how to debunk ufos

First, try to sympathise with the subject of UFOs by saying how much you would love to believe in UFOs.
Then, use the weapon of ridicule: “If UFOs are for real, why haven’t they landed in front of the White House yet?”
Argue that “high-quality” pictures and videos of UFOs actually prove nothing. It’s too easy to fabricate such footage.
Insist that “low quality” pictures and videos prove nothing as well. That “evidence” could be anything.
When confronted with a very strong UFO case, magnify one inaccurate element of the actual case evidence. Usually, revealing a single flaw invalidates the whole.
Claim that extraterrestrial lifeforms can only exist light-years away from earth. After all, you’re the expert!
If that doesn’t help, invite a skeptic to back you up and start talking about mass hallucinations, imperfect video equipment, hoaxes, etc…
Still no luck ? Expose a couple of fraudulent UFO cases to debunk them all. That usually works. If the evidence refuses to go away, attack the researchers. Accuse them of profiting financially from their UFO research (that hurts)
so true most debunkers think like this makes me sick


[edit on 13-4-2010 by CYRAX]

reply to post by CYRAX


Sadly you have a very good point! There are a number of people who seem to think of debunking as sport. These people give a misleading impression of what a true skeptic is, that is someone with an open mind who's willing to consider the evidence impartially and then - if the evidence allows - come to a conclusion.

I consider myself to be a skeptic - I've seen a couple of UFO's, but I make no conclusions as to their origin or nature. I have an open mind on all possibilities from nature, to man made, to extraterrestrial to inter-dimensional. This (I believe) is what a true skeptic is. Sadly, some 'skeptics' seem to have an agenda and will use the mechinisms you describe to belittle and discredit the OP. Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of ATS as it discourages proper discourse and leads to no more than a slanging match between the 'two sides' when in reality by the very fact that we're all members, we should be on the same side and denying ignorance. The continual sniping is very counter productive. After all, we're all after answers - whatever they may be. Aren't we?

Isn't it possible debunkers seek to expose the truth? I mean the word debunk means "to expose a sham".

As an eyewitness to a flying saucer I wouldn't give a nickel for all of the UFO videos I have ever seen, especially the lights-in-the-sky ones.

Show me a vid of a real craft like the one I saw with my own eyes and it will be the first one.

Originally posted by CYRAX
First, try to sympathise with the subject of UFOs by saying how much you would love to believe in UFOs.
Then, use the weapon of ridicule: “If UFOs are for real, why haven’t they landed in front of the White House yet?”
Argue that “high-quality” pictures and videos of UFOs actually prove nothing. It’s too easy to fabricate such footage.
Insist that “low quality” pictures and videos prove nothing as well. That “evidence” could be anything.
When confronted with a very strong UFO case, magnify one inaccurate element of the actual case evidence. Usually, revealing a single flaw invalidates the whole.
Claim that extraterrestrial lifeforms can only exist light-years away from earth. After all, you’re the expert!
If that doesn’t help, invite a skeptic to back you up and start talking about mass hallucinations, imperfect video equipment, hoaxes, etc…
Still no luck ? Expose a couple of fraudulent UFO cases to debunk them all. That usually works. If the evidence refuses to go away, attack the researchers. Accuse them of profiting financially from their UFO research (that hurts)
so true most debunkers think like this makes me sick

[edit on 13-4-2010 by CYRAX]

top ten reasons aliens dont show themselves

1.We will eat them
2.We will steal their technology,go to their home planet and eat them
3. Our dogs will eat them
4.We wont eat them but feed them to our dogs
5.They wont be able to resist the temptation to eat us
6.Their dogs will eat us
7. They wont be able to resist the temptation to feed us to their dogs
8. They are too sexy for the earth
9. Earthlings would want to have sex with them.
10. They would want to have sex with Earthlings
11. They would get $1,000,000 dollars from the Amazing Randi and they are communists.


[edit on 13-4-2010 by RRokkyy]

Originally posted by CYRAX
First, try to sympathise with the subject of UFOs by saying how much you would love to believe in UFOs.

Everyone believes in UFOs, even skeptics and debunkers, so it's not that they would love to believe in them, they already do. The existence of UFOs is a fact, not a subject for debate.

Aside from hoaxes, some UFOs can be explained as manmade objects or natural phenomena, and if so, skeptics try to point those explanations out. But not all UFOs can be explained. In that case, they are UNIDENTIFIED flying objects, or UAP unidentified aerial phenomena as NARCAP calls them.

