FREE TAPATALK APP

IsaacKoi · 6th January 2007, 04:04 PM

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 · 6th January 2007, 04:44 PM

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 · 6th January 2007, 04:45 PM

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

Starthinker · 6th January 2007, 05:13 PM

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 · 6th January 2007, 05:30 PM

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 · 6th January 2007, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

intergalactice

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

ponderingturtle · 6th January 2007, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Starthinker

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 · 6th January 2007, 08:16 PM

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 · 7th January 2007, 04:43 AM

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.

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

ponderingturtle · 7th January 2007, 05:38 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 7th January 2007, 07:53 AM

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

Darat · 7th January 2007, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

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.

Bikewer · 7th January 2007, 08:25 AM

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 · 7th January 2007, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by billydkid

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 · 7th January 2007, 09:34 AM

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 · 7th January 2007, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 7th January 2007, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by IsaacKoi

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 · 7th January 2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by JMA

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 · 7th January 2007, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

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 · 7th January 2007, 12:00 PM

Only idiots believe that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials.

Miss Whiplash · 7th January 2007, 12:04 PM

A great book for both "believers" and skeptics is Shockingly Close to the Truth : Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist, by James W. Moseley. Mr. Mosely still publishes Saucer 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 · 7th January 2007, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

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 · 7th January 2007, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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 · 7th January 2007, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

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 · 7th January 2007, 12:27 PM

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

Originally Posted by baron

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 · 7th January 2007, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

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 · 7th January 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Astrophotographer

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 · 7th January 2007, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by baron

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 · 7th January 2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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 · 8th January 2007, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Dazed

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 · 8th January 2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by IsaacKoi

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 · 8th January 2007, 11:00 AM

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 · 8th January 2007, 02:44 PM

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 · 8th January 2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by JMA

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 · 8th January 2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by JMA

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 · 8th January 2007, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Tricky · 8th January 2007, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by billydkid

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 · 9th January 2007, 03:14 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 9th January 2007, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

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 · 9th January 2007, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Only idiots would believe that UFOs are aliens! Everyone knows what they really are.

Thanks Darat.

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

.

6th January 2007, 04:04 PM	#1
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52	"Only idiots believe in UFOs" 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
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52

6th January 2007, 04:45 PM	#3
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	Do a search on Joe Nickell. He has many articles online.
	__________________ MondoSkepto "The Gin Palace of Rationality" "Bring me the head of the preacher man!" Siouxsie Sioux (Concerning my avatar) "...I was worried that someone that ugly would be dumb enough to put herself up for public ridicule." - The Atheist

6th January 2007, 05:13 PM	#4
Starthinker Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 5,014	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.
	__________________ \|¦¦\|¦ \|¦\|\|\|\|¦\|\|\|¦\|\|¦¦\|¦\|\|\|\|\|\|\|¦\|¦¦¦¦\|¦¦¦¦\|\|¦\|¦\|¦¦\|¦ \|¦¦\|¦ He who doubts victory has already lost the battle. Below the navel there is neither religion nor truth.

6th January 2007, 05:30 PM	#5
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,301	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.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,301	Last edited by fuelair; 6th January 2007 at 06:16 PM. Reason: To have NO relation to Christophera. Thanks, skibum!!

6th January 2007, 06:05 PM	#7
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by Starthinker 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th January 2007, 04:44 PM	#2
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,270	I think part of your problem in finding such statements is that those types of blanket generalizations generally aren't made by skeptics.

6th January 2007, 05:45 PM	#6
Skibum Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Fredericksburg, Virginia Posts: 1,270	Originally Posted by fuelair intergalactice You've been reading too much from christophera haven't you?

6th January 2007, 08:16 PM	#8
Sir Robin Goodfellow Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Estevan (wear da fox hat) Posts: 2,751	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.

7th January 2007, 04:43 AM	#9
JMA Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Location: Close to Brussels Posts: 276	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. Clever people can be wrong, because even if they are clever, they are human beings first...

7th January 2007, 05:38 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by 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. 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th January 2007, 07:53 AM	#11
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Well, the claim makes no sense. Obviously there are UFO's. The question is whether or not they are alien interstellar vehicles.

7th January 2007, 07:57 AM	#12
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,973	Originally Posted by billydkid 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.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

7th January 2007, 08:25 AM	#13
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,612	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.

7th January 2007, 08:51 AM	#14
JMA Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Location: Close to Brussels Posts: 276	Originally Posted by billydkid 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?

7th January 2007, 09:34 AM	#15
Notrump Muse Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Chicago Posts: 542	Fairies Morph into Ets 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.

7th January 2007, 10:33 AM	#16
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52	Originally Posted by 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. 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
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52

7th January 2007, 11:31 AM	#17
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Originally Posted by IsaacKoi 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.

7th January 2007, 11:55 AM	#18
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by JMA 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?

7th January 2007, 11:57 AM	#19
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer 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.

7th January 2007, 12:00 PM	#20
Dazed Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 586	Only idiots believe that UFOs are piloted by extraterrestrials.
Dazed Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 586

7th January 2007, 12:04 PM	#21
Miss Whiplash Nettlesome Harpy Join Date: May 2006 Location: 53 Miles West of Venus Posts: 1,583	A great book for both "believers" and skeptics is Shockingly Close to the Truth : Confessions of a Grave-Robbing Ufologist, by James W. Moseley. Mr. Mosely still publishes Saucer 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!
	__________________ MondoSkepto "The Gin Palace of Rationality" "Bring me the head of the preacher man!" Siouxsie Sioux (Concerning my avatar) "...I was worried that someone that ugly would be dumb enough to put herself up for public ridicule." - The Atheist

7th January 2007, 12:05 PM	#22
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer 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.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

7th January 2007, 12:20 PM	#23
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Originally Posted by The Atheist 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.

7th January 2007, 12:24 PM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,547	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer 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.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

7th January 2007, 12:27 PM	#25
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	I had stated that "UFOlogists are the ones who are the ones suggesting that UFOs are evidence of ET visitation" Originally Posted by baron 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.

7th January 2007, 01:59 PM	#26
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer 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.

7th January 2007, 02:04 PM	#27
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Within smelling distance of the Grammar Death Camps Posts: 13,928	Originally Posted by Astrophotographer 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.
	__________________ Jeff Wagg, Communication and Outreach Manager for the James Randi Educational Foundation posted: It is my job to inform other JREF employees about people who wish to do the JREF harm, and you [The Atheist] are one of those.

7th January 2007, 02:12 PM	#28
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Originally Posted by baron 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.

7th January 2007, 02:17 PM	#29
Astrophotographer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Manchester, NH Posts: 1,890	Originally Posted by The Atheist 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.

8th January 2007, 10:41 AM	#30
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52	Originally Posted by Dazed 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
IsaacKoi British Barrister Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 52

8th January 2007, 10:53 AM	#31
baron Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hill Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by IsaacKoi 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.

8th January 2007, 11:00 AM	#32
JMA Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2004 Location: Close to Brussels Posts: 276	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...

8th January 2007, 02:44 PM	#33
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,504	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.
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

8th January 2007, 02:45 PM	#34
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by JMA 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.

8th January 2007, 02:47 PM	#35
billydkid Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Blanchester, OH Posts: 4,930	Originally Posted by JMA 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.