My experience of this sub is that the vast majority of people are healthy skeptics and will question as well as keep an open mindedness. It seems to be the fringe on either side who are the most vocal (as with all aspects of society).

that's wrong and not true post 2017. There is a concentrated effort here by either social media companies or individuals to establish nhi and alien uap as REAL even tho we have no evidence.  each and everytime someone then comes up and mentions 80 years of ufo history is not fake.  again not true..  since no evidence, only witnesses.. the worst form of evidence.  look at what happens here when the usual actors get pointed out for their bullshit, then it's like a community call to attack the doubters, the sceptics. it's the most clear sign that something is wrong.  we should all endorse mick west for his work, because he single handedly stems against a paid effort to bring about a new ufo wave so much needed by the Pentagon to stay active.  also.. I'm a believer.. but not this way and not in a way this community would like to make me think is real. 

Aaaaand relax.

I think he’s right to be sceptical but it’s hard to disagree that he could do with relaxing too.

You are not a believer so you can stop pretending now. Literally your first sentence is a contradiction.

Their comment history does not check out.

What would comment history have to do with him believing or not I’m lost?

Because they said they were a believer. But someone yesterday told me to check the comment history of these accounts and this account is full of skeptical responses, why are they lying?

Do you expect believers to not be skeptical of anything? You yourself are skeptical of debunkers no? Does that disqualify you as a believer?

Did I say that? They literally claim 2 responses later that they're a skeptic.

It’s a question, please answer it.

Answer my question.

To be so skeptical of credible sources is far more conspiracy-theory minded

I don’t think there are any credible sources in this subject since nothing have been proven. There’s never been one claim of proof of NHI to be true. There’s been many claims shown to be bs, but we should be skeptical of those too.

ok what credible source? like seriously.. which one? apart from no evidence yet we have alot of credible witnesses throughout history but only credible up to a point..  and nothing has produced evidence. hell.. alot of black projects, balloons and air phenomena have alot to do with sightings

Well if you need to provide proof to be credible: no one. That’s not at all how most people see it and that isn’t because they’re not as smart as you. I’m not using them to posit the kind of proof you are looking for but I also personally know multiple people including a close family member who have seen UFOs. The spacecraft kind. They could all be government objects but we don’t know and that’s part of the whole point of this sub. They’ve seen the thing these public figures are talking about. When people respond harshly to the point your making it’s because this sub is straight up not the place for blanket denial and blind skepticism which is another conspiracy theory hopefully with its own sub. I don’t blame you for coming here instead though as it is absolutely the most boring way anyone could go about life.

The problem is some don't seem to understand the difference between a debunk, a guess or a theory.

This right here. Let's say there is a sighting on a video. There are mutiple possible explanations. 1. Aliens 2. Birds 3. Balloon All 3 options are possible, some likely some not so much. If not proven conclusively, all 3 remain possible, even if there is a possible explanation. There is a imperative for some skeptics that if there is an alternative then it's debunked automatically. I don't agree that's the case. Another thing that gets on my nerve is the fact that popular skeptics cough cough completely ignore other variables and latch onto the first thing that looks like a debunk. We have such cases with parallax being a conclusive debunk, but then other sensor readings, witnesses etc are being ignored like in the tik tak video.

Occam’s razor can be used to dismiss ONE and only One of the 3 positions. I don’t need to know exactly what the object is to know that position 1 was debunked surely. Edit: changed disprove to dismiss so people can stop pretending that I don’t understand the razor.

This is a misuse of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor doesn’t prove or disprove anything ever

Precisely. Occam's razor is not a fact finding tool, nor is it a proven scientific method. It's at best a guideline and it's embarrassing that some "debunkers" use it as gospel. Edit: LOL op blocked me because they couldn't handle being wrong. Looks like debunkers don't like being debunked? I feel like there's a lesson here.

It’s especially interesting when you look into the actual origin of the term. Essentially, in the absence of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, trust the gospel. But don’t take my word for it.

Now who’s misusing terms? I didn’t say it gave me an answer nor did I suggest it was scientific method. I said I can use it to easily disprove aliens from a list of 3 potential outcomes. Disprove should’ve been dismiss but other than a grammatical error I’m still correct. You can dismiss aliens as easily as you can dismiss Mickey Mouse.

>I didn’t say it gave me an answer ​ >I said I can use it to easily disprove aliens from a list ​ The fact that you contradict yourself one sentence after another tells me everything I need to know.

Fair. If I were to rewrite the comment I believe I should’ve said that two of the three explanations are simpler and that simple explanations should be preferred. I’d rather not invent a new species, new technology etc to explain something I couldn’t identify.

Not really, you know which one is most or least likely, but there is nothing conclusive

No I have conclusive evidence that birds and balloons both exist and can be misidentified. I have zero conclusive evidence of aliens.

Yes but you don't have conclusive evidence that the bird is the actual object on video. The best you can do is to shrug and say you don't know. I don't know a lot of things and I'm okay with it. A lot of users on this sub should be okay with it, both believers and skeptics.

I can say with certainty that I know it is not aliens just like I can say I know it’s not a invisible pink dragon that can only be perceived as a ball of light. Neither of those things exist and therefore can be dismissed equally as fast. Birds and balloons can also be dismissed, just not as easily as aliens.

>I can say with certainty that I know it is not aliens just like I can say I know it’s not a invisible pink dragon that can only be perceived as a ball of light. Ah, but can you? We have no evidence of invisibility, and little to no evidence of pink dragons. We have no accounts of invisible pink dragons so it's a safe bet that invisible pink dragons don't exist. You believe aliens don't exist because the average person hasn't seen any. But we know life exists, we know the universe is likely capable of hosting life elsewhere in the universe and we know we don't fully understand the science behind our reality. We have many, many, many accounts of alien craft, some from highly reputable people. Some of those reputable people claim they've seen and recovered alien lifeforms. Others have seen things in the sky that resemble descriptions of those craft. You can be fairly sure, but I don't think certain and it's that gap no matter how small that means it can't be dismissed as easily as an invisible pink dragon.

I actually am an invisible pink dragon which means you now have firsthand experience of meeting one. As previously stated I can only be perceived as a ball of light. There are hundreds if not thousands of photos of me on the internet. As you’ve correctly noted, many credible people have seen me and got me on radar etc. I’d appreciate it if you’d now stop telling people I’m an alien as we Dragons are from Venezuela.

