"Only idiots believe in UFOs"

[IsaacKoi]

Greetings,

I've failed to achieve any real success when posting the request below on a several UFO discussion Lists over the last couple of years. I find the lack of success interesting.

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi


"Only idiots believe in UFOs"

The view that "only idiots believe in UFOs" (or variations thereon, such as "only nutters report UFOs" or "only idiots bother investigating UFO reports") is one that I've heard friends and colleagues express.

It is also one that has been implicit in quite a few press articles in the UK, including the articles at the following links:

http://tinyurl.com/8dtwe

http://tinyurl.com/8z2v5

http://tinyurl.com/dtwd9

I don't believe that I can be alone in hearing such dismissive views being expressed.

However, despite a fair bit of effort, I have not found any explicit statements of such views by any sceptics or media commentator of any note.

Indeed, quite the contrary.

For example, despite a suggestion that Philip J Klass has made such comments, in fact Klass makes the following comment in his "UFOs Explained" (in the Introduction):

"Some skeptics dismiss the UFO question without investigation in the belief that reports come only from 'kooks'. This is not so, as numerous UFO cases analyzed in this book will demonstrate. Many come from seemingly honest, intelligent and often well-educated citizens, including scientists, law-enforcement officers and aircraft flight crews."

Similarly, the Condon Report (which, to put it mildly, is not generally considered to be biased in favour of ETH proponents) includes a section by Aldora Lee on opinion polls relating to UFOs. That section suggests that in fact there is some evidence that the _greater_ their education, the _more_ likely people are to think that flying saucers are "real". Page 320 of the version of the Condon Report available online at the link below includes the following: "Although the relationships are not strong, the results of the 1966 Gallup poll suggest that education is related to opinions. The greater the education, the higher the proportion who indicated they have heard of flying saucers, who think they are real rather than the product of imagination and who believe that there are people somewhat like ourselves living on other planets." See:

http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/s3chap07.htm

So, whilst it seems that everyone agrees that some skeptics and/or members of the public think UFO reports only come from idiots/kooks, I'm still looking for an explicit quotation to this effect by any prominent individual. About the closest I've found is in an article by Bruce Maccabee (at the link below) which quotes the editor of a magazine called "Applied Optics" referring to "UFO believers" as "99 and 44/100ths percent kooks." See:

http://www.stardrive.org/maccabee.shtml

I'm currently planning on writing more on this topic and am attempting to find a few pithy quotations which explicitly express such dismissive views of UFO witnesses/believers generally.

I've read a couple of dozen books by UFO skeptics (e.g. Klass, Oberg, Condon, Sheaffer, Menzel and others) plus more general books on skepticism generally (e.g. by Gardner, Sagan and others) as well, of course, as "Bad Astronomy" - but not had any joy finding such quotations.

I'd welcome any references, suggestions or recommendations anyone has.

Any thoughts?

All the best,

Isaac Koi

[Skibum]

I think part of your problem in finding such statements is that those types of blanket generalizations generally aren't made by skeptics.

[Miss Whiplash]

Do a search on Joe Nickell. He has many articles online.

[Starthinker]

UFOs are real. People see them everyday. All that means is that they saw something in the sky or flying that they could not identify. I'm as skeptic as the next guy but I would never belittle someone by calling them an idiot for anything they may believe they saw whether it's an UFO, ghost, or whatever. People DO see things they can't explain and some of these people attach meanings or explanations to them. Just because some of these explanations are wrong or perhaps misinformed does not make that person an idiot. I've seen a UFO, over Bentwaters no less, and I'm sure there is a logical explanation for what I saw but I simply don't know what it is. I would be offended by any statement that said "anyone who claims to have seen a UFO is an idiot."

Even if what is meant is "anyone who saw a UFO and thought it was a spaceship from another planet is an idiot", I would still dismiss that statement as coming from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

In fact, since "idiot" is generally an insult, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who actually uses that word to describe anyone.

Also, I don't think any serious investigator in any field would make such a blanket statement. Whenever I hear a statement that uses words such as "all" or "everyone" I immediately suspect it of not being truly scientific. When dealing with people there are no absolutes.

On a side note, I wouldn't use a poll taken in 1966 and apply meaning to it today. I'm sure opinions have changed since then.

[fuelair]

I believe in UFOs. I have seen objects moving through the sky (apparently therefore flying) which I could not identify.

I do not "believe in" UFOs that are interplanetary, interstellar or intergalactic craft. Statistics alone militate against that.

I strongly suspect that there are other intelligent life forms in even our galaxy
but I seriously (the statistics thing again) doubt that any or all of them are spending time anally probing humans for research.

[Skibum]

intergalactice


You've been reading too much from christophera haven't you? :D

[ponderingturtle]

In fact, since "idiot" is generally an insult, I wouldn't take anyone seriously who actually uses that word to describe anyone.


Well it depends on what they mean. Personaly I think most people are idiots most of the time, myself included.

So if you define it as someone not opperateing at their full capacity, or to represent a failure of logic or reason, it can work.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

What I find interesting from UFOs-as-extraterrestrial-spacecraft proponents is how they often emphasise the impeccable character of witnesses, as if pilots, police officers, judges, and other trustworthy types are any better than a regular joe at visually determining the size and distance of fleetingly glanced objects.

[JMA]

Shermer's book is a good answer to the question: "Why people believe weird things". In the paperback edition, there is a new chapter call: "Why clever people believe weird things".

So it's obvious that skeptics don't think that believers are all idiots.

I have a long interest in the ufo phenomena, and I met a lot of french ufologists this last decade. I must say that amongs them there is clever (and well-educated) people.

But nevertheless I don't believe that the ufo phenomena is form an extraterrestrial origins. :p

Clever people can be wrong, because even if they are clever, they are human beings first...

[ponderingturtle]

Shermer's book is a good answer to the question: "Why people believe weird things". In the paperback edition, there is a new chapter call: "Why clever people believe weird things".

So it's obvious that skeptics don't think that believers are all idiots.

I have a long interest in the ufo phenomena, and I met a lot of french ufologists this last decade. I must say that amongs them there is clever (and well-educated) people.

