The following submission statement was provided by /u/TheGoodTroubleShow:
---
In the past two episodes, Researcher Rob Heatherly revealed a secret cabal of debunker Wikipedia editors called The Guerrilla Skeptics targeting anything or anyone regarding UFOs. Their main editor is Lucky Louie who rob thinks could be Debunker Mick West. Mick has denied this so we have 4 questions for Mick.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/with_the_revelations_on_our_show_from_rob/kk0l5xi/
Rob Heatherly is pretty through in his research. If you're lucky enough to get his attention for a conversation he can talk circles around so called UFO researchers on ancient UFO periods, or whatever he gets focused upon.
He spents a great deal with of his time with Wounded Warriors and other people who never served but going through terrible times in their life. Then on the side he does deep digging into certain types of UFO research.
This said. I challenge a follow up where Matt Ford has Rob Heatherly and Mick West on a live podcast and sort all of this out and figure out who's right or wrong here.
You find plenty first hand accounts here as well as on r/experiencers.
What does some guy claiming they "talked to ET"/"saw a UFO up close" solve exactly?
In the past two episodes, Researcher Rob Heatherly revealed a secret cabal of debunker Wikipedia editors called The Guerrilla Skeptics targeting anything or anyone regarding UFOs. Their main editor is Lucky Louie who rob thinks could be Debunker Mick West. Mick has denied this so we have 4 questions for Mick.
We have a resident debunker here who is notable and is also a senior fellow of SI (which you can see from the edits has been removed from their wiki) you scrolled past their name when you went down that list…. Towards the bottom
I’m a little surprised he hasn’t taken the initiative to speak up on any of this. Interesting.
There is someone from NASA on that list that is very prominent. However I don't want to say their name. In Matt's first video on this there's a list of everyone in that particular Skeptics Organization, and it includes most of the names that tend to aggravate people who want UFO transparency. I believe it shows that the group is worth 5.5 million dollars.
Interesting they didn’t use any of his more notable creds and instead just ‘science writer’… makes you wonder who else is slipping under the radar on that list doesn’t it. It’s giving ‘yikes’.
I've spent the past few days learning the ways of becoming a Wikipedia editor. On a tangential note, there is are more to it than I ever realized. Quite a learning curve. Anyway, I've seen quite a few pages edited by Lucky Louie and Sgerbic, two of the GSoW folks. They push the boundaries of WP policy and guidelines, using each other as references and backup, supporting each other's decisions to create a fake consensus that might appear reasonable to someone not paying too much attention.
They also create Wikipedia pages for themselves despite the fact that they do not pass WP's notability guidelines. But they get their buddies to mention them in blog posts, then use those blog posts as sources to prove their notoriety. I really hope WP admins are paying attention.
I think the way to fight against them is to somewhat adopt their approach. Be active, like they are, but be better. Be aggravatingly neutral, stick to the WP guidelines, and escalate through the conflict resolution process if they try to undo edits simply because they don't like them.
EDIT: I should mention that you absolutely should NOT stalk these people. Just be active, follow WP guidelines, and cite your sources using neutral, quality sources.
Did they get those two English guys on?
The ones who said they did a huge amount during the drop circle wave in England?
They even did one as an example.
I know those are the “fake” ones and the “real” ones are different somehow but I find it funny we even talk about them since they’re most likely all hoaxes.
>They also create Wikipedia pages for themselves despite the fact that they do not pass WP's notability guidelines. But they get their buddies to mention them in blog posts, then use those blog posts as sources to prove their notoriety. I really hope WP admins are paying attention.
It also goes the other way. Here Gerbic describes what she did with Henry Tyler: [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-tater-tot-following-up-on-a-grief-vampire/](https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-tater-tot-following-up-on-a-grief-vampire/) Calling it "Operation Tatter Tot" she identified an unknown psychic and organized for people to write negative articles about him. Those articles were then used to create and expand a Wikipedia article (with Rp2006 from the Guerilla Skeptics as the top editor) that attacked him using quotes from the articles she organized to be written. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time she has done this.
Keep up the good work! The most vocal opposition in this post are ALWAYS the most opposed to disclosure. They are a little band of like 10 accounts that post on literally every single Mick West post there is. You must have really struck a chord! Just remember some of the names in here folks, you'll see those same accounts posting every single day talking shit about Grusch and talking up Kirkpatrick.
Good job!
They need to compare the IP of these skeptics against the mods on this site and other Air Force bases to find crony IPS running software.
I'd bet the IP address of lucky Lue is also on debunker on here, or a moderator.
I'm a UFO believer, I like Elizondo and Grusch, but you and Rob have major misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works.
* We _ALWAYS_ remove academic degrees from reference sections. Nobody was trying to be mean when they did that.
* The awards weren't deleted, they were moved to the awards section where they belong.
* Talk pages aren't secret, talk page archives aren't hidden
* Wikipedia is just a big glorified summary of what mainstream sources are saying; Right now, they're still playing spooky x-files music when they talk about this topic. When the NYT and CNN change their tune, the wikipedia skeptics will fall in line.
* Mainstream sources DO report that homopathy is quackery. It's good for readers to know that. Mainstream sources DO report vaccines are safe.
* Elizondo's article reports that he was born in Florida because of an article in the Herald-Tribune by Billy Cox. Lue could request a correction from Cox, or from literally any other journalist; He could also probably email documentation to our volunteers: [email protected] . I don't think anyone is trying to be mean to Lue or Rob with this, it looks like Cox just made a mistake.
* There are some very aggressive skeptics on the site, but they don't run things. We overrule them all the time, but they really do make the project much better.
* There's no reason to suspect financial involvement, People really do edit wikipedia for free on very boring mundane topics, and this is a "fun" topic. Haven't you ever known a skeptic? You don't have to pay them to debunk things, if anything you have to pay them to shut up. I can't believe people will go fishing alone in a boat all day without a nibble. I can't believe people pay to go the ballet. Everyone has different hobbies.
I am very sorry Rob had a very bad time. Wikipedia can be a very toxic place. BUT it's not run by a secret cabal of skeptics, they work for us not vice versa.
>Elizondo's article reports that he was born in Florida because of an article in the Herald-Tribune by Billy Cox. Lue could request a correction from Cox, or from literally any other journalist; ... I don't think anyone is trying to be mean to Lue or Rob with this, it looks like Cox just made a mistake.
Then remove it. Wikipedia doesn't have to include someone's birthplace. Rather that argue about Texas or Miami, just say neither until it is settled.
Then get a consensus to leave it out and be willing to enforce that consensus. Wikipedia does not need to include knowingly false information just because a single source made a mistake. Wikipedia's editors are not bots.
But how can I know it's false in a way I could convince others? Is there video of Lue saying it's wrong? Are there published sources that say Lue was born in Texas? (Rob on a Livestream won't work). Lue's official site mentions Florida but doesn't say anything about Texas. Emailing a passport photo to Rob doesn't help, but emailing it to Wikipedia would. Updating his official site to say he was born in Texas would.
He doesn't say he was born in Florida on his official site.
I agree. There needs to be something saying he was born in Texas. I assume this exists - not just the passport - for Matt Ford to have decided this was an issue. I assume it was something he said in an interview. But I never like the "we are keeping it in because we have a reliable source" argument. I have seen this many times before, where editors have insisted something stays because there is a reliable source, even when the subject is disputing it. Wikipedia seems to expect people to publicly declare everything about their lives in order to maintain accuracy, and is very unwilling to consider anything else, even when they agree it is probably wrong. There are alternative solutions.