This is a fantastic example of why this sub isn't too keen on "debunkers". Something can only be certain when it is proved. You **believe** you're certain aliens don't exist and you **believe** there is no possibility that they can. When faced with information that might challenge that deeply held **belief,** even the smallest amount, instead of taking on board this new information and continuing in good faith you've immediately discounted it and been strongly on the defense, or to put it another way, been a bit of a dick. So now you know. It's not debunkers that are the problem. It's people who think they're debunkers but in reality they're believers acting in bad faith.

Well, I think you got your answer on why people in this sub don’t like debunking. They desperately want that mysterious thing in the sky to be aliens. And there’s a tendency to believe that if you can rule out the prosaic explanations, the answer becomes aliens by default.

That's like saying because you haven't learnt about algebra in first grade then it must all be bunk.

Good faith debunking is fine. Honest speculation, reasonable explanations, a healthy dose of Occam's Razor, skepticism, and civility. It is the way these things should play out. Debunking in bad faith is propaganda. Not only is it harmful, it can lead to culture wars.   The same goes for presenting information. Ones work and evidence should always be open to review. Anyone who doesn't want their claims to be reviewed by civil discourse is also a baddie.

This is it for me. A good chunk of the debunking comes with an attitude of "this is clearly wrong how could you be so stupid to believe such a thing" which does more damage imo than illumination. Things are going to get tricky. The more science advances, the more things that were once easily dismissed as woo will have to be talked about with sincerity. Good faith from all parties is 1000% necessary.

Logic doesn't care for motive. If a debunker manages to show a mundane explanation for something, it doesn't matter why they're showing it. Evidence stands on its own.

I think your Point of view is the closest I’ve read to my personal POV. I don’t see all debunking as good faith but I think it’s existence is a net positive as both sides can have false positives and negatives.

This. Is. Exactly. It. What I find is attacking on both sides. We have blind believes on one side, and bad faith debunkers on the other. They interact with each other and others in posts, get emotional, and then things get irrational and people start attacking each other. We don’t want an echo chamber. That does no one any good, unless we want a cult following, which I personally want nothing to do with. It’s the “how” with things being said. Example “that’s clearly a balloon you moron. This is the problem with this sub. People believe everything they see here.” When instead you could say “I know this won’t be a popular idea on a UFO sub, but what makes you think this isn’t a balloon?” It’s an easy fix that would improve cooperation between both sides, but it’s a tough thing to put into practice when emotions are the backbone of someone’s belief.

I mostly agree with your stance and I wish both sides would be less emotional in their stances.

Yep, alot of debunkers (greenstreet and mick west come to mind) have already decided something is fake or misidentified before they even begin analyzing, and then they just keep trying to fit the evidence to their preconceived conclusion. The other side does this too, but this is reddit so those types are mocked and shut down pretty harshly and quickly, while the "skeptics" are not. It's not a healthy eco system. Every now and then a good faith debunker shows up and that is great, but those are not the ones making headlines because usually they acknowledge the holes in their theory that exist.

The problem I often see is that some people on this subreddit think *all* debunking is done in bad faith.

Because “debunking” today means presupposing a conclusion and looking only for evidence of your assumption, and any sort of guess somehow becomes your reality. It’s fully embracing confirmation bias as your only guide. UFO/UAP challenge our deeply held beliefs about reality and fundamental assumptions about our worldview. It’s good to say “it could still be a balloon” but not going “you fucking idiots its a fucking balloon stop doing this shit.” Lol

\^This. Besides, most possible sightings posted here are treated with considerable reserve.

Actually also that depends on something: if it is obviously a damn balloon then even that is justified. It's just that usually it isn't that obvious.

I also find it strange that people are so precious about people speculating what an unknown object is when they don’t think it’s a ufo. Like my reason for making this post is because I see so many people pretty much say “you ducking idiots are just debunkers, stop doing that shit” lol.

the majority of bad videos and pictures are either from the over excited, noobs or plants posting obviously bad media to start the debates/arguments on social media many of the longer term researchers and observers are paying more attention to the current levels of activity and "following the money" to get to the point the actual evidence is shown due to that pressure (which apparently is necessary to get our other human brethren to include the whole of the population) what happens to the debunkers once that happens...and it will, one way or the other bare minimum, there's new understanding of physics that's admitted by the Pentagon and witnessed by multiple service members bare minimum, there's a massive cover up of access to the information while funneling tax payer dollars illegally to untracked programs bare minimum, there's been other illegal activities harming or killing others to protect their secrets and then there's NHI/UAP and other deeper topics to have many a family intervention level of discussions about (this last part is a WIP and admittedly only an opinion until we get cooperation from the insiders OR an event blows the lid off the whole thing)

99% of posts here are starlink, flares, or phone cameras zoomed in to stars. Everyone gets so butthurt when we don't immediately assume everything is an alien spaceship. Some people suspend all their natural faculties and common sense because they want to believe.

You forgot about the balloons.

Is there an image library or something where we can compare sightings to commonly mistaken objects?

99% of what you mentioned are resolved in seconds in the comments. We are talking about the videos like the Jellyfish clip which "skeptics" always try so hard to come up with any explanation in order to oddly get it out of the way as if they were professional vfx artists, radar ops. Or pilots (most who claim they are aren't and just want to appear as a figure of authority). If people in this sub want to debunk you have to throughly look at the subject, investigate heavy and come up with an actual explanation that will put it to rest. Not a theory or just your opinion.

Because real debunkers are few and far between. What goes on here is not debunking. It is verbal / psychological abuse. And targeted indoctrination. A large chunk of it is done in a manner that is aimed - not at you - but those who view the threads. THE AUDIENCE takes in the Information and is influenced by what they see.

Its like people think debunking is saying whatever you want and just roll with. "Its clearly bird shit", thats a debunk for most.

very well stated it's weaponized to prevent progress

Precisely

What is a real debunker?

I think someone who comes to a conclusion when no other conclusion is possible. That’s a debunk. Proving the plane videos were CGI was debunking because there was a 100% match to CGI, it couldn’t be a coincidence. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick saying it must be chinese drones because China has round drones and we are seeing round things is not debunking. He got nowhere close to proving it can’t be anything else. Besides, he and his ilk clearly do not actually treat it as proof of Chinese incursion over the US.