But nevertheless I don't believe that the ufo phenomena is form an extraterrestrial origins. :p

Clever people can be wrong, because even if they are clever, they are human beings first...

Smart people are great at rationalization, so they can make anything that they happen to believe sound like it has good reasons behind it.

[billydkid]

Well, the claim makes no sense. Obviously there are UFO's. The question is whether or not they are alien interstellar vehicles.

[Darat]

Well, the claim makes no sense. Obviously there are UFO's. The question is whether or not they are alien interstellar vehicles.

Only idiots would believe that UFOs are aliens! Everyone knows what they really are (http://www.bebaptized.org/ufos.htm).








:wackyno:

[Bikewer]

Carl Sagan was a fellow who definitely believed in the likelihood of alien intelligences, and was a prime mover for the SETI project. He was invited to sit on a number of blue-ribbon panels examining the "very best" UFO sightings.

At the end of all this, he said categorically that there was not a shred of supporting evidence to indicate that the Earth had been visited by alien creatures.

[JMA]

Well, the claim makes no sense. Obviously there are UFO's. The question is whether or not they are alien interstellar vehicles.

I find that kind of remark mostly silly. I mean, it's obvious than in our civilisation, the acronym "ufo" is definitively linked to the notion of interstellar vehicles.

To pretend to the countrary is to play some semantic game. "Lalala, I'm gonna stick to the litteral meaning, lalalala, I don't care of how it's use all over the world by 99% of the population, lalalala, and I'm felling really smart doing that, lalalala..."

OK. Great for you. Next point?

[Notrump]

Prior to World War II a wondrous apparition in the air was called a ghost, a fairy or an angel, when no one could devise a better description. A supernatural being was considered the default explanation that required no proof. People wanted to believe so they believed.

Following World War II a wondrous apparition in the air is called an ET UFO, a flying saucer or an extraterrestrial visitation, when no one can devise a better description. An extraterrestrial visitation is considered the default explanation that requires no proof. People want to believe so they believe.

[IsaacKoi]

Carl Sagan was a fellow who definitely believed in the likelihood of alien intelligences, and was a prime mover for the SETI project. He was invited to sit on a number of blue-ribbon panels examining the "very best" UFO sightings.

Carl Sagan was also opposed to viewing "believers" as morons.

As Carl Sagan stated in his “The Demon Haunted World” (1997) at page 282 (in Chapter 17) of the Headline softcover edition:

"… the chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is in its polarization: Us vs. Them - the sense that we [skeptics] have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, you're beyond redemption. This is unconstructive. It does not get the message across."

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[Astrophotographer]

Carl Sagan was also opposed to viewing "believers" as morons.



I don't think anyone really referes to people who make UFO reports as idiots or morons. I think the more exotic the story, the less likely I am going to believe that reporter is telling the truth (i.e. Adamski, Ed Walters, etc). People report all sorts of unusual events but sometimes these reports are not entirely accurate. This is were UFOlogy makes, IMO, a serious error. If a solution is presented, UFOlogists will state that it does not completely explain the case entirely because witness A stated this and the solution does not explain that even though the explanation might be good enough for a majority of what happened. It is very possible that witness A could have been mistaken but that isn't good enough for a UFOlogist. I could give some excellent examples:

1) Recent 2004 Mexican FLIR video. Plenty of evidence that what was videotaped was oil well flares. Ignored by many UFOlogists.

2) 1997 Arizona event 10PM. Plenty of evidence what was videotaped by people were distant flares south of Phoenix. Several UFOlogists (Jim Diletosso (sp?) and Bill Hamilton) swear they aren't and can give you, what sound like, good reasons to reject this explanation.

3) Ed Walters. Lots of circumstantial evidence to suggest it was a hoax. Dr. Maccabee say's Ed wasn't smart enough and he can't find evidence of a hoax. Mr. Hyzer suggests otherwise.

I could give examples of skeptics throwing out some unreasonable explanations as well. So, both sides are guilty. However, UFOlogists are the ones who are the ones suggesting that UFOs are evidence of ET visitation. So far, afte 50+ years, they haven't found one bit of good evidence to suggest this is true.

[baron]

I find that kind of remark mostly silly. I mean, it's obvious than in our civilisation, the acronym "ufo" is definitively linked to the notion of interstellar vehicles.

To pretend to the countrary is to play some semantic game. "Lalala, I'm gonna stick to the litteral meaning, lalalala, I don't care of how it's use all over the world by 99% of the population..."

Who cares if 99% of the population don't know the meaning of the acronym? Those 99% are also ignorant of the phenomenon so why is their misunderstanding of any significance?

[baron]

However, UFOlogists are the ones who are the ones suggesting that UFOs are evidence of ET visitation.

Not the credible ones. Admittedly once you remove the kooks barely any remain but that's a different story.

[Dazed]

Only idiots believe that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials.

[Miss Whiplash]

A great book for both "believers" and skeptics is Shockingly Close to the Truth : Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist (http://www.amazon.com/Shockingly-Close-Truth-Confessions-Grave-Robbing/dp/1573929913), by James W. Moseley. Mr. Mosely still publishes Saucer Smear. (http://www.martiansgohome.com/smear/) There are some wonderful articles about some of the "best" UFO cases and the amount of hoaxing and infighting between parties involved in the subculture.

It's a wonderful read!

[The Atheist]

So far, afte 50+ years, they haven't found one bit of good evidence to suggest this is true.

Given that people still practice christianity after 2000 years on exctly the same lack of evidence, it looks as though we have a long way to go yet.

I think the "idiot" tag can be highly appropriate. When a person sees something odd and immediately jumps to "Oh my god, it's a UFO", I think they can be safely classed as idiots, regardless of their supposed intellect.

If a quite rational person sees something, looks at the possible alternatives and discounts them, one by one, arriving at "Crikey, that might have been a UFO", they're entitled to a little more respect.

[Astrophotographer]

Given that people still practice christianity after 2000 years on exctly the same lack of evidence, it looks as though we have a long way to go yet.

