how to debunk ufos

reply to post by trustyou

thanks for proving my point again so called debunkers like you attack the person not the evidence

CNN Drops More Mandated UFO Debunking
February 4, 2010
by Steve Beckow

The crack is widening in the media’s coverage of UFOs.

In a broadcast on January 20, 2010’s “The Situation Room,” a deadpan Wolf Blitzer introduces a somewhat-nervous Gary Tuchman, who reviews the speeches of a recent Disclosure Project panel.

The debunking attitude was mandated as long ago as 1953 by the CIA’s Robertson Panel.

As I understand it. the panel’s report was issued after the committee met for only three days in January of that year and affirmed the CIA dictum that UFO reports were to be debunked.

National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) historian, Gerald Raines observes:

“In January 1953, H. Marshall Chadwell [CIA Director of Scientific Intelligence] and H. P. Robertson, a noted physicist from the California Institute of Technology, put together a distinguished panel of nonmilitary scientists to study the UFO issue. It included Robertson as chairman; Samuel A. Goudsmit, a nuclear physicist from the Brookhaven National Laboratories; Luis Alvarez, a high-energy physicist; Thornton Page, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins Operations Research Office and an expert on radar and electronics; and Lloyd Berkner, a director of the Brookhaven National Laboratories and a specialist in geophysics.

“The charge to the panel was to review the available evidence on UFOs and to consider the possible dangers of the phenomena to US national security. The panel met from 14 to 17 January 1953. It reviewed Air Force data on UFO case histories and, after spending 12 hours studying the phenomena, declared that reasonable explanations could be suggested for most, if not all, sightings.

“For example, after reviewing motion-picture film taken of a UFO sighting near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952 and one near Great Falls, Montana, on 15 August 1950, the panel concluded that the images on the Tremonton film were caused by sunlight reflecting off seagulls and that the images at Great Falls were sunlight reflecting off the surface of two Air Force interceptors.

“To meet these problems, the panel recommended that the National Security Council debunk UFO reports and institute a policy of public education to reassure the public of the lack of evidence behind UFOs. It suggested using the mass media, advertising, business clubs, schools, and even the Disney corporation to get the message across.

“Reporting at the height of McCarthyism, the panel also recommended that such private UFO groups as the Civilian Flying Saucer Investigators in Los Angeles and the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization in Wisconsin be monitored for subversive activitiesThe Robertson panel’s conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the earlier Air Force project reports on SIGN and GRUDGE and to those of the CIA’s own OSI Study Group. All investigative groups found that UFO reports indicated no direct threat to national security and no evidence of visits by extra-terrestrials.”
sbeckow.wordpress.com...

[edit on 13-4-2010 by CYRAX]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.

Very true ! Well said. I'm copying it to my list of best quotes.

reply to post by CYRAX


Well, I have to admit that in copy & paste you're second to no one.
Nice articles jokes aside, some of the cases mentioned are very interesting and the explanation that had been provided was ridiculous to say the least, like in the Great Falls video


"sunlight reflecting off the surface of two Air Force interceptors" ?????

LOL

Anyway, you'd better use the "ex" tag
www.abovetopsecret.com...

From now on, please use the new quoting tag specific to external content sources.

Surround your snippet and link to an external source with these new tags:

--> Begin external source content

--> End external source content

If you find material worthy of sharing with the ATS audience, please simply post a snippet of the content, then a link to the web page on which you found the material.
What makes this acceptable on ATS:

1) A clear link to the source material is provided.

2) The "external source" tags (

to open, and

to close) are used to differentiate the external material from your post or quotes of other members.

Why we like this:

It shows respect for the work of the author and sends traffic to the website containing the author's work.

Is it now clear enough or do you need some drawing?

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
spookyweather.blogspot.com...

reply to post by CYRAX


Great now all we need is some actual UFO evidence and we get started debunking!

Any takers?

[edit on 13-4-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by trustyou


Looks like that big triangle SATELLITE?

Originally posted by drew hempel
reply to post by CYRAX

 

Great now all we need is some actual UFO evidence and we get started debunking!

Any takers?


[edit on 13-4-2010 by drew hempel]

en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

reply to post by nablator


Yeah this is classic stuff:

followthemagicthread.blogspot.com...

So, Stan, if you think I am going to stop pointing out the problems with your claims by threatening me with a lawsuit, you are sadly mistaken. There is nothing illegal about the truth. Speaking of which, please feel free to post publicly the video/photo evidence that you have yet to release to the world because I have some world class photo/video experts who are dying to analyze them: - All the ORIGINAL videos of your peeping aliens - All the ORIGINAL photos that show you with strange "reptilian" eye transformations - All the ORIGINAL photos/videos of all of your other otherworldly experiences

reply to post by CYRAX


That's easy! I had my OWN very close encounter with a big black triangle. Summer 1997. My sister and I finish watching X-files. She sees lights on the horizon and says she's seen them before elsewhere. We go outside. She gets bored and goes back inside. I watch the lights and go:

"not helicopter, not headlights, not strobe light from a tower."