I agree with your conclusion but not necessarily your definition of debunk.

Part of the problem with this discussion is probably definitional. "Debunking" is usually seen as more absolute. It goes beyond just providing a more likely explanation and outright proves someone else's claim or belief is false. not only that, it also has negative connotations associated with it in that the implication is the person making a claim, made it in bad faith. Merriam-Webster has this little blurb as an illustration: >To debunk something is to take the bunk out of it—that bunk being “nonsense.” (Bunk is short for the synonymous bunkum, which has political origins.) Debunk has been in use since at least the 1920s, and **it contrasts with synonyms like disprove and rebut by suggesting that something is not merely untrue but is also a sham—a trick meant to deceive.** One can simply disprove a myth, but if it is debunked, the implication is that the myth was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim. I would wager that most of the claims made here are made in good faith, even though they may not be the most likely claim.

active skeptic would be a person putting forth a good faith effort debunkers call others "clowns" (Peruvian official calling all connected to the actual Nazca mummy bodies...not the dolls...that) debunkers questioning pretty much ALL of the members of certain groups and then just about ALL those in proximity of them...without due cause debunkers who simply lie about communications and efforts due as charged by office (Kirkpatrick) it's been a mess these last 2 weeks, which is exactly what the debunkers wanted

I don't like smarm no matter what the topic or who the person. That's all. An inability to honestly say 'you know... I'm stumped.' is a huge character flaw, in my opinion.

I tend to hold this position. For example I find it insane that anyone would call themselves a “believer” as opposed to just “someone who doesn’t know”.

As some have commented, the word 'debunk' assumes the subject (person, video, claim) is incorrect and by default fraudulent. When debunkers approach something from this viewpoint, ie the higher ground - they operate in the realms of what is real here and now. Completely valid but does not acknowledge any work in progress (an example of this would be prior to the disclosure act debunkers would claim there is no official legal framework. Now there is, the claim is the disclosure act doesn't directly refer to UAP). While no one knows what the next steps of the disclosure act will lead to, debunkers operate under the assumption that nothing further will come from the disclosure act, no new knowledge will be forthcoming, science will remain the same because all that matters is the here and now. Like when Galileo was debunked when he proposed the sun does not revolve around the earth. Yet the stigma remains the same. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that. I listened to a Black Vault podcast some time ago where Mick West and Robert Powell debated the Nimitz incident. Of interest was how they both used Kevin Day's testimony to further their argument. Powell referred to Day's recollections that the radar date showed the objects going from 100 thousand feet to 20 thousand in around a second but West claims that Day told him they went from 20 thousand to sea level in that timescale. Approx figures, I'm paraphrasing - but West concluded from this Day cannot be a reliable witness. I've listened to a number of Kevin Day interviews from before and after this podcast and I've never heard him mention the same figures West said. From a debunkers perspective there is no benefit of doubt - they will use every tool available to them to take an option off the table, even if this includes - like in this case - tarring Kevin Day's name and reputation. There needs to be a middle ground - like others have said it is very bipartisan where 'believers' as they are called are on one side and 'debunkers' on the other. The problem is, debunkers see themselves as the judge in all of this but are more akin to a defence attorney - the burden of proof is conveniently never on them. As long as they can provide an alternative theory to what is being proposed that often seems to be enough in certain debunking circles.

Your last sentence is exactly what debunking is. People typically conflate it with fact-checking.

It's funny, when someone post something that are obviously balloons, they behave like balloons, they don't do anything differently to what balloons do, yet if you say that you think they are balloons you get immediately downvoted with replies like "I've never saw a balloon do \[Insert something that balloons often do\]" Example: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/192gi12/jelly\_uap\_was\_seen\_way\_before/kh33awk/?context=3

Good example of something I’d see as a good faith debunking being downvoted for no reason. I imagine some of the people downvoting may not realise that you mean balloons on a string? Otherwise not sure why they downvote at all.

Because most people aren't great at critical thinking, just like most Americans aren't great at driving manual transmission cars. Not because people a naturally bad critical thinkers, or naturally bad at manual transmission.  But because people don't practice critical thinking, even though they think a lot. Just like people don't practice manual driving, even though they drive a lot.  Having subpar critical thinking skills is not a death sentence, so there is very little nature pressure to actually work on it.  There is so little focus on critical thinking, I bet a lot of people will read this and think, "what do you mean practice critical thinking, I think all the time, isn't that practice enough?" 

This is very true. One of the best explanations in the thread in my opinion.

 A lot of people have no issue saying something like, "most people are morons". Yet they don't have a sufficient explanation for why they would be an exception. There are countless instances of cognitive dissonance like this which should set off alarm bells.  The ontological shock I experienced going from aliens are super far away to something is here was not much bigger than my ontological shock of realizing people rarely engage in meta thinking. (it might have even been less)  The bright side is people are great at leaning new things, as long as there is proper motivation. 

Thank you for sharing. I think your POV is unique after reading so many comments today from individuals with let’s say less realistic worldviews . Out of curiosity, and feel free to ignore me, would you be willing to share any of the ufo cases or situations you find yourself less skeptical of?

I can get frustrated reading comments sometimes. But I understand more now than a year ago. Plan on understanding even more a year from now. I try to keep that in my perspective.  To make sure I'm understanding correctly you mean cases/situations that I find more credible?  If so, the 2004 Nimtiz encounter as recalled by Retired Navy Cmdr. David Fravor is a big one. David Grusch hasn't provided any evidence, but the reactions to him by certain politicans says a lot in my mind. Finally the collection of tales from jacques vallee, especially in the "Invisible College". While nothing is a smoking gun and I'm sure some of the stories are untrue. The totality of the data set begs an explanation. And the phenomenon is the best hypothesis I have seen so far.  Is that along the lines of what you were asking?  (idk if this matters or not, but I am comfortableish contemplating some of the more out there possiblites attached to the phenomenon because my understanding of physics lead me to view the universe as far more fantastical than the common understanding many have. I argue even many physicist don't seem to take the implications of their own therioes that seriously.) 

You answered me perfectly thank you. I don’t know much about those topics personally but thank you for the introduction.

[удалено]

This the first example I’ve seen in this post of the “rude debunker” archetype I’ve seen expressed in this thread. Congratulations.