I don't think you can equate the two. Religion does not really claim to present evidence. It is faith based. UFOlogy claims that they can scientifically prove that UFOs exist and that they are probably alien spaceships.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think you can equate the two. Religion does not really claim to present evidence. It is faith based. UFOlogy claims that they can scientifically prove that UFOs exist and that they are probably alien spaceships.

Religion also presents more of a lifestyle, and look at all the religions and cults that don't make it big.

So while this can still certainly continue it will likely change and mutate into new and strange forms.

[Astrophotographer]

I had stated that "UFOlogists are the ones who are the ones suggesting that UFOs are evidence of ET visitation"

Not the credible ones.

This is from the Fund For UFO research, a supposedly "credible" group of UFOlogists:

While physical proof of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs is not in the hands of civilian investigators, there is a growing mass of evidence that points to the distinct possibility that some UFOs represent the presence, near the Earth, of a non-human intelligence.

I could give you all sorts of quotes from the UFO updates mailing archives, where all the credible UFOlogists reside, as well. Almost all will eventually state that they think the ETH is the most likely solution to UFO reports.

[baron]

I had stated that "UFOlogists are the ones who are the ones suggesting that UFOs are evidence of ET visitation"

This is from the Fund For UFO research, a supposedly "credible" group of UFOlogists:

While physical proof of the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs is not in the hands of civilian investigators, there is a growing mass of evidence that points to the distinct possibility that some UFOs represent the presence, near the Earth, of a non-human intelligence.

I could give you all sorts of quotes from the UFO updates mailing archives, where all the credible UFOlogists reside, as well. Almost all will eventually state that they think the ETH is the most likely solution to UFO reports.


Credible by whose standards? Certainly not by mine, and that's all I can judge on. I cannot understand how someone can claim to have studied the evidence and still be compelled the extraterrestrial hypothesis. It defeats reason.

[The Atheist]

I don't think you can equate the two. Religion does not really claim to present evidence. It is faith based. UFOlogy claims that they can scientifically prove that UFOs exist and that they are probably alien spaceships.Mate, if you think like that, you need to talk to more christians. Fundies, you may be right, but mainstream church-goers do actually think there's evidence to support their idiotic stance.

I find almost identical arguments used by both christians UFO believers.

Given that the same amount of scientific evidence exists for both - zero - I'd say the UFo types are every bit as reliant on faith.

[Astrophotographer]

Credible by whose standards? Certainly not by mine,

I only used them because they are one of the major UFO organizations in the US. They are representing a lot of UFOlogists and provide funds so UFOlogists can "research" varies old UFO cases. One can find the same type of commentary at CUFOS and MUFON (the other two major US organizations) as well. If you want to international, some are even more outlandish with their statements.

[Astrophotographer]

Mate, if you think like that, you need to talk to more christians.

I haven't seen too many going about showing me or claiming to have scientific evidence of god. If they are just quoting the bible or claiming about miracles, that isn't much in the way of scientific evidence and they aren't really interested in science researching their religion. IMO, they are basing their religion on faith and belief that what they read and have heard about God/Jesus is the truth.

When you ask a UFOlogists about UFOs, they complain that science does not take them seriously and that there is a conspiracy to keep UFOs away from the public. In other words, they are sincerely convinced that there is positive scientific evidence that can be evaluated to show that ET is the source of UFO reports.

[IsaacKoi]

Only idiots believe that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials.

Well, that's a pretty explicit statement of the sort I've been looking for.

However, given the number of complaints by ufologists about ridicule of UFO witnesses and researchers, I've been extremely surprised at the difficulty I've encountered when seeking explicit examples of such ridicule.

On the other hand, I've come across many examples of _implicit_ ridicule. For example, during a discussion on the BBC Radio 4 a few days ago of a new production of Midsummer Night's Dream, the presenter commented (in relation to the believe in fairies) that people are still as credulous as ever - mentioning that he'd heard on the news a report of a UFO over O'Hare airport. That news item is the subject of a thread on this forum at the link below:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71612

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

[baron]

However, given the number of complaints by ufologists about ridicule of UFO witnesses and researchers, I've been extremely surprised at the difficulty I've encountered when seeking explicit examples of such ridicule.

Talking of witnesses, it's possible your criterion is too narrow. Certainly, if a person reports a UFO he generally won't get people prodding him chanting, "You're an idiot." However, I suspect that many people would joke about it, make light of it, maybe patronise the subject or simply not believe him. If the witness makes an honest report of their experience in the hope that someone can help them explain it then any one of these reactions could prove equally insulting as outright ridicule.

[JMA]

On the other hand, the ufo-community also shapes the kind of ufo-report who is allowed, and the kind who is not allowed.

There is a retroaction between the witness and the ufo-community who is willing to ear his testimony...

[rwguinn]

n 1997, I lived in Roswell, NewMexico, USA (yep--the one). The one interview I had with national media never made it on the air.
"Do you believe in alien spacecraft and UFO's?"
Nope, I replied--No need to Believe, I know they exist, at least for denizens of Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn--because I helped design and launch them.
We had a lot of fun that year. One 6th grader made about $500 selling "Alien Dirt" to the tourists. He ground up some glow-in-the-dark crayons, mixed it with good old New Mexico desert, and sold it for $5.00 a baggie.

[billydkid]

I find that kind of remark mostly silly. I mean, it's obvious than in our civilisation, the acronym "ufo" is definitively linked to the notion of interstellar vehicles.

To pretend to the countrary is to play some semantic game. "Lalala, I'm gonna stick to the litteral meaning, lalalala, I don't care of how it's use all over the world by 99% of the population, lalalala, and I'm felling really smart doing that, lalalala..."

OK. Great for you. Next point?

You may find it silly and the acronym may be linked in peoples minds to flying saucers, but it certainly is not semantics to say that "UFO" is not synonymous with flying saucers.

[billydkid]

I find that kind of remark mostly silly. I mean, it's obvious than in our civilisation, the acronym "ufo" is definitively linked to the notion of interstellar vehicles.