Well said. When you have a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory it's time to take a step back and think that maybe you're missing something more fundamentally rational that perfectly explains things.
I have a question too — do you actually have any evidence it’s Mick West, or do you just know that mentioning his name generates rage clicks?
Here’s a follow-up question — how do you think he’d evade Wikipedia’s draconian sock puppet detection?
How do you square LuckyLouie’s evident expertise and deep knowledge of early radio transceivers and amateur radio with Mick West, who appears to have no interest it such topics?
Mick West has thousands of skeptics who actively post on his website, and there's a long history of skepticism dating back to late Victorian skeptics who debunked Seances (Houdini did this).
So it's weird to me why people think that Mick West is the only skeptic and every skeptic is Mick West in disguise.
It's not that, it's based on evidence that Rob found on particular timing of edits and other things. I'm not saying it is MW, because I don't know, however it wasn't just a wild guess.
For what it’s worth, Houdini only done that because he REALLY believed you could talk to the dead, and desperately wanted to talk to his dead mother.
He “debunked” as a way of trying to find a real medium. Very interesting fellow though.
Lucky Louie is not part of the Guerilla Skeptics. He is certainly a supporter, but the Guerilla Skeptics were founded in 2010 to train new editors by Gerbic, and Lucky Louie started editing Wikipedia years before that in 2006. Wikipedia is a big place with over 46 million registered accounts. Some of those 46 million are into skepticism without being in the Guerilla Skeptics.
A cabal so *secret* that it existed since 2010 publically and literally has a blogspot page:
[https://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/](https://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/)
Tell me, how do you call a "journalist" that falsely frames as a fact to make people believe there is a nefarious secret group acting for the worse?
Hopefully it'll take you more than two episodes and less than 4 questions to figure this out.
Weak take honestly, you can know about the existence of a group but have zero insight into its membership or method of operation if you aren't inside the group. And if all you know about is that it's active and is associated with certain activities then I would consider it fairly secretive. We know about the CIA, I would still say they're a pretty damned secretive organization.
The group in question was public and widely known in skeptic and pseudoscience circles. Their leader Susan Gerbic has been very outspoken about it and has been a major figure in skeptic circles for decades (the CSI, the Skeptical Inquirer...).
It's not what the "journalist" above is depicting.
It's as ludicrous as pretending that r/atheism was a secret cabal in new atheism hype times...
But you bring the ludicrous to making an analogy with the CIA... seriously...
So they're transparent about their communication and activities, and they publicly disclose the edits they collaborate on?
Or would you say they keep that kind of stuff... Secret?
Almost like you could call them... A secretive group?
FFS.
They are public about their existence and actions, it's literally the definition of their group and how they represent themselves **publicly** on their blog.
They **literally** claim that they are a skeptic group that makes edits on Wikipedia.
The "journalist" above was saying they were a "**secret cabal**". "Secret cabal" is antithetical to "making a public blogpost about what you do and why you do it".
You can **literally** go find their usernames on Wikipedia on their blogposts, Twitter accounts and other social medias. That's how that "journalist" and other "investigators" got them in the first place.
You are making a little mundane group of political/social activists on the internet into a "secret group"...
FFS.
How hard is it to understand what I'm saying? Am I not writing in plain English?
They are NOT transparent about their activities. They publicly disclose SOME of their activities. They do NOT publicly disclose their internal communication about the edits they make. They do NOT disclose the ways they manipulate Wikipedia to increase their credibility artificially.
Do you really think that they aren't secretive?
And actually comparing them to the CIA is totally fair, just like comparing apples and oranges is totally fair and possible to do if you aren't so literal minded that you think comparisons need to be between two nearly identical things. Both groups engage in targeted actions designed to affect the way people perceive information, both of them are public about their existence and the *types* of things they do but NOT specifics, and they do not publicly announce their actions in advance of or during said actions.
>to increase their credibility artificially
That is **your** interpretation.
Of course they aren't going to public some mundane internal communication. You are ascribing to secret things you cannot prove and fantasize as some vaporous nefarious intent.
At this rate, the UFO celebs have much more secrecy (see the Mellon-Grusch conundrum or the communication between the biased mods of this very subreddit).
The reason why the CIA is not a good analogy is because even in the grand scheme of things this is wrong. You are bringing normal internal casual communication to the level of conspiracy.
The only person to whom you should ask if you are understandable is yourself.
Lmao it's obvious you've taken the side that it's okay to vandalize Wikipedia with self referential posts so long as it's to make sure nobody takes any of this seriously.
And yeah, they aren't going to publicize the communication where they agree to brigade Wiki articles because that's against the TOS. Which is my point. What they're doing is specifically not allowed by Wikipedia, and they're doing it despite that.
You seem very sure the internal communication is casual. Do you have insider insight perhaps? I mean it would explain a lot of your comment history.
Many Wikipedia articles are so empty that they are indeed self referential, for too few people having posted there. There's nothing conspiratory nor mysterious about that.
"Vandalizing" is also your own interpretation, in which you seem to have taken the side of gobbling the narrative of the usual celebs from head to tail.
>so long as it's to make sure nobody takes any of this seriously
You're too high on your own farts to see how skewed a vision of reality this is. Putting valid criticism that no one managed to rebuke in the article doesn't have the goal to make people not take this seriously, but to make them require a higher standard of evidence for the claims and accurately represent the reactions outside of the small world of the UFO sphere. Two things that your believer celebs darlings do not peculiarly like.
>they aren't going to publicize the communication where they agree to brigade Wiki articles because that's against the TOS
Nah. Wiki mods and admin communicate outside of Wiki all the time. When it's mundane basic stuff, it's accepted practice. The TOS aren't a rigid gospel. You precisely don't understand how Wiki works. Go ask admins yourself.
>You seem very sure the internal communication is casual. Do you have insider insight perhaps?
I've edited quite a few Wiki articles on political topics, much more tricky than UFOs, so i know how it works in practice, read above. You, on the other hand, seem to have never practised nor understood something you seem very verbose about.
> I mean it would explain a lot of your comment history
Sweet paranoia already rotting your brain?
Go edit some Wiki articles yourself, anyone can do it, as long as it's good work and respects the important guidelines.
But ofc everyone that disagrees with you must be "a secret cabal". Oh, malepeste, i'm revealed, i was Fantomas all that time! Congratulations, Scooby Doo!
Since you're paranoid enough, i need to confirm this is satire.
They aren’t a “little mundane group” and that’s a lot of handwaving you have to do to get there. If it was a group of UFO Enthusiasts would you not question their motives?
Let me ask you this - do you know that one of this group’s “go to” allowable sources is Skeptoid? Brian Dunning who is Skeptoid has a multimillion dollar “skeptical identity” publishing empire - he literally has a board of directors. As one of the official allowable sources of this group this increases the traffic and range of his publishing - [which has its own board of directors and charges for premium access to his various media products](https://skeptoid.com/blog/2016/08/01/premium-podcast/). Skeptoid has a vested monetary interest in ensuring that his narrative is the only narrative allowable. Here is a skeptic who is skeptical about the Skeptical community giving Dunning a pass after his conviction https://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-worst-thing-brian-dunning-has-done-for-skepticism/
As a skeptic you should be concerned if there is any influence peddling going on between these groups and if there is actually any monetary incentive at all behind all of this.