Well if they are unidentified, then what's to debunk? Nothing, if it's unidentified, it's unidentified!

The only problem that comes into the picture is when skeptics or believers start saying they can identify something that's unidentified. Whatever arguments you can make against one you can make against the other, if there's insufficient evidence to identify it, all the speculating in the world can't identify it. And in that case it makes no difference if you're a believer or a skeptic, as neither can say what it is.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]

That in a nutshell is the sad state of Ufology today, humans deceiving humans. If there is a real phenomenon, I have yet to see any evidence of it that would stand under scientific scrutiny.

Goodbye Ufology Hello Truth by James Carrion
followthemagicthread.blogspot.com...

reply to post by nablator

Star for your post, that's one of the best articles I've read from an insider. I think he's referring to all the people selling books on UFOlogy, and I have also found many of those to be biased, and that they don't consider alternative explanations, and are misleading from that perspective.

But I don't think he meant that all people reporting UFOs are trying to be deceptive, people honestly see things they can't explain and that doesn't mean they are deceptive. It's what the professional book sellers do with that information that seems to introduce bias and distortion.

I found this comment interesting in that article:

not only did I encounter a wave of hostility from the “believers” but a backlash of silence, debunking and dismissal by even those “unbiased” researchers who claim to not stoop to such tactics. Rather than inspire an army of fellow investigators to dig deeper in this unexplored area I felt like Copernicus telling a room full of colleagues how the earth revolved around the sun despite everyone else believing the earth the center of the Universe. Blasphemy! Heresy!

I've noticed similar reactions. When an unbiased person points out to a religious believer that there are over 41 religions in the world and it's possible that one of the other 40 religions could be the correct one, it doesn't seem to matter what religion it is, you get a similar reaction from all of them of shock and indignation that their beliefs could be wrong, and I truly find strong parallels when you question the beliefs of a person who is convinced we have proof of alien visitation to the Earth. The alien beliefs are defended with the same fervor in the absence of evidence as the religious beliefs, which have led to the conclusion that for some, a belief in alien visitation is the "new religion". While not true for everyone, I must say it's apparently true for some. Hence the "Blasphemy! Heresy!" remarks in that quote seem quite fitting.

Personally, I'd love to see tangible evidence of the existence of extraterrestrials, but the only way that will ever happen is to scientifically weed out misidentifications, embellished memories, and outright hoaxes.

If those of us who do take the subject seriously approach it in a starry-eyed, unscientific, every-case-presented-is-proof manner, then if/when actual evidence does make an appearance, it's going to be dismissed by the scientific community because of the above mentioned attitude.

In other words, if we're to be taken seriously, then we have to take the subject seriously and that means ruling out every possible terrestrial explanation in every case, 100% of the time.

Some may call that the approach of a "debunker", but it's important never to confuse friend with foe.


TheAssoc.

reply to post by CYRAX


That is not really how it works to debunk you have to show that it is a hoax. I do not really see any of the debunking as you describe here on ATS.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Star for your post, that's one of the best articles I've read from an insider.

Really an amazing point of view from the ex-director of MUFON. The focus on what can be proved vs what can be imagined/extrapolated/believed.

On the other hand an organization like MUFON cannot afford to be too skeptical, most UFO enthusiasts want reinforcement of their beliefs, not denial that there is "any evidence that would stand under scientific scrutiny".

I think he's referring to all the people selling books on UFOlogy, and I have also found many of those to be biased, and that they don't consider alternative explanations, and are misleading from that perspective.

Yes, but there are also other types of deceptions: unintentional (self-)deception, mostly because of the perceived weirdness of many sightings, and then governmental deception that James Carrion writes about in the linked article New Avenues For UFO Research. All in all, a very clever analysis.

Debunking is mostly about finding faults with the chain of reasoning that leads to assume weird things are true. Rarely does a good debunking article actually prove anything, only when there is an explanation that can be checked, with coincidences too incredible to dismiss (like astronomic occurrence, or satellites' passage time). But even an inconclusive skeptical analysis is useful to show that several explanations are plausible, that the evidence for the extraordinary interpretation is not as compelling as it seems. And then there is no reason to believe anything. I'm not advocating "force fit" explanations, but reasonable "may be" explanations.