Each light is a different color doing inexplicable maneuvers -- green, red, white.

Suddenly I saw the lights coming towards me but they're attached to a craft. The craft is flying slow and low over the neighbors trees -- their forest -- and right towards our land!

It flies over our hill and then over our tree and then over our garage. I can hear it humming. I see the lights on each corner -- white lights. It's a PERFECT EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE. It's going slow and I could have hit it with a rock!!

No fuselage! And it goes over our garage and continues across the woods towards the river on the border to Wisconsin.

O.K. so I knew nothing of black triangles -- but I had already studied UFOs a bit -- I had read Vallee and Keel, for example.

So I knew right away it was MILITARY but there were no other witnesses so there was nothing I could do. Still I told my family members.

My mom ran the local legal newspaper -- one of her reporters showed me a three ring notebook of various local news articles -- 1978 -- a mass ufo sighting.

Same thing - triangle. Only there was also cattle mutilation and one lady had missing time when the craft flew over her and under hypnosis she remembers being abducted. Brad Ayers came up from Chicago -- from Hynek's Center for UFO Studies and did the interviews.

Anyway at the time I just glanced at the articles without getting the details -- only recently did the lady give me copies of the articles.

But at the time she did tell me this:

"we live in a military test flight corridor."

So that further confirmed my suspicion -- this is military.

So then when I got on the internet in around 1999 at the University I happened upon a rense.com article of the

EXACT SAME SIGHTING -- low flying triangle, humming noise, slow speed, no fuselage, etc.

So then I knew I was not alone and I did more research. I read Curt Sutherly's book "UFO Mysteries"

THAT'S WHEN I FIRST READ ABOUT THE BELGIUM TRIANGLE SIGHTINGS.

So then I discovered Nick Redfern's books. I emailed Redfern about my triangle craft sighting. Redfern responded that he recently discovered

Military documents of a triangle craft on a U.S. military base in the U.K. in the late 1940s!!

That was FURTHER CORROBORATION THAT THE TRIANGLE CRAFT IS MILITARY.

O.K. so then I research the MN MUFON online database -- and sure enough there were several triangle craft sightings in my area around the same time period -- in the late 1990s. One sighting of the triangle craft just on the other side of the river in Wisconsin saw the craft accelerate almost instantaneously!!

So that confirmed that this craft was not a blimp (which I knew right when I saw it) and also had some secret propulsion (which I also knew right when I saw it).

So then I kept doing research and I contacted Richard Dolan after he was on coasttocoast -- just maybe a year or two ago.

Dolan also stated that his research position is that the triangle craft is MILITARY.

Dolan thinks there might have been some alien collaboration or something but he has no evidence about that which I could find.

Then I saw Stan Deyo's documentary where he talks about the triangle structure being used for military secret craft.

Then I read Tim Ventura's expose on the secret electrogravitic propulsion that the military has -- from the Nazis but based out of Tesla technology.

Then I saw Michael Schratt's expose on the secret triangle craft -- with the propulsion explained.






[edit on 13-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 13-4-2010 by drew hempel]

The original post was great and very very true! Good job Cyrax!

It's also humorous how skeptics keep talking about how they "would love to see real evidence of UFOs" meanwhile if you show them any pictures or videos of UFOs, they just scoff at it and call it fake.

Many skeptics have basically made anatagonism a hobby. Either that or they are truly scared of the idea that UFOs and aliens are visiting earth, and therefore they would rather argue against it to make themselves feel better.

Believers in different undiscovered topics in science are usually the ones who do research and discover things. Skeptics just sit back and criticize findings while contributing very little (if anything) to that particular subject.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Viper2]

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Viper2]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I don't understand how you can say that it s a fact that everyone believes in ufo s and its not a debate. It certainly is a debate and as near as I can tell it s usually a bad idea to admit you take the possibility of alien life seriously in mixed company. You certainly wouldnt mention it during a job interview.

Maybe you mean the literal unidentified aspect ; that these things arent identified. If you mean that ok, I get that, but what would be the point of saying that? People who believe they can t be identified one way or the other will stay out of the debate.

Originally posted by liquidself
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I don't understand how you can say that it s a fact that everyone believes in ufo s and its not a debate. It certainly is a debate and as near as I can tell it s usually a bad idea to admit you take the possibility of alien life seriously in mixed company. You certainly wouldnt mention it during a job interview.

Maybe you mean the literal unidentified aspect ; that these things arent identified. If you mean that ok, I get that, but what would be the point of saying that? People who believe they can t be identified one way or the other will stay out of the debate.