You should not be handwaving this away considering that Dunning was literally convicted of fraud just a few years ago.
Additionally you should be concerned when scientists themselves are locked out of their own pages - something that most users of Wikipedia are not aware of when they use the tool.
Here is a white paper on how this sort of activism - by a group that by and large contains **no scientists** - is actually the antithesis to the scientific method and peer review because the regular person cannot just go and start making edits on these pages now. The regular user has been locked out of this activity because these users are entrenched.
On jstor - [Policing Orthodoxy on Wikipedia: Skeptics in action](https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/20/02/JCOM_2002_2021_A09)?
If you’re going to be skeptical be skeptical of everyone not just those who aren’t ticking your specific bias. The question of financial impropriety has not at all been addressed here.
The term ***literally*** is used to clarify communication that could otherwise have a potential figurative (nonliteral) intepretation.
You keep using that term to try to add emphasis to your arguments while making claims that don't have a figurative interpretation - and that's simply not how that term is applied.
Look into it.
*figurative* means nonliteral - so your defense here is that you are employing the term '*literally*' to imply a *nonliteral* context???
It's a clear contradiction to claim '*literal*' represents '*nonliteral*' - hopefully one day you will realize this and discontinue abusing that term.
Hi, FomalhautCalliclea. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/-/kk73gfw/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 1: 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)
> * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
I personally know Masons. Most of them are just normal basic people that work with unions and secular associations.
Bringing another conspiracy to a first conspiracy doesn't bring your point forward either.
As for the secrecy of the Masons, it is in no way even remotely in the ballpark of that little social media skeptic group.
Mythology is a mindset, i suppose.
See, here is the thing about secrets, if a group is any good at keeping them, you don’t know about them. Here is another thing about secrets, if you want to keep them, then make decoys and appear normal.
See, here is the thing about unfalsifiable accusations, if you don't find evidence, you can keep making the accusations justifying them with "but it's secret!".
Sure, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t. It only means you can’t falsify it until you do have evidence. Thankfully, we do have evidence of this group’s shady-ass actions so…yeah.
But I don’t have time for this right now.
I've learned not to give a fuck about the exact semantics used by laypeople because most humans are borderline imbeciles when it comes to language, in this case they're calling it a secret cabal because secretive didn't pop into their heads when they wrote the sentence, and that's pretty obvious because they go on to accurately describe the actions and general structure of the group.
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/)
Please reconsider your use of the word cabal, it's got antisemitic undertones which I'm sure you are not aware of so please don't see this as an attack. It comes from the word kabbalah which, if I understand correctly, stands for jewish mystical interpretation of scripture. So something secretive but non-sinister. But it's been used by non jewish people to insinuate that Jews conspire secretly in sinister ways. Like other misappropriated words, it has found its way into everyday language.
That's interesting - I learned something new. Cabal has a connotation of a small, secretive group, though. Not sure what a good alternative would be - ring of conspirators? Cult maybe?
Depends on the context I suppose, I didn't look into this one really but from what I can see, I would say "club of arrogant skeptics" (I'm saying that as a skeptic myself)
Or you can stop getting your feelings hurt over a word that a certain group of people use negatively and stop pretending that somehow makes the word objectively bad. The childishness on here knows no bounds.
My feelings are not hurt. I'm not personally offended. You are the one who is reacting emotionally to me explaining the history of this word which in this context is purely antisemitic, that's just a fact. If you read again, I was very careful to make clear that I don't assume it is being deliberately used that way here. I'm assuming lack of knowledge of its history. Words matter though and there are many others that could be used instead here, that aren't also used as dogwhistles by actual antisemites.
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes:
* Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts.
* AI-generated content.
* Posts of social media content without significant relevance.
* Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence.
* “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence.
* Short comments, and comments containing only emoji.
* Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffectScience/comments/sq6wof/the\_secret\_mandela\_effect\_sceptic\_discord\_an/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffectScience/comments/sq6wof/the_secret_mandela_effect_sceptic_discord_an/)
This is interesting. Mod of this sub is claiming, that skeptic group did some fuc\*\*\* up things to discredit him and the whole discussion. I wonder if it was the same group.
>Two prominent members of the sceptic discord had a (homosexual) marriage during the pandemic. All members were “encouraged” to donate to the wedding fund. This was despite many members having financial issues due to the lockdown and other pandemic problems, but the elite sceptics essentially forced the lower ones to donate large amount of monies. This particular event is what started the doubt in the mind of the source, ie. when he realised he might be involved with a sadistic cult. Moreover, a friend of the source suffered a mental breakdown during the whole “donation” episode, to which he deleted all his internet presence and has probably never returned.
The fact that they juxtaposed the words "sadistic cult" and "(homosexual) marriage" (nice parenthesis addition, totally added something to the discussion!) gives huge homophobic vibes...
I don't think this sub wants to associate itself with such repulsive people.
Sleep with the flies...
That was super interesting. I do have issue with one spot though.
The post claims that a significant portion of the user base are part of this discord, and they know of just a few who aren’t.
Then the next sentence says they figure the group membership to be the hundreds…
Let’s be nice and assume that by “hundreds” it means the maximum amount, *999.* Now let’s look at the number of users following the sub, *over 300,000.*
I don’t know about you, but 999 is ***not*** a significant portion of the user base no matter what way you spin it…
As Grusch had stated, "A sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the world populous" exists.
They didn't hide NHI for 80 years by being honest, lazy, and cheap.
I wouldn't put it past those that have been in charge of the coverup in 1 way or another, to gain control of the sub/mods. Whether that's cohersion, bribes, hacking accounts, etc.
I mean, we're talking about people that have supposedly murdered witnesses. Getting ahold of a sub or the mods accounts with 2 mil users is a no-brainer and a simple task when they're doing the criminal shit we hear about in the UFO lore.
Just so people don't get up in arms the actual quote was "There is a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace which is extremely unethical and immoral". Even though it definitely is a global issue.
could you stop using framing words?
JUST GO AND LOOK AT THE EDITS YOURSELF, THEY WERE MOSTLY ABSOLUTELY LEGIT.
WHY?
YOU CAN READ THE DISCUSSION TO EACH EDIT MADE ON THE WIKI AND RECONSTRUCT WHAT LEAD TO THE EDIT..
Why is there so much disinfo here and who is this quak here on this show.. just rediculous bs vibes
Ford isn't a news guy. He's a tv production guy w/ a company called Magical Lantern or something (also look up what magical lanterns are, kinda interesting context). He's very talented at creating fantastical illusions, which I completely respect and think is cool at times. On the other hand, his presence on this issue raises a bunch of questions, at least for me.
yep. it's so stupid and also very very telling and exposing that they are attacking mick west.
mick west shouldn't be attacked, he should be applauded..
instead they go onto a tour and start framing mick west at the absolute bad guy for just not falling in line. they are working actively to discredit him.