Hence the "Blasphemy! Heresy!" remarks in that quote seem quite fitting.

'We've found a witch! May we burn her?'
'Well how do you know she is a witch?'
'She talks like one!'

No wonder he resigned. Most believers don't want too much critical thinking.

EDIT: added word "Most" before believers in the last sentence.

[edit on 2010-4-13 by nablator]

The Universe is huge.

We do not understand the Universe.

There could be UFOs.

In fact, there probably are, given that we are a tiny dot in the Universe and we do not understand it.

reply to post by trustyou

the hate in you is strong thanks for proving my point

reply to post by zaiger

really i could show you alot of examples....

Originally posted by nablator
No wonder he resigned. Believers don't want too much critical thinking.

Right, crack open a page of a "skeptic" magazine and you'll see the same thing.

By the way, by using the word "believer" you imply - unjustifiably - that a pro UFO view is based entirely on faith. That might be true for a segment of the UFO interested, but hardly for the more serious people involved.

Must be a sad world for the debunk ppl..
I do not care about them anyways..
Most of em hasn't even taken the time to look at the evidence..
Nor do they listen to the people who have seen these objects..
I mean, we have astronauts, pilots, astronomers, military and the list goes on and on.. I don't need the governments to say this is real.. Cause I have done my own research and seen and read what I need to to make my mind up...
Thats just my opinion...

Star N flag!

reply to post by RRokkyy

Originally posted by jclmavg
By the way, by using the word "believer" you imply - unjustifiably - that a pro UFO view is based entirely on faith. That might be true for a segment of the UFO interested, but hardly for the more serious people involved.

No, I agree with you entirely. Besides, some debunkers take their views on faith too (they believe in the impossibility of alien visitors for instance, which is naive).

I meant debunking is not bad in itself, and critical thinking is the only way to get at the truth.

CIA Involvement in UFO Debunking

After the Washington D.C. UFO incidents, while the nation's opinion makers -- satisfied that all was well -- went on to other stories, the aftershocks of the UFO invasion reverberated throughout the defense establishment. H. Marshall Chad well, assistant director of the CIA's Office of Scientific Intelligence, warned CIA director Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, "At any moment of attack [from the Soviet Union], we are now in a position where we cannot, on an instant basis, distinguish hardware from phantom, and as tension mounts we will run the increasing risk of false alerts and the even greater danger of falsely identifying the real as phantom."
illustration of ufo flight path
Intercontinental U.F.O. Galactic Spacecraft Research and Analytic Network Archives
Though the major Washington sightings occurred over the weekends of July 1920 and July 26-27, 1952, sporadic reports and trackings were recorded into mid-August. Here, the black dots indicate unidentified targets tracked on the radar screen at Washington National Airport on August 15.

Chadwell feared that the Soviets could plant UFO reports as a psychological warfare exercise to sow "mass hysteria and panic." In fact, as The New York Times noted in an August 1, 1952, analysis, the Washington sightings and others across the country in July were so numerous that "regular intelligence work had been affected."

In fact, during the Washington events traffic related to the UFO sightings had clogged all intelligence channels. If the Soviets had chosen to take advantage of the resulting paralysis to launch an air or ground invasion of the United States, there would have been no way for the appropriate warnings to get through.

Determined that this would never happen again, the CIA approached Project Blue Book and said it wanted to review the UFO data accumulated since 1947. In mid-January a scientific panel headed by CIA physicist H. P. Robertson briefly reviewed the Air Force material, dismissed it quickly, and went on to its real business: recommending ways American citizens could be discouraged from seeing, reporting, or believing in flying saucers. The Air Force should initiate a "debunking" campaign and enlist the services of celebrities on the unreality of UFOs. Beyond that official police agencies should monitor civilian UFO research groups "because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking. . . . The apparent irresponsibility and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be kept in mind."

The panel's existence and its conclusions remained secret for years, but the impact on official UFO policy was enormous. In short order Project Blue Book was downgraded, becoming little more than a public-relations exercise.
science.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by CYRAX
reply to post by trustyou

 

the hate in you is strong thanks for proving my point

You are overrestimating yourself: why to hate someone who wants to believe in everything? It does not make sense. You are already punishing yourself by yourself, don't need any enemy.
Oh, and learn to use the EX tag, the article above is a verbatim copy of the original one hence is plagiarism. You've joined on 2006 and still don't know how to quote external sources