

a reply to: quintessentone

Wikipedia does say a little about this event here. But calls it a hoax because someone from SETI said so. No evidence of how a hoax like this was produced, just follows the theme of the rest of this thread.

It is strange how someone who spends his life looking for other galactic intelligence finds it improbable that we found some. As for why wikipedia puts this topic in the taboo box, it has been national security policy for a while to keep this topic covered up. Things are slowly changing though. It was only a few hundred years ago that the consensus accepted that Earth was not at the center of the solar system.

As a clearer picture of what life in the universe actually means with all of its diversity and intricacy, Wikipedia will be at the back of the pack dragging it feet, probably with some kicking and screaming along the way.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

Wikipedia does say a little about this event here. But calls it a hoax because someone from SETI said so. No evidence of how a hoax like this was produced, just follows the theme of the rest of this thread.

It is strange how someone who spends his life looking for other galactic intelligence finds it improbable that we found some. As for why wikipedia puts this topic in the taboo box, it has been national security policy for a while to keep this topic covered up. Things are slowly changing though. It was only a few hundred years ago that the consensus accepted that Earth was not at the center of the solar system.

As a clearer picture of what life in the universe actually means with all of its diversity and intricacy, Wikipedia will be at the back of the pack dragging it feet, probably with some kicking and screaming along the way.

So input from organizations like SETI and the like should be ignored? I'm not getting your thought process here.

So here a deep dive is needed, you would need to find out why SETI thought or proved that it was a hoax and why Wikipedia bought into their 'evidence' that it was a hoax.

Wikipedia doesn't have just one person deciding what is a hoax and what is not, they have very strict guidelines and regulations about scientific evidence before they, as a team, agree to change anything.

Another thing, SETI has been around a very long time (40 years this year) and know what to look for 'out there', who best to be able to discern a hoax from something real?

a reply to: quintessentone

So here a deep dive is needed

When you look into how ufology and related topics went after it hit the headlines with Roswell, it has been a big national security topic with the competitive advantages of advanced technology. In a post world war culture at the time, a lot of people accepted this. Been a lot of ridicule, discrediting and more to keep the topic clouded.

As for where all of this is leading to these days, the on going deception and ignorance has some concerns.

As for SETI, if their public release is 'nothing to see here' with a signal like this, what else are they unwilling to disclose?

Does Wikipedia pay for its editors or is it all voluntary? There is some money going around with it from the video in the OP. From some of the discussions on this site, I can see it is going to be a headbanger trying to get through to some when challenging the official narrative.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

So here a deep dive is needed

When you look into how ufology and related topics went after it hit the headlines with Roswell, it has been a big national security topic with the competitive advantages of advanced technology. In a post world war culture at the time, a lot of people accepted this. Been a lot of ridicule, discrediting and more to keep the topic clouded.

As for where all of this is leading to these days, the on going deception and ignorance has some concerns.

As for SETI, if their public release is 'nothing to see here' with a signal like this, what else are they unwilling to disclose?

Does Wikipedia pay for its editors or is it all voluntary? There is some money going around with it from the video in the OP. From some of the discussions on this site, I can see it is going to be a headbanger trying to get through to some when challenging the official narrative.

You see, Wikipedia is not the official narrative for me, empirical scientific evidence from scientific researchers/experts is though and if SETI, who have 40 years of science behind them, says it's a hoax, that's who I am going to believe, because I am not a science denier although I do understand some science, in some specific disciplines, have faulty methodologies. Hence the required deep dive into the whys wheretofors as to SETI's claim it was a hoax. If I use Wikipedia as a source, I always do deep diving into their sources, do you?

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

a reply to: quintessentone

I respect self determination, we all have to make our own decisions. I have seen enough to keep this Chibolton case on the radar for just what exactly will be found the further away we learn to understand. Diversity is one constant when travelling this land.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: arcticshuffle

That data collected is from inexperienced people guessing at speed, altitude etc. during encounters. Radar in aircraft is flawed and is not set up for UAP data collection.

The only data that will be reliable will be from the new high tech. scientific instrumentation recently set up to monitor incoming UAPs from high altitudes right to the ground. In other words, specialized equipment specifically for collecting data on UAPs and other phenomenon coming from space into our skies and landing on the ground.

Ridiculousness is subjective when you don't see the whole picture, as is the case with you. Researching a topic just a little bit helps one to deny ignorance, try it some time.

The need for factcheckers within this and other types of phenomenon is evident from some of the replies on this thread.

www.nytimes.com...

The military and airline pilots, and a few astronauts involved, are literally the most experienced and expert people on the planet, with the best tech in the world.

Goodness gracious. Will you please stop saying absurd and ridiculous things ?

A few sayings come to mind -

Take the L

Stop digging that hole

Wake up

Do better

I’m guessing that you can do none of these, and will be back ASAP with another heaping helping of nonsense. But at least I tried to help you out.

Again, read what NASA has to say at the link I provided and wake up and deny ignorance.

originally posted by: kwaka
a reply to: quintessentone

I respect self determination, we all have to make our own decisions. I have seen enough to keep this Chibolton case on the radar for just what exactly will be found the further away we learn to understand. Diversity is one constant when travelling this land.

What some of this banter really comes down to is which science is believable and which is faulty. In the UAP field, instrumentation used was never set up to track UAPs so it's faulty. Eye witness accounts .. well we all know that psychology. New instrumentation used to track UAPs along with satellite tech. leaves me wanting more because that tech. does not allow surveillance of interdimensional, trans-medium, quantum mechanics, or time dilation science, so you see we are all at a loss.

To bring everyone up to speed:

The independent study team's final report was published on September 14, 2023, with NASA also announcing the appointment of a director of UAP research. The study team reported that no evidence of extra-terrestrial life was found. The report also stated that the absence of reproducible data makes it challenging to draw conclusions about some UAP origins. It was recommended that a "rigorous, evidence-based approach" be used to study UAP and that data collection methods include artificial intelligence and citizen observers, and stated that NASA is "well-positioned" to lead this study of UAP.[17][18] According to its 2023 terms of reference, the team was dissolved upon the completion and submission of its final report.

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's begin again only this time let's try to get it right, or at least find repeatable data and you wonder why Wikipedia is more evidence-based science-leaning.