To pretend to the countrary is to play some semantic game. "Lalala, I'm gonna stick to the litteral meaning, lalalala, I don't care of how it's use all over the world by 99% of the population, lalalala, and I'm felling really smart doing that, lalalala..."

OK. Great for you. Next point?

Furthermore, UFO's exist and have been seen by many people. Not the case with alien spacecraft.

[Huntster]

What I find interesting from UFOs-as-extraterrestrial-spacecraft proponents is how they often emphasise the impeccable character of witnesses, as if pilots, police officers, judges, and other trustworthy types are any better than a regular joe at visually determining the size and distance of fleetingly glanced objects.

Would you hire a "regular joe" as a pilot, police officer, judge, etc?

[Tricky]

You may find it silly and the acronym may be linked in peoples minds to flying saucers, but it certainly is not semantics to say that "UFO" is not synonymous with flying saucers.
Sadly, it is indeed the case for a large segment of the population that the terms are synonymous. While incorrect, this misconception cannot be disregarded. I'd hope that in the future we get past this, but for now...

Well, let's just consider this hypothetical situation. Suppose some pollster asked you, "Do you believe in UFO's?" and the only options were "yes" and "no" (and also assume you were forced to answer). You would certainly realize that if you said "yes" it would be counted as a vote in favor of belief in extraterrestrial visitation, so I'm guessing you'd answer "no", even knowing it was not fully correct, but still more correct than "yes".

I would definitely answer "no" because I would know that the pollster, like a very large percentage of people, equated belief in UFOs with belief in extraterrestrial visitation. Wrong, but sadly, based on popular usage, synonymous.

Maybe you could care less, but irregardless, ain't that the way it is? ;)

[Cuddles]

What I find interesting from UFOs-as-extraterrestrial-spacecraft proponents is how they often emphasise the impeccable character of witnesses, as if pilots, police officers, judges, and other trustworthy types are any better than a regular joe at visually determining the size and distance of fleetingly glanced objects.

It's not that they are better at judging distance, it is that they are considered more trustworthy. If a policeman gives testimony it will be accepted as much more reliable than that of an average Joe off the street, whether on what a robber looked like or what a UFO looked like. I'm also rather surprised to see pilots on your list. I would be very worried if a pilot wasn't much better than me at judging the size and distance of UFOs, since they will have experience of this all the time in their jobs. Of course, they will by no means be perfect, but they will be a lot better than a regular Joe.

[JMA]

Of course, they will by no means be perfect, but they will be a lot better than a regular Joe.

If they don't know the size of the object they are watching (and if it's a ufo, they obviously don't know the real size of the object), they miss important cognitive clues to judge de distance, especilly in the front of the background of the sky. Like every human do.

But when it's a identified flying object (ifo), like a kind of plane, I'm sure they do a hell lot better than the usual guy in the street (because they have seen that kind of object close to them - not on the sky background - on a regular basis in their airports). But in the case we are talking about, an unknown object (wich mean of unknown size also), I don't think so.

And in the history of ufology, there is case of pilots seeing ufo (like Thomas Mantell for exemple).

[H3LL]

Only idiots would believe that UFOs are aliens! Everyone knows what they really are (http://www.bebaptized.org/ufos.htm).

Thanks Darat. :mad:

I've got few enough IQ points and reading that removed a few more.

:p

.

[Cuddles]

If they don't know the size of the object they are watching (and if it's a ufo, they obviously don't know the real size of the object), they miss important cognitive clues to judge de distance, especilly in the front of the background of the sky. Like every human do.

But when it's a identified flying object (ifo), like a kind of plane, I'm sure they do a hell lot better than the usual guy in the street (because they have seen that kind of object close to them - not on the sky background - on a regular basis in their airports). But in the case we are talking about, an unknown object (wich mean of unknown size also), I don't think so.

And in the history of ufology, there is case of pilots seeing ufo (like Thomas Mantell for exemple).

Of course they will be better at identifying unkown things as well. Pilots see plenty of things floating around in the sky, whether they are other aircraft, birds, lost balloons or whatever. While a layperson is unlikely to encounter these things on a regular basis, a pilot will have a lot experience of seeing how these things move and how they look under different conditions. It's a simple matter of experience, a layperson might thikn something is an alien, while a pilot can say "Hey, that looks just like the time there was a weather balloon floating past about a mile away". No, they can't give an exact distance and size of an unknown object, but they will do a lot better than you are implying, and will be much better at identifying UFOs than some random off the street.

[ponderingturtle]

But I thought everyone knew that UFO's are just full grown Flying Rods (http://www.subversiveelement.com/Rods.html)

[JMA]

and will be much better at identifying UFOs than some random off the street.

If they are identifying the UFOs, well it's not an UFOs they are looking at... :p

Well, I understand your point, but first off:

- Watching something from the ground is not at all the same thing as watching something from inside an airplane.

and also:

- As I said, there is some famous UFOs case with pilots. So pilots do see UFOs...

Of course maybe they are better than other person to recognize something flying if it's a plane they are familiar with... It's obvious. Like it's obvious that if you have a good visual perception you have a better chance to recognize something that you see that someone who has a bad visual perception.

OK. But my point was: pilots are not superhuman persons (like it is imply in the ufological litterature) and THEY DO MAKE MISTAKES.

They can see ufos too...

[Astrophotographer]

Actually, when it comes to UFOs, pilots aren't much better than most people. According to Dr. Hynek, the "Galileo" of Ufology, the project bluebook records shows the following breakdown in % of misidentifying objects:


Military pilot - 88% (single witness) 76% (multiple witness)
Commercial pilot - 89% and 79%
Technical person (nerds?) - 65% and 50%

This means that pilots were more likely to mistake something as a UFO. Hynek would conclude:

"What we have here is a good example of a well-known psychological fact: "transference" of skill and experience does not usually take place. That is, an expert in one field does not necessarily "transfer" his competence to another one"

Remember that pilots, while highly skilled, are just as susceptible to make an error in identification. Police officers are just as susceptible to this problem as well. As far as I am concerned, nobody is a perfect witness for this sort of thing, including amateur/professional astronomers. There are always those events that people have never experienced that, when first seen, appear strange and "unidentified".