What the heck are you talking about? I readily tell people that I believe there is ET life out there in the universe, and most people agree with me. The probability of ET out there is extremely high, and most educated people understand that. If someone is so close-minded or ignorant that they think you are crazy to believe such a thing, then why even care what they think about the subject?

I m not really sure that I do care what other people think about it ; but I will listen to their opinions. If I just come out and say "Look, I believe in aliens" then I think I am going to get funny looks - I say in "mixed" company because my friends all already know and have accepted that in me (or at least I have deluded myself into thinking that) so I mean people you may not know so well, the general public etc. Its not publicly accepted knowledge like say the earth is round and such. So there is a public debate. Most scientists will accept the possibility of alien sentient life, but most do not (at least publicly) accept that that life has come here, to Earth.

Thats what I m talking about.

How do debunk UFOs?

Just review all the available evidence. There is always some point at which it all just peters out into a big question mark (which makes it essentially useless), or turns out to be a hoax.

Show me examples where this wasn't the case.

Originally posted by CYRAX
en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

Could it not be a fubared test of a black-project stealth blimp or other UAV that strayed off its intended course?

Otherwise, if there's nothing to say what it actually was, it remains uselessly unknown. To say or imply anything else is bunk.

Originally posted by CYRAX
en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

I'll happily admit I haven't looked at it in detail (yet), but Tim Printy does a fine job of analysing such stuff, and here's his (rather long) page:
home.comcast.net...

Is there any particular aspect of that case that is not addressed in that link?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by CYRAX
en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

I'll happily admit I haven't looked at it in detail (yet), but Tim Printy does a fine job of analysing such stuff, and here's his (rather long) page:
home.comcast.net...

Is there any particular aspect of that case that is not addressed in that link?

I'm sure Printy did just a fine job as Sheaffer or Oberg did on say the Portage County case or the Trent photos.

What I've noticed far too often is that self-proclaimed skeptics are unwilling to read beyond the supposed "skeptical" (read: irrational rationalists) literature, so they stick with like-minded publications. These is even factual data which supports this notion.

Note you admit you "haven't looked at [the case] in detail yet" but this does not hold you back and recommend Printy's analysis as being a "fine job" even though you don't really know if it is.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by CYRAX
en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

I'll happily admit I haven't looked at it in detail (yet), but Tim Printy does a fine job of analysing such stuff, and here's his (rather long) page:
home.comcast.net...

Is there any particular aspect of that case that is not addressed in that link?

I'm sure Printy did just a fine job as Sheaffer or Oberg did on say the Portage County case or the Trent photos.

What I've noticed far too often is that self-proclaimed skeptics are unwilling to read beyond the supposed "skeptical" (read: irrational rationalists) literature, so they stick with like-minded publications. These is even factual data which supports this notion.

Note you admit you "haven't looked at [the case] in detail yet" but this does not hold you back and recommend Printy's analysis as being a "fine job" even though you don't really know if it is.

At least I posted a link. Your post however, was completely content free.

Are you afraid to point out the parts of that particular case that you are most enamoured with? I'm happy to discuss sensibly, if only you have a point to discuss.

Originally posted by jclmavg

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by CYRAX
en.wikipedia.org...
debunk that case

I'll happily admit I haven't looked at it in detail (yet), but Tim Printy does a fine job of analysing such stuff, and here's his (rather long) page:
home.comcast.net...

Is there any particular aspect of that case that is not addressed in that link?

I'm sure Printy did just a fine job as Sheaffer or Oberg did on say the Portage County case or the Trent photos.

What I've noticed far too often is that self-proclaimed skeptics are unwilling to read beyond the supposed "skeptical" (read: irrational rationalists) literature, so they stick with like-minded publications. These is even factual data which supports this notion.

Note you admit you "haven't looked at [the case] in detail yet" but this does not hold you back and recommend Printy's analysis as being a "fine job" even though you don't really know if it is.

And right now I'm starting to go through it all, both the claim/s, and Printy's analysis. Have you? Anyone?

I started with the Wikipedia article, and read the preface which clearly warns:

"[this article's] sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations."

Indeed, the Wiki starts off with a claim of 13,500 "estimated" witnesses, but nowhere does it explain how that was estimated, or by whom. If you track back to the link from which that claim comes, it leads to a site that quotes an article from the "Sunday Express" (which could be one of several similarly named papers), and when you then try to click on the link to determine the original source, that link is broken. It is also notable that the article was written 5 years after the 'main event'...

Yes, that Wiki is off to a flying start...

Anyway, I shall continue to look it over, but rather than hijack this thread too much, perhaps any Belgian UFO case experts might like to summarise the key VERIFIABLE points of the case, so that they can be addressed directly and briefly...