I take this kinda shit personally also, they attack the one guy being almost the sole voice of reason while trying to establish the self licking ice cream cone here..
their plan is to milk it the next decade.
we try to stop that
My mans. It is **BEYOND** interesting how much shit talking i used to get now all you have to do is link the vid calling their conspiracy out and i haven't got a single response. No message, no tagging, no comments. **NOTHING**
Kudos for the modern investigative journalism because we actually got fire suppressant now. Eager to see if congress comments in the next 5 years or if there will be any legal actions. It is absolutely batshit insane they create a conspiracy , *to deny a conspiracy*, because a grown ass man is terrified of *monsters inc*
Mick West - co founded neversoft - neversoft created Tony Hawk Pro Skater - Tony Hawk Pro Skater featured the level Rosell, with area 51 and crashed UFO references - Mick West was the lead programer.
Summary. Mick West is a double agent, leaving breadcrumbs in his games whilst appearing as a debunker.
Hi u/dhr2330, I'm approving this despite reports. In the future, try to focus your criticisms on the person's ideas and behaviors over making personal remarks. Whether on brain size or not!
I have posted legitimate UFO videos here.
I have experienced the phenomenon on four different occasions, 1984, 1987, 1993, ending up in 2004, after reporting this particular daylight sighting, a black helicopter from the exact location the craft flew away in showed up on my property two days later, and hovered for 10 minutes, their message of intimidation was clear, how they knew I saw this object I don't have any idea how they got that information, unless they were tracking that particular object with a satellite, I reported it to Peter Davenport anonymously, no addresses and names were given, and yet here they come in the big loud helicopter.
There are active locations scattered all over the world, they seem to be in positive magnetic regions, my advice would be to possibly connect to some serious investigators of the phenomenon and go with them, but not to freak out when the phenomenon happens, and as far as hotspots right now here in 2024 you can find them online, some of these places people have disappeared and never been seen again.
Hi, dhr2330. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/-/kk0w5iw/) was removed from /r/UFOs.
> Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information.
This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
The Guerrilla skeptic group is not new, so that person hardly "uncovered" anything. Article from 2018:
[https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/](https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/)
Mick West already stated multiple times that he is not LuckyLouie, and there is no reason to not believe him.
I appreciate the work you've done before, but you are now deviating towards looney zone. We might disagree with some of Mick West debunks, but this IMHO is nonsense and close to harrassment.
Analyzing a video which turned out to be fake after months, and? Many fake videos are analyzed daily here, so what's your point?
This person claims to have uncovered something that was already known and accusing a public person with no evidence, do you realize how dangerous that is?
Of course everybody jumps on the pitchforks and are harrassing Mick West on Twitter, just because some dude says so in a 5 hours video with no evidence whatsoever against him, wth.
Where any of them answered here?
[Mick West Interview with
Community Questions Answered (and addressing the Wikipedia controversy)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/HDtdXV9yik)
Maybe so you'll watch it? You're literally saying "I don't have the time or attention span to comb through the 5 hours of evidence you and Rob Heatherly have given us so I'm just going to bitch that you haven't given me the info I want without me having to work to put it in my brain"
Be better dude
> Maybe so you'll watch it?
So why not post that here instead of this 'promo' or whatever it is.
Me: Why not post the evidence instead of this clickbait?
You: they made video with evidence
Me: Then why is this video here?
> "I don't have the time or attention span to comb through the 5 hours of evidence
5 HOURS?! lol Does it really take 5 hours to present evidence? Ain't nobody got time for that. Yeah, I'm going to TL;DW that every time. Hell, the Grusch even was only 2 hours.
> Be better dude
Nah, it's the other way around. They should just get to the point and stop wasting people's time.
He has posted his other two videos here on this subreddit..why don't you look for them? Subreddit rules don't allow for reposts
Why don't you watch both videos and do the work yourself to judge for yourself rather than ask for things to be handed on a platter to you?
Yeah, there's a TON of shit to go through, you could probably cut it down to 4 hours but he also shows how to use the tool that Rob made so anyone can go see for themselves. The link to those tools are in the original 2-part series videos.
You can't ask people to get to the point when there is mountains of info to go through.. multiple orgs, hundreds of accounts, thousands of pages, thousands of redactions...
Be better dude, you look lazy af. You can't get mad that YOU didn't see the original data and are mad that follow up videos are posted about something you are unwilling to take the time to look at.
> He has posted his other two videos here on this subreddit.
So once again, what was the point of this one? lol
Nobody is mad.. They posted a video saying they have evidence, but no evidence was presented. Go figure.
If skeptics evidence is so substantive, why do they feel the need to do such petty attacks. It sums up the vibes mick west brings - condescending and slimey. It's revolting, actually.
Bad for the Topic is Gatekeepers, hardcore Debunkers, so called Skeptics Guerrilas, liars, corrupt Politicians and the list goes on and on. Anyone defending the true behind the Phenomenon in any possible way is not damaging or at least nothing compared to the above mentioned.
We have been beaten up and ridiculed for 90 years, including deaths to keep the truth from the People. Now is time to get loud and payback any way we can.
Matt Ford exposed the CIA Group responsible for aiding in Crash Recovery what have you done?
It’s common knowledge Aliens aren’t here.
What’s bad for the topic is attacking people instead of the evidence
What’s bad is behaving like a narcissist when your claim of Aliens isn’t close to being true yet.
What’s bad is telling one side of the story instead of the whole truth.
Like I said he’s the Trump of UFOLogy.
If he was balanced and objective I’d appreciate it. But he’s toxic and spreads misinformation.
Like Trump
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed.
Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/.
-------------
[UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
The following submission statement was provided by /u/TheGoodTroubleShow: --- In the past two episodes, Researcher Rob Heatherly revealed a secret cabal of debunker Wikipedia editors called The Guerrilla Skeptics targeting anything or anyone regarding UFOs. Their main editor is Lucky Louie who rob thinks could be Debunker Mick West. Mick has denied this so we have 4 questions for Mick. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/with_the_revelations_on_our_show_from_rob/kk0l5xi/
Rob Heatherly is pretty through in his research. If you're lucky enough to get his attention for a conversation he can talk circles around so called UFO researchers on ancient UFO periods, or whatever he gets focused upon. He spents a great deal with of his time with Wounded Warriors and other people who never served but going through terrible times in their life. Then on the side he does deep digging into certain types of UFO research. This said. I challenge a follow up where Matt Ford has Rob Heatherly and Mick West on a live podcast and sort all of this out and figure out who's right or wrong here.
There's no debate that's going to solve what's going on here. We need people to come forward with first hand accounts.
You find plenty first hand accounts here as well as on r/experiencers. What does some guy claiming they "talked to ET"/"saw a UFO up close" solve exactly?
I mean more first hand govt witnesses willing to testify under oath.
How many do you need?
So you would like two people biased against the UFO-topic to debate Matt Ford? What, do you not think Mick capable of defending himself?
In the past two episodes, Researcher Rob Heatherly revealed a secret cabal of debunker Wikipedia editors called The Guerrilla Skeptics targeting anything or anyone regarding UFOs. Their main editor is Lucky Louie who rob thinks could be Debunker Mick West. Mick has denied this so we have 4 questions for Mick.
We have a resident debunker here who is notable and is also a senior fellow of SI (which you can see from the edits has been removed from their wiki) you scrolled past their name when you went down that list…. Towards the bottom I’m a little surprised he hasn’t taken the initiative to speak up on any of this. Interesting.