[IsaacKoi]

Given the difficulty that members of this forum (and various others I've asked the same question, including forums populated by "believers" as well as "skeptics") seem to have in identifying explicit examples of ridicule of UFO witnesses as a _whole_, I'm still left wondering whether the common complaints of ufologists about such ridicule are in fact justified.

I'm in a rather similar position in relation to complaints by ufologists about skeptics claiming that "astronomers don't report UFOs". In fact, I've had great difficulty in finding many such statements by skeptics (although Philip Plait of "Bad Astronomy" has made such a claim). On the other hand, I've found _numerous_ examples of complaints by ufologists that skeptics make this statement.

For example, Allen J Hynek has commented that “it has often been said that astronomers, and others very familiar with the skies, do not see UFOs. The fact of the matter is that they have and do.” [Hynek, J Allen in his “The Hynek UFO Report” (1977) at page 68 (in Chapter 4) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at pages 77-78 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).]

Similarly, a Google search for "astronomers don't report UFOs" will find many, many more complaints by ufologists about such statements than it will find examples of such statements by skeptics.

Kind Regards,

Isaac Koi

[billydkid]

Maybe you could care less, but irregardless, ain't that the way it is? ;)

Uh Oh - fix irregardless. there's no such animal.

[Luke T.]

However, despite a fair bit of effort, I have not found any explicit statements of such views by any sceptics or media commentator of any note.

Just catch Randi on a bad day and ask him what he thinks of people who believe in UFOs as alien visitors. :D

As a guy who regularly calls people who believe in other paranormal things "terminally naïve (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/122106wise.html)," "stupid (http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-12/120106dumb.html)", and whatnot, I'm sure you can evoke an equal comment about UFO believers out of him.

[Astrophotographer]

I'm in a rather similar position in relation to complaints by ufologists about skeptics claiming that "astronomers don't report UFOs". In fact, I've had great difficulty in finding many such statements by skeptics (although Philip Plait of "Bad Astronomy" has made such a claim). On the other hand, I've found _numerous_ examples of complaints by ufologists that skeptics make this statement.

Astronomers do report UFOs simply because they sometimes encounter events they can not identify. I personally have never seen an event I could not identify but I consider my experience of over 30 years observing the sky a big help. I recall having difficulty in my early years identifying some events such as a satellite in a real high orbit that took a long time to traverse the sky. Asking a few questions to the right people helped find the source of this wayward visitor in my observing log.

One has to be careful how one identifies an astronomer as well. There are various levels of expertise and just about anyone who looks at the sky sometimes can call themselves an "amateur astronomer". Professionals are more skilled at what they do and have the formal training. I have read of some reporting UFOs over the years. Could they make a mistake? Sure, nobody is perfect. However, they are less likely to misidentify something in the night sky.

[kellyb]

Why are you looking for "mean skeptics", Isaac?
I always wonder that whenever you start these threads...

There are people who join "believer" forums just to troll and go around hysterically screaming about "idiots" or whatever...but those are just trolls.
I think the ufologists who are complaining about "mean skeptics" are mostly confusing trolls they've run across on the net with "skeptics".

Then there are people who have really pseudoscientific theories about antigravity or whatever, who also identify as "ufologists" and pick fights with physicists and astronomers...and I've seen that degenerate into namecalling a few times, but even that's not something like "skeptics" calling people who think they've seen a UFO "idiots".

[Myriad]

I gained a new perspective on people reporting UFOs many years ago, when I flew a kite at night (simply because it was new and I wanted to test it and I hadn't gotten a chance to do it in daylight). I attached a glow-stick to the kite and flew it on a modest (about 300 meters) amount of line in a moderate breeze. It was just an ordinary box kite on a single line, not a stunt kite or anything.

When the kite was aloft, watching the movements of the glow stick (the kite was completely invisible, as was most of the line even from my foreshortened perspective), I was struck by a strong illusion that it was much farther away, and therefore much larger and moving much faster, than it really was. This illusion persisted for many minutes, in fact for the entire flight. And I was the one flying the kite! What might an innocent observer from a different angle have perceived and concluded?

The motion was rather eerie. Even without the illusion of greater distance/size/speed, a kite, because of its small mass and moment, and because it can lever the aerodynamic forces acting on it against the tension of its flying tether, is easily capable of maneuvers that "no known aircraft would be capable of." (Even more so, for a multi-line kite.)

Now, if I'd seen something that distinctly, moving in that way, without thinking about the possibility of a kite, and someone else were to tell me that what I saw was probably a bright planet or a weather balloon or a normal aircraft, I would know for certain that they were wrong. (And of course, they would in fact be wrong.) If called a liar or crazy for describing what I'd seen, I'd have been resentful and likely to ascribe sinister motives to that "debunker."

And I thought to myself that in all my reading about UFOs, credulous and skeptical sources alike, I never saw anyone mention the possibility of illuminated kites. (I recall later uncovering an old Japanese legend, about an enemy army being frightened away by a night flight of light-bearing kites. Oooh how assonant.) I realized that I never would have thought about that possibility myself if I hadn't discovered it by accident. (It's not that I didn't think such a thing could be done, it's that I would have assumed that an illuminated kite or a kite-lofted light would be easily recognizable as such from the ground.) Hence, I thought, surely there must also be other possible explanations for other people's sightings that I haven't considered either. And I took home a lesson about the danger of making a conclusion based on a negative ("no other explanation"). But also (later reinforced by Blackmore's "Elusive Open Mind" article), the lesson that people's experiences are real, it's the interpretations that we should be skeptical of.

I also learned a really nifty way of perpetrating a hoax. (Has anyone ever looked for historical correlations between UFO sightings during localized clusters of nighttime sightings, and the occurrence of wind conditions suitable for kite flying?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Patricio Elicer]

I also learned a really nifty way of perpetrating a hoax. (Has anyone ever looked for historical correlations between UFO sightings during localized clusters of nighttime sightings, and the occurrence of wind conditions suitable for kite flying?)This reminds me of a Brazilian Case (video) (http://www.mediamax.com/pelicer/Hosted/capaoredondo2.wmv) that remains "unsolved" to date (as far as I know) and which is credited by UFO enthusiasts as a "genuine UFO case". Could it be a light hanging from a kite?. Feasible.