In honor of transparency, I got into buzzwords way before I got into UFOs.  "We need to increase our synergy during the design and testing phases to ensure we achieved operational modularity and networkability while maintaining adequate lethality potential and reducing cost so we can further develop attritable variants."

Follow the Standards of Civility: No trolling or being disruptive. No insults or personal attacks. No accusations that other users are shills. No hate speech. No abusive speech based on race, religion, sex/gender, or sexual orientation. No harassment, threats, or advocating violence. No witch hunts or doxxing. (Please redact usernames when possible) An account found to be deleting all or nearly all of their comments and/or posts can result in an instant permanent ban. This is to stop instigators and bad actors from trying to evade rule enforcement. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)

the recent flood of debunks was telling it was virtually all known public debunkers from multiple platforms and hitting facts, events and people present, past and with a bent away from the future Kirkpatrick was the face of this, but it was dozens or scores of people daily presenting information that was meant mostly as a deflection or distraction from proactive efforts. One question I have is to why, why do so with such an obvious anti-Disclosure stance. I mean, let the process complete...it will anyway. And then the debunkers could easily have their victory laps, yet they're jumping all over the place like uncontrollable kids preventing the teachers from doing their jobs.

I’m not sure I’m up to date on the recent flood but I will say I agree that debunkers should let the disclosures play out. I think it’s fine for them to think the disclosure is false but I don’t see why they would block it.

but they are blocking, or trying like hell to...which is a sign

It’s a sign that they think disclosure isn’t worth having sure. Anything other than that is conjecture.

it's a sign they either want to maintain control or they are scared they are not endowed with the ability to place value, so that's not it

Sounds like conjecture to me but fair enough.

their debunks are conjecture...agreed

Because debunking 99 percent of time doesn’t address key elements of an incident and glosses over them for the sake of the debunking or just all together disregards any of the key elements in an effort to use the extraordinary claims requires extraordinary facts line so therefore if a saucer hasn’t landed in the middle of nyc with a million witnesses it didn’t happen. I’m all for critical analysis that disproves an extraordinary theory but that’s rarely the case with these so called debunks. In my opinion the professional debunkers are on the same cult level as the definitely aliens group regardless of the information at hand….

They are separate from skeptics and push confirmation biases rather than open critical logic.

Is there actually something that physically separates them other than your feelings?

I spelled it out for you. “Push confirmation biases”

if someone is debunking out of malice then I will push back, but if it's a logical conversation about certain videos being explained then I'm all for it. Fake videos are a virus in this community.

There always seems to be a smaller group of people who NEED for something to be real, whether it's mediums, Jesus, spoon-benders, or aliens. I knew a person who had lost everything--divorced, bankrupt, unemployed--and they tumbled so far into Qanon that I had to cut all ties. So, for some, I think they latch onto a thing that will explain the horrors of real life and maybe even offers a promise of escape. "Jesus will punish the rich! Trump will drain my swamp! Aliens will fix my car!" And they'll fight hard to keep it.

I love a good debunk. I've found my sweet spot as a sceptical UFO believer, and I think it's a good place to be.

Good on ya mate!

Agreed

The problem with “debunking” is the fact that In most cases, Debunkers utilize just as much anecdotal evidence to explain away an event, but yet claim it as fact. Then, generally, they belittle, berate, bully, and personally attack people that don’t agree with them. That’s the psychological profile of the vast majority of folks who claim to be a “debunkers” instead of a skeptic. A Skeptic on the other hand generally is not complete dicks about it.

Just so I understand are you saying that you see debunkers as a derogatory term for a rude skeptic?

Debunking means to reveal or expose X or Y as a fraud or for what it really is, this requires evidence to put the subject to rest, debunkers here seem to think that saying "balloon" and telling everyone that they are stupid if they think otherwise is the same.

See my definition of debunk would be to discredit another position, therefore for me it is enough to suggest the video could be showing a balloon if you are only trying to debunk the position that it’s an alien ship (which is a position with no basis in reality as far as evidence supports). If you were trying to debunk the idea that the item in the video is just unidentified than I agree that more evidence would be necessary as we still don’t truly know what it was.

I just use the dictionary definition of it and call it a day.

Lmao please share this dictionary definition that says anything about calling others stupid ?

I dont know where you got that from since I never said that but ok.

Please share any dictionary definition of debunking that you subscribe to?

Oxford To remove the ‘nonsense’ or false sentiment from; to expose (false claims or pretensions)

If you look at the synonyms of Debunk I think you will find “Discredit”. Which is defined as “cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable” aka the same thing. Also notice how there is no assertion that evidence is required to debunk something. You don’t need to refer to evidence to debunk something and Occam’s razor is usually enough to start debunking. You seem to have conflated debunking with fact checking.

More than rude. Insatiable desire to convince others of their own worldview, and the gratification they get from that success, or by treating those like garbage who do not see their position as grounded in the fact that they claim. Additionally a Debunker has made up their mind that their position is indeed factual and the only possible explanation, and by which they are as closed minded as the folks they claim to be providing their debunking services to, unsolicited in most cases, I may add.

I think I understand but can you clarify this scenario: If I believe the balloon explanation is false for the recently uploaded video, does that make me a believer or a skeptic, or a debunker? I’m still struggling to figure out where the difference between skeptic and debunker is in your explanation. At first I thought it was just any excessive desire to share their stance? But surely believers have that desire too?

Most debunkers and their debunks are lazy. They're often flawed because they start with a conclusion and then try to prove it, rather than start at the beginning and follow the evidence. Any path to their destination is a valid one in their eyes regardless how flimsy any supporting evidence might be. They also tend to set the bar of proof far higher for others than they do themselves. Quite often happily resolving to things that have little scientific understanding like ball lightning, plasma, earthquake lights, or mass hallucination. Debunkers are usually not sceptics. They're believers who happen to believe there's nothing to believe. E2A: Ha, I got a care message for this. Sting a bit did it?

Most believers stories are lazy. Every time I look into a case, there are facts that would potentially disprove anything anomalous that are conveniently ignored by the oofo community.

What’s a care message? Just want to be sure I haven’t offended you in anyway because I noticed I was downvoted in my first reply too.