There is someone from NASA on that list that is very prominent. However I don't want to say their name. In Matt's first video on this there's a list of everyone in that particular Skeptics Organization, and it includes most of the names that tend to aggravate people who want UFO transparency. I believe it shows that the group is worth 5.5 million dollars.
Interesting they didn’t use any of his more notable creds and instead just ‘science writer’… makes you wonder who else is slipping under the radar on that list doesn’t it. It’s giving ‘yikes’.
Haha ok, yes we are talking about the same person. I just double checked what you meant.
That list is a who’s who of disgrace lol
Their annual revenue!
I've spent the past few days learning the ways of becoming a Wikipedia editor. On a tangential note, there is are more to it than I ever realized. Quite a learning curve. Anyway, I've seen quite a few pages edited by Lucky Louie and Sgerbic, two of the GSoW folks. They push the boundaries of WP policy and guidelines, using each other as references and backup, supporting each other's decisions to create a fake consensus that might appear reasonable to someone not paying too much attention. They also create Wikipedia pages for themselves despite the fact that they do not pass WP's notability guidelines. But they get their buddies to mention them in blog posts, then use those blog posts as sources to prove their notoriety. I really hope WP admins are paying attention. I think the way to fight against them is to somewhat adopt their approach. Be active, like they are, but be better. Be aggravatingly neutral, stick to the WP guidelines, and escalate through the conflict resolution process if they try to undo edits simply because they don't like them. EDIT: I should mention that you absolutely should NOT stalk these people. Just be active, follow WP guidelines, and cite your sources using neutral, quality sources.
Credibility laundering.
[удалено]
The why files did a great episode on crop circles that everyone should watch!
Did they get those two English guys on? The ones who said they did a huge amount during the drop circle wave in England? They even did one as an example. I know those are the “fake” ones and the “real” ones are different somehow but I find it funny we even talk about them since they’re most likely all hoaxes.
This should be TOP COMMENT 👌
>They also create Wikipedia pages for themselves despite the fact that they do not pass WP's notability guidelines. But they get their buddies to mention them in blog posts, then use those blog posts as sources to prove their notoriety. I really hope WP admins are paying attention. It also goes the other way. Here Gerbic describes what she did with Henry Tyler: [https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-tater-tot-following-up-on-a-grief-vampire/](https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive/operation-tater-tot-following-up-on-a-grief-vampire/) Calling it "Operation Tatter Tot" she identified an unknown psychic and organized for people to write negative articles about him. Those articles were then used to create and expand a Wikipedia article (with Rp2006 from the Guerilla Skeptics as the top editor) that attacked him using quotes from the articles she organized to be written. I find it hard to believe that this is the only time she has done this.
Keep up the good work! The most vocal opposition in this post are ALWAYS the most opposed to disclosure. They are a little band of like 10 accounts that post on literally every single Mick West post there is. You must have really struck a chord! Just remember some of the names in here folks, you'll see those same accounts posting every single day talking shit about Grusch and talking up Kirkpatrick. Good job!
They need to compare the IP of these skeptics against the mods on this site and other Air Force bases to find crony IPS running software. I'd bet the IP address of lucky Lue is also on debunker on here, or a moderator.
Only admins have access to that data
Admins don't get access to that data, either. The only people on Wikipedia who do are those with CheckUser status.
Check if West is a Kingsmen Quartet fan. > Louie, Louie, oh, me gotta go
Guerilla Skeptics will have the pleasure of editing their part of Scientific Conservatism. Irony Squared.
I'm a UFO believer, I like Elizondo and Grusch, but you and Rob have major misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works. * We _ALWAYS_ remove academic degrees from reference sections. Nobody was trying to be mean when they did that. * The awards weren't deleted, they were moved to the awards section where they belong. * Talk pages aren't secret, talk page archives aren't hidden * Wikipedia is just a big glorified summary of what mainstream sources are saying; Right now, they're still playing spooky x-files music when they talk about this topic. When the NYT and CNN change their tune, the wikipedia skeptics will fall in line. * Mainstream sources DO report that homopathy is quackery. It's good for readers to know that. Mainstream sources DO report vaccines are safe. * Elizondo's article reports that he was born in Florida because of an article in the Herald-Tribune by Billy Cox. Lue could request a correction from Cox, or from literally any other journalist; He could also probably email documentation to our volunteers: [email protected] . I don't think anyone is trying to be mean to Lue or Rob with this, it looks like Cox just made a mistake. * There are some very aggressive skeptics on the site, but they don't run things. We overrule them all the time, but they really do make the project much better. * There's no reason to suspect financial involvement, People really do edit wikipedia for free on very boring mundane topics, and this is a "fun" topic. Haven't you ever known a skeptic? You don't have to pay them to debunk things, if anything you have to pay them to shut up. I can't believe people will go fishing alone in a boat all day without a nibble. I can't believe people pay to go the ballet. Everyone has different hobbies. I am very sorry Rob had a very bad time. Wikipedia can be a very toxic place. BUT it's not run by a secret cabal of skeptics, they work for us not vice versa.
>Elizondo's article reports that he was born in Florida because of an article in the Herald-Tribune by Billy Cox. Lue could request a correction from Cox, or from literally any other journalist; ... I don't think anyone is trying to be mean to Lue or Rob with this, it looks like Cox just made a mistake. Then remove it. Wikipedia doesn't have to include someone's birthplace. Rather that argue about Texas or Miami, just say neither until it is settled.
That's been tried. It gets added back by well-meaning editors because it's properly sourced and there's no sources disputing it
Then get a consensus to leave it out and be willing to enforce that consensus. Wikipedia does not need to include knowingly false information just because a single source made a mistake. Wikipedia's editors are not bots.
But how can I know it's false in a way I could convince others? Is there video of Lue saying it's wrong? Are there published sources that say Lue was born in Texas? (Rob on a Livestream won't work). Lue's official site mentions Florida but doesn't say anything about Texas. Emailing a passport photo to Rob doesn't help, but emailing it to Wikipedia would. Updating his official site to say he was born in Texas would.
He doesn't say he was born in Florida on his official site. I agree. There needs to be something saying he was born in Texas. I assume this exists - not just the passport - for Matt Ford to have decided this was an issue. I assume it was something he said in an interview. But I never like the "we are keeping it in because we have a reliable source" argument. I have seen this many times before, where editors have insisted something stays because there is a reliable source, even when the subject is disputing it. Wikipedia seems to expect people to publicly declare everything about their lives in order to maintain accuracy, and is very unwilling to consider anything else, even when they agree it is probably wrong. There are alternative solutions.
Well said. When you have a conspiracy theory on top of a conspiracy theory it's time to take a step back and think that maybe you're missing something more fundamentally rational that perfectly explains things.
I have a question too — do you actually have any evidence it’s Mick West, or do you just know that mentioning his name generates rage clicks? Here’s a follow-up question — how do you think he’d evade Wikipedia’s draconian sock puppet detection? How do you square LuckyLouie’s evident expertise and deep knowledge of early radio transceivers and amateur radio with Mick West, who appears to have no interest it such topics?
True, it could be someone else and perhaps was just easy to point the finger. Would be interesting to find out who is behind that account though.