[Patricio Elicer]

For example, Allen J Hynek has commented that “it has often been said that astronomers, and others very familiar with the skies, do not see UFOs. The fact of the matter is that they have and do.” [Hynek, J Allen in his “The Hynek UFO Report” (1977) at page 68 (in Chapter 4) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at pages 77-78 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).]Coincidentally, I just read a review by Philip Klass of the 1977 book Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm) by P.A. Sturrock. It may be the case that Hynek based his conclusion on that survey.

The study made big headlines at the time: "Astronomers See UFOs", "More UFOs for Stargazers", "Further Study of UFO's Endorsed in Survey". But this is highly misleading because the survey is full of flaws, biases and misrepresentations, as Klass brilliantly points out in his review. A closer look at the survey makes it clear that no such conclusions can be drawn.

Klass ends his review with: "Perhaps Sturrock has drawn the correct conclusions from his survey data and mine are in error. In this event one might soon expect that the American Astronomical Society will respond to the interests and desires of its members by sponsoring UFO symposia and that the AAS will speak out publicly, urging that the government sponsor UFO studies and investigations. Time will tell".

What has time told after 30 years?

[Source: The Zetetic (The Skeptical Inquirer) - Fall/Winter 1977]

[ChristineR]

Thanks Darat. :mad:

I've got few enough IQ points and reading that removed a few more.

:p

.

Well, here's an intellectual spin to that one. The similarities between ETs and demons is hardly coincidental. They arise from many of the same phenomena (e.g., sleep paralysis) and they have many of the same characteristics because they are based on common human misunderstandings and myths. Both are basically human, but have a few dramatic non-human traits, both are seen mostly at night out of the corner of your eye, etc., etc.

[IsaacKoi]

Coincidentally, I just read a review by Philip Klass of the 1977 book Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc604.htm) by P.A. Sturrock. It may be the case that Hynek based his conclusion on that survey.

Hynek did indeed base his conclusion, at least in part, on Sturrock's survey (which Hynek summarised in the relevant pages of his book).

Hynek also relied upon a much smaller, informal survey of professional astronomers that he conducted.

A summary of Hynek's own survey was included in Section 2 of the US Air Force's Project Blue Book Status Report Number 8 (dated 31 December 1952). The relevant pages are online at the links below:
http://tinyurl.com/yblejz
http://tinyurl.com/yawspk

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[IsaacKoi]

Why are you looking for "mean skeptics", Isaac?


I'm trying to find out whether they actually exist (at least in any significant numbers).

I've seen numerous complaints about unfair skeptics and "debunkers", with the most common complaint probably being the one about ridicule and name-calling. I've been very surprised how difficult it is to find explicit examples of such ridicule in books or public statements by skeptics (particularly since I've personally heard some skeptical friends express such sentiments in informal conversations).

In fact, I've found statements in books by Klass and Sheaffer (two of the most criticised "debunkers") to the effect that whilst some people _do_ say that only idiots report UFOs, such statements are incorrect.

Basically, I'm interested in a more refined statement of the actual issues between "skeptics" and "believers". It seems to me that "believers" often focus upon addressing attacks which are not being made by "skeptics" (or at least not many of them) whilst, similarly, many "skeptics" do not acknowledge that many "believers" accept many of the points they make.

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I've seen numerous complaints about unfair skeptics and "debunkers", with the most common complaint probably being the one about ridicule and name-calling. I've been very surprised how difficult it is to find explicit examples of such ridicule in books or public statements by skeptics (particularly since I've personally heard some skeptical friends express such sentiments in informal conversations).
Welcome, Isaac.

I spent a lot of time on believer forums and got called all manner of names, such as skeptibunker, pseudoskeptic, and randibot. Was I mean and unfair? Possibly a few times, yes. Were people unfair and mean to me? Sure were.

Attention all believers: Skeptics can be unfair and mean just as often as any other group of people. This is not an excuse to dismiss what they say, unless, of course, you want an excuse to dismiss what they say.

~~ Paul

[aggle-rithm]

Only idiots would believe that UFOs are aliens! Everyone knows what they really are (http://www.bebaptized.org/ufos.htm).








:wackyno:

Wow, angels are uglier than I've been led to believe.

[aggle-rithm]

I find that kind of remark mostly silly. I mean, it's obvious than in our civilisation, the acronym "ufo" is definitively linked to the notion of interstellar vehicles.

To pretend to the countrary is to play some semantic game. "Lalala, I'm gonna stick to the litteral meaning, lalalala, I don't care of how it's use all over the world by 99% of the population, lalalala, and I'm felling really smart doing that, lalalala..."

OK. Great for you. Next point?

The problem is that the dual meaning can be used for equivocation. An ET believer can take the literal meaning as used by the government, and present it as if it were the "vulgar" meaning most often used. For instance, they can accurately state that Project Blue Book has determined that UFO's pose no security risk to the United States. However, Project Blue Book meant UFO's in the literal sense, while the believers present it in the more common cultural sense, implying that the US govt. knows all about the aliens, has checked them out, and determined they are not a threat.

[baron]

Given the difficulty that members of this forum (and various others I've asked the same question, including forums populated by "believers" as well as "skeptics") seem to have in identifying explicit examples of ridicule of UFO witnesses as a _whole_, I'm still left wondering whether the common complaints of ufologists about such ridicule are in fact justified.

I have to admit being slightly perplexed as to your reasons for asking this here. You appear to be searching for actual evidence of the ridicule of UFO witnesses, as if all instances of ridicule are collected and published on the web or something. Most witnesses don't immediately rush and post their experience in a forum or a blog, and if ridicule is to be found it's more likely to be verbal than written. Surely your best bet would be to actually search out some witnesses and ask them.