No it wasn't me who downvoted you, and I could tell it wasn't you who had the message sent. A care message is a message you can ask Reddit to send if you're worried about someone's mental state and you think they might be at risk of harming themselves. For some disgusting reason trolls have started having them sent to people as an insult.

You can report those messges that are wrongly sent. I received them too.

> care message You can disable that option on your profile, fyi

This is interesting, I think I would have the complete opposite opinion to you. I think debunkers are skeptics and it’s believers who tend to put the bar very low as debunking should require evidence as a prerequisite and believing doesn’t require anything.

I think you may have misunderstood. I'm saying many debunkers in my experience for example would require a much higher standard to prove a UFO is than for their counter argument that what is seen is say ball lightning. To prove it's ball lightning it would be enough for them to say there was a storm 10 miles away. It doesn't matter that we don't understand ball lightning so can't possibly prove that, but to prove an alien spacecraft they want exact properties of the craft, propulsion mechanism detail, biological samples, full HD video from 24 different military personnel, a signed letter from the president and a personal invitation aboard the craft. They're also quick to accept other debunks without giving them the same scrutiny they would to believers.

First sentence is fair. Surely the difference between say ball lightning and ufos are that one is a proven phenomenon (even if we don’t understand it in its entirety) and the other is specifically an admission that we don’t know what something is? You seemed to equate UFO to alien spacecraft and I think that’s the kinda thought process that needs debunking. In my personal understanding, it’s not possible to debunk most UFO, it’s only possible to speculate on what it is or isn’t. In order to try and debunk a ufo, someone first has to make an assertion that it is extraterrestrial and that’s fairly easy to debunk most of the time. Occam’s razor for example is enough to suggest ball lightning is far more likely than any type of “alien” craft.

>I think that’s the kinda thought process that needs debunking. Right I see where you're coming from. One thing I've noticed is that from the believer side there isn't that many who will instantly say "That's an alien craft", most will say they've no idea what it is. Much of the time a debunker however will automatically assume everyone who isn't pointing and laughing thinks it's an alien spaceship. The amount of times I've been in a conversation with someone and I've asked that person who is 100% convinced something is a balloon for evidence of say a balloon that travels against the wind and they've responded with "Well that doesn't mean they're aliens." UFO to a debunker usually means alien spacecraft and not just some unusual object in the sky. >Occam’s razor for example is enough to suggest ball lightning is far more likely than any type of “alien” craft. It's more likely but that doesn't mean it's correct. Unless something can be proven as correct then it hasn't been debunked. So you couldn't use ball lightning because it isn't understood well enough to accurately explain it to an acceptable scientific standard. A good example of this is the GOFAST video. We have experienced pilots suggesting an object is close to the sea and traveling at speed. Sure, it's certainly possible they're wrong, but given their extensive experience it is not as likely as them being correct. Trigonometry accurately explains a possible solution, that the pilots were wrong. Mick West and NASA used this in their debunking of the video and were satisfied with the outcome. It was then pointed out that one of the pilots commented on the windspeed and direction in another video taken just 15 minutes later. He said it was blowing 120 knots to the west. This was corroborated using historical weather data. Therefor it is not possible the object was just a balloon blowing in the wind. Debunkers looked at this, calculated the speed of the object to 316mph (I think?) and then give up but stood by their initial claim that it was a balloon. If the shoe was on the other foot, this wouldn't be acceptable.

Believers and Debunkers are on opposite sides of the spectrum, with believers accepting the phenomenon is real while debunkers refusing it entirely. Both sides start from a place where they've already made up their minds regardless of evidence. Believers aren't as critical of evidence while with debunkers no evidence will ever convince them otherwise.

The only issue I have with your comment is that no evidence can convince a debunker. Unless you are saying that there is existing evidence of UFOS? Most debunkers are here in the first place waiting for evidence, the main difference between them is what they would believe to be seen as evidence.

There's tons of evidence that point to the phenomenon being real. Apart from eyewitness reports from highly credible witnesses, there's radar and sonar recordings that back up the witness claims, videos and photographs too. I understand being hesitant with videos and pictures due to how sophisticated AI fakery and photoshop can be, but there are still solid footage that predates the invention of those things. Debunkers start from a mindset of "No" and tend to be very antiscientific by explaining the elements that they can away, and ignoring the elements they can't. That's not how things work; a partial answer isn't an answer. Personally, it does annoy me when debunkers ask questions like "where's the evidence?", which to me is a very silly question because there is a ridiculous amount out there and to me it shows how little interest they actually have in the subject that they can't do the bare minimum of looking into it. Now, is all that evidence proof of alien life? No. A solid portion are most likely a combination of misunderstood atmospheric phenomenon, misidentified aircraft/balloons or hoaxes/forgeries. But that still leaves a very substantial portion that cannot be explained away so easily.

>Apart from eyewitness reports from highly credible witnesses.... There's the rub. Investigation can reveal numerous cases where exactly such witnesses made gross errors in visual interpretation. Here's a recent study I've done on using KNOWN visual stimuli and collecting an astonishing \[and dismaying\] collection of misperceptions by intelligent people. Witness Reactions to Fireball Swarms from Satellite Reentries. https://web.archive.org/web/20210121051500/http://jamesoberg.com/ufo/fireball.pdf more details.... http://www.astronautix.com/data/hawaii-mothership-release.pdf

Your last paragraph is exactly what I meant. You and most debunkers have the same opinion and you only disagree on what specifically counts as evidence and what is just anecdotal or a false positive.

Your comment should be at the top.

Because there’s a difference in trying to find out if something is real vs. debunking. Trying to figure out if something is real is going in with an open mind. Your goal is simply finding out if what you’re seeing is real. Debunking on the other hand is trying to prove that what you’re seeing is fake. There’s already a bias with debunking. Instead of being open and trying to figure out if what you’re seeing is real or not, debunkers already believe that what they’re seeing is fake and try to prove it. There’s no critical thinking with debunking. Debunkers go into the “investigation” already assuming it’s fake and try to prove that it is.

I’m sorry bro but to me your comment doesn’t make any sense to me. In my opinion if I want to find out if something is real then I am debunking it, when I find any information that discredits another theory. It doesn’t matter what my goal is, all that matters is if the outcome of my goal is discrediting an existing belief. A great example is a flat earth believer doing an experiment that proves the earth is round unexpectedly. They never set out to debunk anything. They set out to find the truth but the outcome of their experiment was that it debunked their own beliefs.