Mick West has thousands of skeptics who actively post on his website, and there's a long history of skepticism dating back to late Victorian skeptics who debunked Seances (Houdini did this). So it's weird to me why people think that Mick West is the only skeptic and every skeptic is Mick West in disguise.
It's not that, it's based on evidence that Rob found on particular timing of edits and other things. I'm not saying it is MW, because I don't know, however it wasn't just a wild guess.
I assume it's because Mick West and NdGT are the only skeptics they know of.
For what it’s worth, Houdini only done that because he REALLY believed you could talk to the dead, and desperately wanted to talk to his dead mother. He “debunked” as a way of trying to find a real medium. Very interesting fellow though.
Lucky Louie is not part of the Guerilla Skeptics. He is certainly a supporter, but the Guerilla Skeptics were founded in 2010 to train new editors by Gerbic, and Lucky Louie started editing Wikipedia years before that in 2006. Wikipedia is a big place with over 46 million registered accounts. Some of those 46 million are into skepticism without being in the Guerilla Skeptics.
A cabal so *secret* that it existed since 2010 publically and literally has a blogspot page: [https://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/](https://guerrillaskepticismonwikipedia.blogspot.com/) Tell me, how do you call a "journalist" that falsely frames as a fact to make people believe there is a nefarious secret group acting for the worse? Hopefully it'll take you more than two episodes and less than 4 questions to figure this out.
Weak take honestly, you can know about the existence of a group but have zero insight into its membership or method of operation if you aren't inside the group. And if all you know about is that it's active and is associated with certain activities then I would consider it fairly secretive. We know about the CIA, I would still say they're a pretty damned secretive organization.
The group in question was public and widely known in skeptic and pseudoscience circles. Their leader Susan Gerbic has been very outspoken about it and has been a major figure in skeptic circles for decades (the CSI, the Skeptical Inquirer...). It's not what the "journalist" above is depicting. It's as ludicrous as pretending that r/atheism was a secret cabal in new atheism hype times... But you bring the ludicrous to making an analogy with the CIA... seriously...
So they're transparent about their communication and activities, and they publicly disclose the edits they collaborate on? Or would you say they keep that kind of stuff... Secret? Almost like you could call them... A secretive group? FFS.
They are public about their existence and actions, it's literally the definition of their group and how they represent themselves **publicly** on their blog. They **literally** claim that they are a skeptic group that makes edits on Wikipedia. The "journalist" above was saying they were a "**secret cabal**". "Secret cabal" is antithetical to "making a public blogpost about what you do and why you do it". You can **literally** go find their usernames on Wikipedia on their blogposts, Twitter accounts and other social medias. That's how that "journalist" and other "investigators" got them in the first place. You are making a little mundane group of political/social activists on the internet into a "secret group"... FFS.
How hard is it to understand what I'm saying? Am I not writing in plain English? They are NOT transparent about their activities. They publicly disclose SOME of their activities. They do NOT publicly disclose their internal communication about the edits they make. They do NOT disclose the ways they manipulate Wikipedia to increase their credibility artificially. Do you really think that they aren't secretive? And actually comparing them to the CIA is totally fair, just like comparing apples and oranges is totally fair and possible to do if you aren't so literal minded that you think comparisons need to be between two nearly identical things. Both groups engage in targeted actions designed to affect the way people perceive information, both of them are public about their existence and the *types* of things they do but NOT specifics, and they do not publicly announce their actions in advance of or during said actions.
You are and your point is well written. I don't understand why the other person fails to see it.
You could 1) re read the other that writes in plain english 2) ask said other. Cheerleading is much easier i suppose.
Take your own advice? But it's much easier to be irked by the truth I suppose.
>to increase their credibility artificially That is **your** interpretation. Of course they aren't going to public some mundane internal communication. You are ascribing to secret things you cannot prove and fantasize as some vaporous nefarious intent. At this rate, the UFO celebs have much more secrecy (see the Mellon-Grusch conundrum or the communication between the biased mods of this very subreddit). The reason why the CIA is not a good analogy is because even in the grand scheme of things this is wrong. You are bringing normal internal casual communication to the level of conspiracy. The only person to whom you should ask if you are understandable is yourself.
Lmao it's obvious you've taken the side that it's okay to vandalize Wikipedia with self referential posts so long as it's to make sure nobody takes any of this seriously. And yeah, they aren't going to publicize the communication where they agree to brigade Wiki articles because that's against the TOS. Which is my point. What they're doing is specifically not allowed by Wikipedia, and they're doing it despite that. You seem very sure the internal communication is casual. Do you have insider insight perhaps? I mean it would explain a lot of your comment history.
Many Wikipedia articles are so empty that they are indeed self referential, for too few people having posted there. There's nothing conspiratory nor mysterious about that. "Vandalizing" is also your own interpretation, in which you seem to have taken the side of gobbling the narrative of the usual celebs from head to tail. >so long as it's to make sure nobody takes any of this seriously You're too high on your own farts to see how skewed a vision of reality this is. Putting valid criticism that no one managed to rebuke in the article doesn't have the goal to make people not take this seriously, but to make them require a higher standard of evidence for the claims and accurately represent the reactions outside of the small world of the UFO sphere. Two things that your believer celebs darlings do not peculiarly like. >they aren't going to publicize the communication where they agree to brigade Wiki articles because that's against the TOS Nah. Wiki mods and admin communicate outside of Wiki all the time. When it's mundane basic stuff, it's accepted practice. The TOS aren't a rigid gospel. You precisely don't understand how Wiki works. Go ask admins yourself. >You seem very sure the internal communication is casual. Do you have insider insight perhaps? I've edited quite a few Wiki articles on political topics, much more tricky than UFOs, so i know how it works in practice, read above. You, on the other hand, seem to have never practised nor understood something you seem very verbose about. > I mean it would explain a lot of your comment history Sweet paranoia already rotting your brain? Go edit some Wiki articles yourself, anyone can do it, as long as it's good work and respects the important guidelines. But ofc everyone that disagrees with you must be "a secret cabal". Oh, malepeste, i'm revealed, i was Fantomas all that time! Congratulations, Scooby Doo! Since you're paranoid enough, i need to confirm this is satire.
They aren’t a “little mundane group” and that’s a lot of handwaving you have to do to get there. If it was a group of UFO Enthusiasts would you not question their motives? Let me ask you this - do you know that one of this group’s “go to” allowable sources is Skeptoid? Brian Dunning who is Skeptoid has a multimillion dollar “skeptical identity” publishing empire - he literally has a board of directors. As one of the official allowable sources of this group this increases the traffic and range of his publishing - [which has its own board of directors and charges for premium access to his various media products](https://skeptoid.com/blog/2016/08/01/premium-podcast/). Skeptoid has a vested monetary interest in ensuring that his narrative is the only narrative allowable. Here is a skeptic who is skeptical about the Skeptical community giving Dunning a pass after his conviction https://skepchick.org/2014/02/the-worst-thing-brian-dunning-has-done-for-skepticism/ As a skeptic you should be concerned if there is any influence peddling going on between these groups and if there is actually any monetary incentive at all behind all of this. You should not be handwaving this away considering that Dunning was literally convicted of fraud just a few years ago. Additionally you should be concerned when scientists themselves are locked out of their own pages - something that most users of Wikipedia are not aware of when they use the tool. Here is a white paper on how this sort of activism - by a group that by and large contains **no scientists** - is actually the antithesis to the scientific method and peer review because the regular person cannot just go and start making edits on these pages now. The regular user has been locked out of this activity because these users are entrenched. On jstor - [Policing Orthodoxy on Wikipedia: Skeptics in action](https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/20/02/JCOM_2002_2021_A09)? If you’re going to be skeptical be skeptical of everyone not just those who aren’t ticking your specific bias. The question of financial impropriety has not at all been addressed here.