[IsaacKoi]

I have to admit being slightly perplexed as to your reasons for asking this here. You appear to be searching for actual evidence of the ridicule of UFO witnesses, as if all instances of ridicule are collected and published on the web or something.

I certainly don't think all instances of ridicule are collected and published on the web.

However, some of the people on this List presumably also read books, watch television and (possibly) talk to UFO witnesses and UFO skeptics. So, they may have come across such ridicule (or, if not, that would negative results would in themselves be interesting to me - particularly taken in conjunction with the largely negative results obtained by raising the same question on several other forums during the last year or two).

I've already mentioned that I've seen references in books by Klass and Sheaffer to _other_ people believing that UFO witnesses are all idiots. I've yet to find many examples (in non-fiction books, TV documentaries, or on the Internet) of such statements. I have, however, heard several people make such comments, and also already (as you suggest in your post) discussed the issue with several UFO witnesses that claim to have experienced such ridicule.

Also, I've collated a few examples of such strong views in works of _fiction_ and also in an advertisement.

In short, I'm not limiting my research to raising this question on this Forum (or other places on the Internet). I merely though that raising the question here may supplement _other_ research.

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[kellyb]

I'm trying to find out whether they actually exist (at least in any significant numbers).

I've seen numerous complaints about unfair skeptics and "debunkers", with the most common complaint probably being the one about ridicule and name-calling. I've been very surprised how difficult it is to find explicit examples of such ridicule in books or public statements by skeptics (particularly since I've personally heard some skeptical friends express such sentiments in informal conversations).

In fact, I've found statements in books by Klass and Sheaffer (two of the most criticised "debunkers") to the effect that whilst some people _do_ say that only idiots report UFOs, such statements are incorrect.

Basically, I'm interested in a more refined statement of the actual issues between "skeptics" and "believers". It seems to me that "believers" often focus upon addressing attacks which are not being made by "skeptics" (or at least not many of them) whilst, similarly, many "skeptics" do not acknowledge that many "believers" accept many of the points they make.

Kind Regards,

Isaac

I think there are unreasonable people who are "skeptics" and unreasonable people who are "believers". And I think they're a minority group in both camps.

So, just so ya' know, most "skeptics" don't think "only idiots report UFOs".
"We" just think there are generally alternative explanations to be found for "sightings" that make sense.
Sometimes a "skeptic" will suggest "What about this? Could it have been that?" and the believer will flip out and hear it as "You're an idiot!" for some reason.
And then there are trolls who join forums to just insult believers indiscriminately. (But on the forum I moderate, at least, they get quickly banned, and their threads deleted, so you don't see them.)

Hmmm...there are some stereotypes that are sort of funny about how it's always JimBob from Texarkana who sees UFOs. I think it was some comedian or movie that first made that association, and it's probably some fuzzy hybrid notion mixing up UFO sightings with the "cattle mutilation" phenomenon, which obviously was being reported by farmers...so maybe that's part of the problem, too. But that's not, in my experience, "mainstream skeptic thinking" on the issue of why people think they're seeing possible alien crafts from time to time.

[jeremyp]

Mate, if you think like that, you need to talk to more christians. Fundies, you may be right, but mainstream church-goers do actually think there's evidence to support their idiotic stance.

I find almost identical arguments used by both christians UFO believers.

Given that the same amount of scientific evidence exists for both - zero - I'd say the UFo types are every bit as reliant on faith.
I think it's the other way around. It's the fundies that are trying to manufacture evidence and the mainstreamers that just get on with the worshipping. Look at Answers in Genesis - pages and pages of stuff trying to convince us that Biblical Creationism is right by using pretend scientific arguments and trying to twist the evidence to say things it doesn't.

[osmosis]

I don't think you can equate the two. Religion does not really claim to present evidence. It is faith based. UFOlogy claims that they can scientifically prove that UFOs exist and that they are probably alien spaceships.

I have to disagree in the case of fundies. Fundies, through misunderstanding science and plain old ignorance, actually believe the bible is literally true, some of them ("young earth creationists") actually believe the earth is literally 6-7000 years old.

[The Atheist]

I think it's the other way around. It's the fundies that are trying to manufacture evidence and the mainstreamers that just get on with the worshipping. Look at Answers in Genesis - pages and pages of stuff trying to convince us that Biblical Creationism is right by using pretend scientific arguments and trying to twist the evidence to say things it doesn't.Yeah, total cock-up on that post. See what happens when you try to post on three forums, several different threads on each and do work at the same time????

I'll have to give up working posting!

Good spot, ty.

<<The Atheist notes [again], Preview Post is your friend!>>

[baron]

I certainly don't think all instances of ridicule are collected and published on the web.

However, some of the people on this List presumably also read books, watch television and (possibly) talk to UFO witnesses and UFO skeptics. So, they may have come across such ridicule (or, if not, that would negative results would in themselves be interesting to me - particularly taken in conjunction with the largely negative results obtained by raising the same question on several other forums during the last year or two).

I've already mentioned that I've seen references in books by Klass and Sheaffer to _other_ people believing that UFO witnesses are all idiots. I've yet to find many examples (in non-fiction books, TV documentaries, or on the Internet) of such statements. I have, however, heard several people make such comments, and also already (as you suggest in your post) discussed the issue with several UFO witnesses that claim to have experienced such ridicule.

Also, I've collated a few examples of such strong views in works of _fiction_ and also in an advertisement.

In short, I'm not limiting my research to raising this question on this Forum (or other places on the Internet). I merely though that raising the question here may supplement _other_ research.


Fair enough, I understand your point. I personally have heard about, and seen written, numerous instances of ridicule, although unfortunately I'm unable to present any here because I don't specifically recall where I saw them. Some will be in the books I read, others on forums, others on TV or related to me by witnesses. I've never really treated individual instances of ridicule as facts I should remember, rather I've just been aware of them contributing to the intolerance of witnesses as a whole.

[Fnord]

Not all of us "fundies" are hard-core. Many of us take only the existance of our Creator on blind faith, and take some, if not most, of the Bible as merely a string of stories.