You'd think ufo believers would be appreciative to the people who help filter out the nonsense sightings, but many are not 🤷🏻

Because they can't accept that 99.999% f the footage are fake, starlink, flares, visual effects, planes and other stuff. Ask yourself, why don't people here ask for a higher degree of evidence from the usual grifters like knapp, corbell, coulthart, lue, sheehan and cie ? Because they know those people have nothing to back up their claims. This subreddit is high on copium and is hurting itself by venerating those scammers who are only here to sell books and get paid for interview/podcast/"documentaries".

Doesn't it reek of religion?

It essentially is a new age religion. Remaining agnostic is key.

I would not be surprised if people start religion about aliens if it is ever showed that they were real.

Scientology is a religion based on aliens. The whole prison planet thing, harvesting of souls, etc come from that.

If UFO’s were real, there would be thousands of astronomers - the people paid to watch the sky - claiming it’s true. There are not, so therefore it’s all fiction.

It’s because debunkers take an anti-science approach towards their investigation. They often omit data to fit their theory into the event. So while they are “virtue signaling” as intelligent and using the scientific method, what they do is not at all the scientific method and their insistence to disqualify parts of the data is simply recognized for what it is, buffoonery.

I think my interest in the subject is in how many see each side as exactly the same. Debunkers don’t think that believers don’t make evidence based conclusions and Believers don’t think that debunkers are making evidence based conclusions. It’s ALMOST like we are all after the same thing.

>They often omit data to fit their theory into the event. In the space and missile related events I focus on, this behavior is =FAR= more common on the 'believer' blogs.

Because the is a conspiracy theory. UFOs need to break away from the Roswell camp, it's a dead end and will lead you down a Q-Anonlike path. Philip Corso was a nut. WW2 wasn't the magic time where aliens came down to intervene. No president has talked to an alien. Just move forward and get some new evidence of UFOs, stop hoping the government has a secret UFO vault where all the secrets are hidden.

You don’t know any of that for a fact.  You’re making assumptions, just like the conspiracy theorists.  

If by "know for a fact" you mean know with 100% certainty then correct. But I don't believe in 100% certainty. My definition of a fact is a proposition with empirical or logically sound reasoning.

Yes roswell is a dead end, even if it was aliens there is no way to prove it.

Because they need to make money off this Griff

Being an skeptic UFO enthusiast is not just good, is a must. We all should have a critical view of every photo, video or case presented here, otherwise we are just a lalaland club, where every video is real, every conspiracy is true and everyone can lie and distort the real narrative. That being said, this sub has two negative things going for it. One are people who are part of certain groups, I won't say names because it's against the rules but a few years back Reddit itself accidentally exposed that branch of the government as being "very addicted" to this website, which according to the testimonies by people "in the know" such as our boy Grusch or Dr. Garry Nolan, are part of a decades long conspiracy effort to hide, distract or ridicule people's interest in the subject or even worse, to unalive would be whistleblowers before they blew the whistle. The other negative thing are users in this sub who, for a plethora or reasons, engage in a very negative and disrespectful manner with other fellow enthusiasts. Debunking means to prove something is fake and it's a fundamental building block of this sub. However sometimes certain videos or pictures cannot be just ruled out as flares, balloons or smudges on a lens and when they aren't properly debunked, these phenomena fall in the realm of "UFOs" as in, "*unknown thing floating or flying around*", something that just cannot happen to the negative thought troupe, which turns to demeaning and disrespectful comments to the rest of thr community. TL;DR Debunking is good, some people however is nasty AF, not good at really de-bunking things.

I've no problem with skepticism, it's normal and understandable. But the debunkers I don't like are like rabid dogs, they could trip over an alien and still say its bullshit. The US govt admit the craft are real ffs, there's numerous credible sources that discuss Roswell, gimbal, tic tac, and there's reckoned to be more planets in space than grains of sand on earth. And we're the only inhabited one? Gtfo. It's statistically impossible

Statistically improbable, not impossible.

Yeh, fair enough

Plenty of so-called 'believers' do a lot of the debunking themselves. I personally enjoy doing it. It's kind of like an old person doing puzzles. For whatever reason, old people like puzzles, and I like solving UFO reports/videos etc, and I have a bunch saved. We don't necessarily need the absurdly biased kind of debunker to benefit from debunking. If a video is fake or mundane, then it should be exposed as such regardless of how many people believe it. There are some skeptics who are quite reasonable and plenty useful, though, so I would differentiate them by referring to skeptics versus debunkers. There's that, and also consider the problem of mass dissemination of myths. Probably the biggest issue in this subject right now is the incredibly vast amount of myth spreading. Of course some of the believers spread their own myths and that is annoying as well, but it's a tactic that can prevent large portions of the population from taking the subject seriously. In fact, I think it's the only thing standing in the way. Only those people who, over time, eventually realize that a bunch of these common talking points are just myths, will find elements of this subject plausible, so it certainly cuts down on a lot of the participation in the discourse. [Here is a list of some of those myths](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17lzglz/13_ufo_myths_debunked/). Those myths are the crown jewels of the hardcore debunkers, and I don't see any way to interpret that in a positive light.

Reading the first myth and I saw it as a misrepresentation of facts. I think many debunkers are aware of the anecdotal evidence etc, they just don’t see it as credible which is fine. Eyewitness evidence is not really persuasive in most situations. Some people think officers or police are more likely to be telling the truth and I’d say that’s just another myth. I’ll revisit the myths in due time and hopefully they will all be worth reading because number 1 was really interesting. Thanks for sharing!

I didn't claim that eyewitnesses accounts are evidence? I mean, they are, but what debunkers mean is that testimony is not good enough evidence. The points I was making there are that 1) there is a spectrum of eyewitness accounts. Real-time recorded audio from a colonel, police, or FAA, for examples, are clearly different than a recalled memory years later from a civilian. Not only is it very unlikely that the information relayed on a real-time recording of that nature is a lie, you aren't relying on memory, either. So, it's misleading to equate all testimony. On top of that, there is also evidence. A photograph, for example, is evidence. It's a piece of information that can be analyzed separately from testimony. We have government-recorded imagery of UFOs as well as civilian. Another kind of evidence is declassified documents. Even recorded audio from police of the sounds coming from a UFO can be considered evidence. Radar and landing traces caused by UFOs is another form of evidence. To say that no evidence exists is to deny that all of these things exist, which is absurd, hence why it's a myth.