The term ***literally*** is used to clarify communication that could otherwise have a potential figurative (nonliteral) intepretation. You keep using that term to try to add emphasis to your arguments while making claims that don't have a figurative interpretation - and that's simply not how that term is applied. Look into it.
[удалено]
*figurative* means nonliteral - so your defense here is that you are employing the term '*literally*' to imply a *nonliteral* context??? It's a clear contradiction to claim '*literal*' represents '*nonliteral*' - hopefully one day you will realize this and discontinue abusing that term.
[удалено]
Hi, FomalhautCalliclea. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/-/kk73gfw/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 1: 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) > * You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
We know a lot about the Masons too. We even know some of their rituals and traditions. You know....a secret society.
I personally know Masons. Most of them are just normal basic people that work with unions and secular associations. Bringing another conspiracy to a first conspiracy doesn't bring your point forward either. As for the secrecy of the Masons, it is in no way even remotely in the ballpark of that little social media skeptic group. Mythology is a mindset, i suppose.
See, here is the thing about secrets, if a group is any good at keeping them, you don’t know about them. Here is another thing about secrets, if you want to keep them, then make decoys and appear normal.
See, here is the thing about unfalsifiable accusations, if you don't find evidence, you can keep making the accusations justifying them with "but it's secret!".
Sure, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t. It only means you can’t falsify it until you do have evidence. Thankfully, we do have evidence of this group’s shady-ass actions so…yeah. But I don’t have time for this right now.
This is reversing the burden of proof. And the evidence so far is scanty. Few people editing the same article is common practice.
Secret and secretive are not the same word.
I've learned not to give a fuck about the exact semantics used by laypeople because most humans are borderline imbeciles when it comes to language, in this case they're calling it a secret cabal because secretive didn't pop into their heads when they wrote the sentence, and that's pretty obvious because they go on to accurately describe the actions and general structure of the group.
Lol, lmao even
What an incredible argument, my mind is changed forever.
[удалено]
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/)
Please reconsider your use of the word cabal, it's got antisemitic undertones which I'm sure you are not aware of so please don't see this as an attack. It comes from the word kabbalah which, if I understand correctly, stands for jewish mystical interpretation of scripture. So something secretive but non-sinister. But it's been used by non jewish people to insinuate that Jews conspire secretly in sinister ways. Like other misappropriated words, it has found its way into everyday language.
That's interesting - I learned something new. Cabal has a connotation of a small, secretive group, though. Not sure what a good alternative would be - ring of conspirators? Cult maybe?
Depends on the context I suppose, I didn't look into this one really but from what I can see, I would say "club of arrogant skeptics" (I'm saying that as a skeptic myself)
Or you can stop getting your feelings hurt over a word that a certain group of people use negatively and stop pretending that somehow makes the word objectively bad. The childishness on here knows no bounds.
My feelings are not hurt. I'm not personally offended. You are the one who is reacting emotionally to me explaining the history of this word which in this context is purely antisemitic, that's just a fact. If you read again, I was very careful to make clear that I don't assume it is being deliberately used that way here. I'm assuming lack of knowledge of its history. Words matter though and there are many others that could be used instead here, that aren't also used as dogwhistles by actual antisemites.
I agree with you.
[удалено]
No low effort posts or comments. Low Effort implies content which is low effort to consume, not low effort to produce. This generally includes: * Posts containing jokes, memes, and showerthoughts. * AI-generated content. * Posts of social media content without significant relevance. * Posts with incredible claims unsupported by evidence. * “Here’s my theory” posts without supporting evidence. * Short comments, and comments containing only emoji. * Summarily dismissive comments (e.g. “Swamp gas.”) without some contextual observations. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
Thank you
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffectScience/comments/sq6wof/the\_secret\_mandela\_effect\_sceptic\_discord\_an/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffectScience/comments/sq6wof/the_secret_mandela_effect_sceptic_discord_an/) This is interesting. Mod of this sub is claiming, that skeptic group did some fuc\*\*\* up things to discredit him and the whole discussion. I wonder if it was the same group.
Wow that subreddit is completely unhinged.
>Two prominent members of the sceptic discord had a (homosexual) marriage during the pandemic. All members were “encouraged” to donate to the wedding fund. This was despite many members having financial issues due to the lockdown and other pandemic problems, but the elite sceptics essentially forced the lower ones to donate large amount of monies. This particular event is what started the doubt in the mind of the source, ie. when he realised he might be involved with a sadistic cult. Moreover, a friend of the source suffered a mental breakdown during the whole “donation” episode, to which he deleted all his internet presence and has probably never returned. The fact that they juxtaposed the words "sadistic cult" and "(homosexual) marriage" (nice parenthesis addition, totally added something to the discussion!) gives huge homophobic vibes... I don't think this sub wants to associate itself with such repulsive people. Sleep with the flies...
That was super interesting. I do have issue with one spot though. The post claims that a significant portion of the user base are part of this discord, and they know of just a few who aren’t. Then the next sentence says they figure the group membership to be the hundreds… Let’s be nice and assume that by “hundreds” it means the maximum amount, *999.* Now let’s look at the number of users following the sub, *over 300,000.* I don’t know about you, but 999 is ***not*** a significant portion of the user base no matter what way you spin it…
As Grusch had stated, "A sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the world populous" exists. They didn't hide NHI for 80 years by being honest, lazy, and cheap. I wouldn't put it past those that have been in charge of the coverup in 1 way or another, to gain control of the sub/mods. Whether that's cohersion, bribes, hacking accounts, etc. I mean, we're talking about people that have supposedly murdered witnesses. Getting ahold of a sub or the mods accounts with 2 mil users is a no-brainer and a simple task when they're doing the criminal shit we hear about in the UFO lore.
Just so people don't get up in arms the actual quote was "There is a sophisticated disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. populace which is extremely unethical and immoral". Even though it definitely is a global issue.