This is not to say that some of the stories in the Bible do not describe actual historical events. It is to say that the historical validity of those events alone do not prove the Creator's existance.

I, for one, do not have my reasoning skills set to a "goddidit" default. Nor is the default set to a Darwinian standard. Selective breeding, for example, is a valid process, but for me to accept that I am the result of billions of years of evolution from an amino acid soup, or that the entire universe came into being only six-thousand-plus years ago ... I am simply not fully convinced either way -- they both seem to be somewhat woo-woo ideas to me.

But when you come down to it, what practical advantage is there to being either created or evolved? Does it really matter? Teach me to build a better bridge, design a better house, or develop a better vaccine -- these are both relevant and important issues.

As for my faith; because I can not prove the existance of our Creator -- and thus can not provide a reasoned and convincing argument for the Creator's existance -- I do not try to proselytise others into the same belief.

Anyway, I'm rambling, so let me finish this post by saying that Christians in general run a wide spectrum in their beliefs; from the hard-core "The Bible Is THE ONLY TRUTH" type, to the soft-core "I live by Christian principles" type to the air-core "I write my own gospel" type. You can try to place us all in one category, but that's as effective (and useful) as placing all non-Christians, including Atheists, into one category.

Everybody believes differently. I believe I'll have another beer.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

[Cuddles]

I gained a new perspective on people reporting UFOs many years ago, when I flew a kite at night (simply because it was new and I wanted to test it and I hadn't gotten a chance to do it in daylight). I attached a glow-stick to the kite and flew it on a modest (about 300 meters) amount of line in a moderate breeze. It was just an ordinary box kite on a single line, not a stunt kite or anything.

For even more fun, attatch a glowstick to each end of a power kite and stick a couple in your harness. One light moving erratically might look weird, but two in formation with a couple more bouncing around randomly makes really cool videos.:D

[desertyeti]

But I thought everyone knew that UFO's are just full grown Flying Rods (http://www.subversiveelement.com/Rods.html)

YEAH!
RODS!
I remember when this guy was on t.v. going off about how some "rods" are hundreds of feet long, and he was plannig on capturing one, etc., etc. I hope the poor bugger didn't quit his job.

[The Atheist]

Not all of us "fundies" are hard-core. Many of us take only the existance of our Creator on blind faith, and take some, if not most, of the Bible as merely a string of stories.

This is not to say that some of the stories in the Bible do not describe actual historical events. It is to say that the historical validity of those events alone do not prove the Creator's existance.

I, for one, do not have my reasoning skills set to a "goddidit" default. Nor is the default set to a Darwinian standard. Selective breeding, for example, is a valid process, but for me to accept that I am the result of billions of years of evolution from an amino acid soup, or that the entire universe came into being only six-thousand-plus years ago ... I am simply not fully convinced either way -- they both seem to be somewhat woo-woo ideas to me.

But when you come down to it, what practical advantage is there to being either created or evolved? Does it really matter? Teach me to build a better bridge, design a better house, or develop a better vaccine -- these are both relevant and important issues.

As for my faith; because I can not prove the existance of our Creator -- and thus can not provide a reasoned and convincing argument for the Creator's existance -- I do not try to proselytise others into the same belief.

Anyway, I'm rambling, so let me finish this post by saying that Christians in general run a wide spectrum in their beliefs; from the hard-core "The Bible Is THE ONLY TRUTH" type, to the soft-core "I live by Christian principles" type to the air-core "I write my own gospel" type. You can try to place us all in one category, but that's as effective (and useful) as placing all non-Christians, including Atheists, into one category.

Everybody believes differently. I believe I'll have another beer.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

And I believe that's nominatable, so I just nominated you.

Great post.

[JMA]

Are we still talking about UFO here, or what?

My impression was that it was a threat about UFOs, but in fact it's a threat about idiots.

OK. There is a lot of idiots in the world.

Next subject of interrest?

[IsaacKoi]

According to Dr. Hynek, the "Galileo" of Ufology, the project bluebook records shows the following breakdown in % of misidentifying objects:


Military pilot - 88% (single witness) 76% (multiple witness)
Commercial pilot - 89% and 79%
Technical person (nerds?) - 65% and 50%



Hi Astrophotographer,

I think you may be interested in a very similar study performed by Allan Hendry (a ufologist generally praised by skeptics, as well as pro-ETHers). He reported his results in his book "The UFO Handbook" (1979).

Hendry asked (at pages 101-102 (in Chapter 8) of the Sphere softback edition) whether "Do certain occupations really guarantee a strong
foundation for accepting a UFO account?".

Hendry compared the number of IFO and UFO reports for various professions within his sample, creating a "misperception `failure rate' for the different occupations". The ratio of IFOs reported to all reports was as follows:

All known occupations 89%

Pilot/air personnel 75%
Skilled trade 75%
Forestry/farmer 86%
Blue collar 87%
White collar 88%
Retired/disabled 88%
Education 88%
Student 89%
Housewife 89%
Unemployed 90%
Retail 91%
Medical 93%
Law enforcement 94%


Hendry concluded that "Apparently, occupation does not guarantee
discrimination".

He commented that "to say that pilots did the best job with a 75 per cent failure rate is not much of a victory".

In relation to police, Hendry commented: "Why did police do the worst job? Perhaps they are more conscious of small details during their quiet night patrols. Scintillating stars were a favourite target of police witnesses".

(By the way, for ease of future reference, I'll just note in passing that the material by J Allen Hynek that you quote was in his book "The Hynek UFO Report" (1977) at page 261 (in Chapter 11) of the Barnes & Noble hardback reprint (1997) at page 271 of the Dell paperback edition (with the same page numbering in the Sphere paperback edition).)

Kind Regards,

Isaac

[tiger]

I am not saying I believe in the UFO theory I would have to have pretty resonding evidence come my way. I will say with this big universe that we have it seems were just a drop in the bucket. It's hard to swallow that we are the only life form in it, however whether those other life forms are coming to visit us is the difference.

I'm not sure how close the nearest planet is the scienctists would consider in habitible. But with our closet nieghboring planets millions of miles away and years to get there it seems unlikly.