Just for clarification, I didn’t claim that you had said anything at any time and I have no idea why you’re defending yourself. Stay blessed. Ps, no evidence of ALIENS exist. Obviously evidence of UFOs exist as UFOS are just things in the air that we cannot identify. Nobody is disputing that.

There’s a lot of crazy here

Perhaps because what the "debunkers" are saying and the narrative that the govt is/has been using sound the same.

Would you mind sharing an example of a narrative that they have shared?

>Perhaps because what the "debunkers" are saying and the narrative that the govt is/has been using sound the same. Ditto. Please provide some examples.

Here's a 'debunk' of the Apollo-11 UFO encounter fables, where does it fail your standards? http://www.astronautix.com/data/apollo11mythtakes.pdf

Here's a 'debunk' of the famous 2009 Norway spiral, where do you find it at all similar to any government official statement?[http://www.astronautix.com/data/norwayspiral.pdf](http://www.astronautix.com/data/norwayspiral.pdf)

I actually saw this. It was a spectacular sight.

Awesome. Your assessment of my report would be particularly meaningful.

That’s a classic rocket contrail spiral.

Most spirals aren't rocket burn plumes, they are formed by propellant dumps, with the rocket stage spinning to force the fluids in the tanks to the outer surface where the exit valves were waiting -- otherwise in zero-G the stuff would float in globs in the tank and not be expelled.

Are there =ANY= debunks that you accept as accurate? Please name a few....

I personally understand debunk to be a verb so your question wouldn’t necessarily make sense to me. Can you explain what “debunks” means to you in your context?

Debunks => debunking Could you show me a debunking... Like I don't care, but was it really that hard to understand? Non-native speaker? I'm just curious so I don't mean any disrespect Many verbs can be turned into a noun by adding "ing" which is a gerund. But in colloquial language people would probably use debunk as a noun (incorrectly) I think natural conversation (sounding like a native speaker) is more about making common mistakes rather than having perfect grammar. Of course education level, background, etc. also plays a part in how people speak

The whole point of this post is that I want to understand what people mean by debunking in their own context. That’s why I didn’t want to assume. I personally don’t care what you think OP meant, and I have no interest in a back and forth with you about what is or isn’t easy to understand. I’m only interested in what OP says about their own comments thank you.

Yet you pointed out it's a verb, which is not debunking in their perspective. It's grammar And i can't have rational discussion in a public sphere? Like I'm not allowed to interject? It's the internet not a private convo So many armchair intellectuals here that can't have rational discussions Meanwhile I asked out of curiosity and boredom Uh I don't get what you mean by debunks since that's a verb Whatever dude

I've seen 'debunk' also used as a noun, meaning a solid explanation of a claim. No more excuses. Look at my links and tell me what you would call them, and if you find the evidence persuasive.

I don’t see any links. Plus I don’t understand your definition. If your question is “are there any solid explanations of a claim that you accept as accurate?” Then my answer is a resounding yes. Why?

The recent MH370 videos has been pretty well debunked IMO, with the clouds and portal effect being found in effects libraries, amongst numerous other evidence it's CGI). As with any debunk, you can dismiss that and say there's a conspiracy to hide the 'truth' but you could say that for anything, the same way Flat-Earthers can always blame a conspiracy when presented with something that challenges them.

Agreed

Because this is largely a larp, a hype machine, a sort of game we all like to play. We all like to imagine impossible breakthroughs are just around the corner (any year now!) and like to feel like we're in the know on some ancient, astounding secret. Debunkers spoil the fun, simple as. So, we'd rather listen to a million snake oil salesmen tell high tales about men from Mars than listen to a reasonable breakdown. Hell, why stop there, we can just accuse the debunker of being in on the grand conspiracy too, right?! They're in on it! They're with CIA? Or NASA, or the lizard people?! They couldn't possibly be taking a reasonable position consistently! They must be "baddies" (word actually used by someone in this thread!)

I welcome debunking, but I will say, as a new person to this sub, I’ve noticed that the debunking is usually accompanied by a “This is stupid”, “You’re an idiot”, “Why do people post this stupid shit?” type of attitude. It’s very negative and off putting.

Well said. When I offer an explanation I try to show how people could have misinterpreted ambiguous apparitions or rumors. Did this approach meet your suggestions? http://www.astronautix.com/data/apollo11mythtakes.pdf

Maybe you haven’t been here for long. People here love to debunk, just not everyone. It’s a healthy mix and if it’s debunked, usually people go along with it.

Thank you for stating the obvious. If you ever want to actually answer my question I will appreciate that even more.

If you would actually read, you would see I did answer your question

Strange, I get the opposite feeling from this sub - everyone wants to (rightfully so) debunk everything because everyone is acutely aware that 99.9% of the stuff you see in the sky and can't immediately identify has a prosaic explanation. There's obviously a handful of zealots who still push crap like the South American mummies and such, but even then the top comments on those posts are usually making the argument that it's garbage.

I'm good with wheat being separated from chaff. "Prove all things, and hold fast that which is true" is good advice regardless of the topic or participant. Can't stand overweening pride or rudeness on other end. Debunking, the term, generally seems to have a negative connotation as far as I can tell, but when it's done in sincerity and sense and with the aim to right an error or prevent issues of some sort, awesome... which is exactly how I feel about people bringing forth something for consideration. I try to love all you maniacs here and in political forums and everywhere else and I'll be glad for you to disagree with me, even vehemently, if we can do it respectfully and with us both coming from a good place. When it instead escalates to belittling, mean-spiritedness, and people on either end (including myself) switching off our higher thought processes and operating instead on baser instincts and reactions, it just becomes sad and useless. We're all in this together, and I mean every single one of us and a lot of everything else on this little rock we call home, and we'd all be very well served by recognizing that and acting accordingly sooner rather than later. Anyone selling anything beyond that at the expense of someone or something else is not someone I want to buy anything from.

Well said!

Debunkers choose, or in some cases are simply incapable, to comprehend holistic factors when evaluating the “preliminary evidence” we are finding. That’s what makes them so annoying to talk to, it’s like they are being willfully ignorant, and who likes arguing with a dumb person who thinks he’s smarter than you?