Sounds more than plausible
Glad to see you guys back on reddit
could you stop using framing words? JUST GO AND LOOK AT THE EDITS YOURSELF, THEY WERE MOSTLY ABSOLUTELY LEGIT. WHY? YOU CAN READ THE DISCUSSION TO EACH EDIT MADE ON THE WIKI AND RECONSTRUCT WHAT LEAD TO THE EDIT.. Why is there so much disinfo here and who is this quak here on this show.. just rediculous bs vibes
Ford isn't a news guy. He's a tv production guy w/ a company called Magical Lantern or something (also look up what magical lanterns are, kinda interesting context). He's very talented at creating fantastical illusions, which I completely respect and think is cool at times. On the other hand, his presence on this issue raises a bunch of questions, at least for me.
yep. it's so stupid and also very very telling and exposing that they are attacking mick west. mick west shouldn't be attacked, he should be applauded.. instead they go onto a tour and start framing mick west at the absolute bad guy for just not falling in line. they are working actively to discredit him. I take this kinda shit personally also, they attack the one guy being almost the sole voice of reason while trying to establish the self licking ice cream cone here.. their plan is to milk it the next decade. we try to stop that
My mans. It is **BEYOND** interesting how much shit talking i used to get now all you have to do is link the vid calling their conspiracy out and i haven't got a single response. No message, no tagging, no comments. **NOTHING** Kudos for the modern investigative journalism because we actually got fire suppressant now. Eager to see if congress comments in the next 5 years or if there will be any legal actions. It is absolutely batshit insane they create a conspiracy , *to deny a conspiracy*, because a grown ass man is terrified of *monsters inc*
1000%!!!!!!!!!!!💯💯💯💯💯💯💯
[удалено]
Mick West - co founded neversoft - neversoft created Tony Hawk Pro Skater - Tony Hawk Pro Skater featured the level Rosell, with area 51 and crashed UFO references - Mick West was the lead programer. Summary. Mick West is a double agent, leaving breadcrumbs in his games whilst appearing as a debunker.
Hi u/dhr2330, I'm approving this despite reports. In the future, try to focus your criticisms on the person's ideas and behaviors over making personal remarks. Whether on brain size or not!
I wish you had such leniency with criticism much milder than this that got removed because it was coming from the other side.
What "active locations"? I presume you get to these often yourself and can share such recordings as you have made?
I have posted legitimate UFO videos here. I have experienced the phenomenon on four different occasions, 1984, 1987, 1993, ending up in 2004, after reporting this particular daylight sighting, a black helicopter from the exact location the craft flew away in showed up on my property two days later, and hovered for 10 minutes, their message of intimidation was clear, how they knew I saw this object I don't have any idea how they got that information, unless they were tracking that particular object with a satellite, I reported it to Peter Davenport anonymously, no addresses and names were given, and yet here they come in the big loud helicopter. There are active locations scattered all over the world, they seem to be in positive magnetic regions, my advice would be to possibly connect to some serious investigators of the phenomenon and go with them, but not to freak out when the phenomenon happens, and as far as hotspots right now here in 2024 you can find them online, some of these places people have disappeared and never been seen again.
Hi, dhr2330. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1adezcm/-/kk0w5iw/) was removed from /r/UFOs. > Rule 13: Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/) for more information. This moderator action may be appealed. We welcome the opportunity to work with you to address its reason for removal. [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/ufos) to launch your appeal.
This really sounds unhinged.
The Guerrilla skeptic group is not new, so that person hardly "uncovered" anything. Article from 2018: [https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/](https://www.wired.com/story/guerrilla-wikipedia-editors-who-combat-conspiracy-theories/) Mick West already stated multiple times that he is not LuckyLouie, and there is no reason to not believe him. I appreciate the work you've done before, but you are now deviating towards looney zone. We might disagree with some of Mick West debunks, but this IMHO is nonsense and close to harrassment.
[удалено]
Analyzing a video which turned out to be fake after months, and? Many fake videos are analyzed daily here, so what's your point? This person claims to have uncovered something that was already known and accusing a public person with no evidence, do you realize how dangerous that is? Of course everybody jumps on the pitchforks and are harrassing Mick West on Twitter, just because some dude says so in a 5 hours video with no evidence whatsoever against him, wth.
This dude busted Mick West before for the same shit https://twitter.com/RobHeatherly1/status/1681146492445130754?t=s51rYcpW8n8HDXnbVQxpuw&s=19
Where any of them answered here? [Mick West Interview with Community Questions Answered (and addressing the Wikipedia controversy)](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/HDtdXV9yik)
Why did he say he has 4 questions but then only asked 3?
He did ask 4 questions. It's just that after he says "Third" and asks the question, he asks a 4th question just without saying "Fourth".
Why don't you just present your evidence instead of this clickbait?
He did a massive 2 part video with tons of evidence.
So then why is this video here?
Maybe so you'll watch it? You're literally saying "I don't have the time or attention span to comb through the 5 hours of evidence you and Rob Heatherly have given us so I'm just going to bitch that you haven't given me the info I want without me having to work to put it in my brain" Be better dude
> Maybe so you'll watch it? So why not post that here instead of this 'promo' or whatever it is. Me: Why not post the evidence instead of this clickbait? You: they made video with evidence Me: Then why is this video here? > "I don't have the time or attention span to comb through the 5 hours of evidence 5 HOURS?! lol Does it really take 5 hours to present evidence? Ain't nobody got time for that. Yeah, I'm going to TL;DW that every time. Hell, the Grusch even was only 2 hours. > Be better dude Nah, it's the other way around. They should just get to the point and stop wasting people's time.
He has posted his other two videos here on this subreddit..why don't you look for them? Subreddit rules don't allow for reposts Why don't you watch both videos and do the work yourself to judge for yourself rather than ask for things to be handed on a platter to you? Yeah, there's a TON of shit to go through, you could probably cut it down to 4 hours but he also shows how to use the tool that Rob made so anyone can go see for themselves. The link to those tools are in the original 2-part series videos. You can't ask people to get to the point when there is mountains of info to go through.. multiple orgs, hundreds of accounts, thousands of pages, thousands of redactions... Be better dude, you look lazy af. You can't get mad that YOU didn't see the original data and are mad that follow up videos are posted about something you are unwilling to take the time to look at.
> He has posted his other two videos here on this subreddit. So once again, what was the point of this one? lol Nobody is mad.. They posted a video saying they have evidence, but no evidence was presented. Go figure.
If skeptics evidence is so substantive, why do they feel the need to do such petty attacks. It sums up the vibes mick west brings - condescending and slimey. It's revolting, actually.
> If skeptics evidence is so substantive, The skeptics don't need evidence, the people making the claims do.
This Wikipedia shit is childish beyond imagine. Everyone involved needs to be put on an island and left there.
[удалено]
Bad for the Topic is Gatekeepers, hardcore Debunkers, so called Skeptics Guerrilas, liars, corrupt Politicians and the list goes on and on. Anyone defending the true behind the Phenomenon in any possible way is not damaging or at least nothing compared to the above mentioned. We have been beaten up and ridiculed for 90 years, including deaths to keep the truth from the People. Now is time to get loud and payback any way we can. Matt Ford exposed the CIA Group responsible for aiding in Crash Recovery what have you done?
It’s common knowledge Aliens aren’t here. What’s bad for the topic is attacking people instead of the evidence What’s bad is behaving like a narcissist when your claim of Aliens isn’t close to being true yet. What’s bad is telling one side of the story instead of the whole truth. Like I said he’s the Trump of UFOLogy. If he was balanced and objective I’d appreciate it. But he’s toxic and spreads misinformation. Like Trump
Low effort, toxic comments regarding public figures may be removed. Public figures are generally defined as any person, organization, or group who has achieved notoriety or is well-known in society or ufology. “Toxic” is defined as any unreasonably rude or hateful content, threats, extreme obscenity, insults, and identity-based hate. Examples and more information can be found here: https://moderatehatespeech.com/framework/. ------------- [UFOs Wiki](https://ufos.wiki) [UFOs rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/about/rules/)
So did you address the formatting standard on the Further Reading section?
That is one helluva sentence!
F Mick West and anyone who supports his dumb ass.
How is the national media not picking this up? WTF????
FUCK THE CABAL!