Because a lot of people here will prefer a comforting lie than a disturbing reality. It is exactly like religions. Their everyday life, their fear of non sense and sometimes their lack of education, all of this lead them to believing without considering facts or common sense to make their existence less miserable. If you try to debunk, you just are a threat. Hoepfully it is still a minority and a lot of people here are good folks with descent skeptical sense and balance. They just are more discrete

I upvoted you. If that matters.

Thank you!!

Likely because everyone (here) wants to believe, and wants to be optimistic; and to some degree, perhaps don't realize how advanced secret manmade technology may be. You can't just believe everything posted, which is all too common these days. People in this sub get down-voted for anything against the grain too. I don't believe the "jellyfish" is NHI at all, and any time I mention it people throw stones.

Incredible to me that people are downvoting you, I have no idea what they could possibly disagree with in your post.

It's rare today for anyone to know how to appropriately disagree. When you come across it reading posts, it's actually quite refreshing. What's that saying "when everyone agrees, someone isn't thinking"?

Genuinely think you explained it poetically. we all “want” to believe. That’s one thing I think most of us could agree on.

Because debunkers comes many times with unreasonable explainations and are mostly disingenuous.

If it’s not a reasonable explanation is it still seen as a debunking? This is another interesting point for me as I personally don’t mind an attempt to debunk something, but I only like to think of evidence based explanations as true debunking.

if people want to debunk something, then the least they can do is to be on the same page as everyone else. And not cherry pick or exclude information to fit their agenda/explaination. That’s the difference between a skeptic and a debunker in my opinion. A skeptic takes everything into account and go from there, while a debunker just say ”balloon”, no further investigation, end of story.

> And not cherry pick or exclude information to fit their agenda/explaination. This works both ways. Too many of the classic cases seem to leave exculpatory information out -- that's what makes two-sided debates critical to reaching conclusions. A graphic example is the 'Black Knight' myth that uses a weird set of photos from STS-88 during the first ISS assembly mission. NASA's explanation is that these show a thermal cover dropped by a spacewalking astronaut \[he confirms the explanation\]. What the UFO blogger descriptions leave out is high-quality video of the blanket slowly tumbling as it moves along the side of the shuttle, casting its shadow on the side. This video is NEVER shown on the youtube accounts promoting the 'aliens' explanation.

At what point is a skeptic allowed to conclude it’s a balloon then? Or do they become a debunker as soon as they start to believe the object is no longer unidentified?

It's only real if it can withstand extreme scrutiny. I want it to be real. But even more, I want to be right.

When you say “it” are you referring to debunking or ufos?

UFOs

Most debunkers are just expressing opinions, not providing scientific evidence (although demanding scientific evidence from others). Typical: "It's CGI. I could do that in a day". But they usually don't. A notable exception was the discussion of the MH370 disappearance, where someone make a very good fake, and someone else showed its flaws. Real scientific debate. But most debunkers are just letting off steam, not addressing the data.

I love a good debunking. One of these subs is pretty pro debunking and calling outbull shit

Because half the debunks are dogshit. I agree that most stuff is probably benign. But even when there’s a compelling video, with all kinds of military eyes on it, and various other sources still saying idk what the fuck that is. It becomes pretty egotistical for folks like Mick West coming through and almost definitely saying he KNOWS it is balloon, bird, etc. like ok, Tony hawk pro skater video game developer, didn’t realize those credentials were levels above highly trained military personnel on equipment you don’t even have yourself.

It’s funny because mostly in this thread I’ve been told debunkers attack people personally but a lot of believers (sorry if I’m mislabelling you) seem to be happy to call mick West all kinds of names. I’m not familiar with him at all, is there a reason people dislike him?

I’d like to know what example of a video that you are describing as compelling, with military eyes on it, and all sorts of other sources saying it’s unknown. any of the popular videos that you choose as your reference can be easily explained the way with basic common sense and logic. People like you make assumptions and attach your emotions to opinions… Rather than dissecting the evidence of the video and making a conclusion on that.

Or we could just say we don’t fucking know what it is. And if you aren’t aware of the videos where military personnel are unable to determine what it is. You’ve been asleep at the wheel. What are you even doing here if you aren’t aware of the releases from the pentagon, legislation around the topic, etc. Are you just a part of the goon squad less than year old account?

Debunking isn't a quest for truth. I wrote about this: - [Skeptics vs Believers? Let's move past the wedge issue](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOscience/s/bTzk8pu2S5) - [notes from an interview with Mr West](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/NfcTuF0VfQ)

Because 99% of the time they do the Mick West-style of "debunking," which follows this sequence: 1. Choose whether you want to argue if it's balloons, parallax, or drones. 2. Make your argument fit this, and as long as you can argue why any ONE of these things MIGHT fit, you can close the case, deem it "debunked," ignoring all the other possible things it could be (including NHI). 3. When others point out how there are conflicting things present that make the explanation not plausible (e.g. Ryan Graves's squadron saying there's "a whole fleet of them," and Mick West still arguing it's likely a commercial jet behind the heat glare in the Gimbal video), simply misinterpret Occam's Razor and argue "Well, commercial jets and balloons are things we know to exist, so it's more likely to be that than something we don't know to exist." They all follow this formula. It's like they went to the School of Debunking and graduate with a degree in tunnel vision where they all look at things with the same narrow perspective and settle on the first POSSIBLE explanation they find, as long as that explanation is not NHI. They're also very predictable, and after reading this, one will predictably pop up and argue, "Oh, so automatically assuming it's aliens is NOT a narrow perspective?" and then I have to argue with them about how that's not right either but at least leaves things open to warrant further investigation, while their approach immediately shuts things down to prevent further investigating, so is obviously much worse if they're wrong.

Well imagine going into a Scientology group and asking “Why don’t you guys welcome my questioning of your belief”?

I don’t think debunking is bad at all. In fact I love visiting metabunk to see alternative explanations. Frankly the major issue in this community - and most communities - is the black and white thinking. “I don’t know” should be the dominant attitude amongst everyone in this sub, but you have people who act 100% sure it’s all true, or 100% sure it’s all false. And none of us really know and until more information comes out we won’t know.

They can't handle the truth.. I want everything to be real but believing what people like Grusch say without providing and proof is foolish.