3 ms·

> This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either

> This is a telltale symptom of quacks and cranks. "My truth is being suppressed". The more normal explanation of superiors telling someone to shut up is either because it's top secret information about military tech or plain old bullshit. Only quacks come to the conclusion that "they want to shut me up". In fact, it's one of the items in the crackpot index. Yes. This is a textbook example of the Conspiracy Fallacy. The problem is that the Conspiracy Fallacy doesn't actually disprove a conspiracy- it only says that you can't use a lack of evidence ("the clintons are hiding the bodies, of course, because they're guilty!") AS evidence. And when it comes to reporting UFO's, talk to anyone in the past 70 years who's reported them and ask them how it affected their reputation; this is a real risk to anyone who may be reporting a real thing. > UFOlogy is the realm of woo So is science, sometimes. Turns out that humans are flawed and bring judgment into everything, such as anyone who initially called out The Ether, Miasma theory or, eh, pretty much all of psychology into question. > Who wants to be associated with some weirdo claiming he was sexually abused by space aliens? No one. Which is why only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations (disclaimer: I know of at least one, a CEO of a 100+ person firm, who only told me his story if I did not retell it... it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them!). Which is why it's dangerous to bring shame and judgment into any such claim. > instead of shaky footage and unreliable witnesses The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant.

the_af 5y ago
> only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations But this is again a non-argument. It proves nothing and adds nothing of value. "Of course you are only hearing from bullshitters, reasonable people are afraid to speak" is indistinguishable from "reasonable people don't believe in this stuff". CEOs believe in all sort of bizarre stuff and fads, what sort of evidence is that? And in any case you (someone I don't know writing on the internet) claiming a CEO he/she knows that claims to have a funny story about UFOs is meaningless. I hope you understand why. > it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them! But that's anecdote. It's the job of science and scientists to judge claims. Especially contentious, extraordinary claims must be examined more closely. Since UFOlogy is a religion that attracts quacks, it must be judged extra super carefully and all non-alien explanations must be carefully considered first. But UFOlogists react defensively to this, they want their claims to be taken at face value, "with an open mind", another telltale sign of conspiracies ("don't be narrow minded!"). > The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant. The footage of the Ghost of Kyiv was convincing, and it turned out to be DCS (a realistic flightsim). What you want is solid scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting us, of which there is none. Not that there is realistic footage of extraterrestrial life either. There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  > There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims. Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?
  - the_af 5y ago
    It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news. More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained, and who are not trying to sell a book or a story for a made-for-TV movie. Example template of unreliable and unscientific witnesses: experimental jet pilot who claims to have seen/recorded footage of a strange flying object that, according to his proven experience, cannot be flying according to known physics, and he has never seen anything like this. Also, one of his friends is an astronomer and told him what he saw is likely ET life. Also, his commanding officers told him to drop the issue. Someone made a documentary out of this and it's now on Netflix. Why this isn't good evidence by a solid witness: - Experienced pilots are not scientists nor physicists nor biologists. They are in no position to judge what is or is not possible, or what is a hint of ET life. - Experienced pilots also lie and exaggerate. - Unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained. It can be equipment malfunction OR a genuine interesting physics phenomenon that is not easily explained... yet. An interesting puzzle, sure. Evidence of ET life? Very unlikely. - Commanding officers dismissing him may be due to this being classified intel, them being annoyed at the UFO weirdo, or simply not having the time for that nonsense. The least likely explanation is that they are suppressing evidence of ET visitations. - Random astronomer/scientist friends are not evidence when they assert things in isolation. _Doubly_ so if it's outside their area of expertise. - Vetoing by the wider scientific community is necessary. - Documentaries on Netflix or articles on magazines or websites are not evidence. - Occam's Razor must be wielded before deciding this was indeed a UFO piloted by extraterrestrial beings instead of simply a natural occurrence on Earth. Your turn.

the_af 5y ago

> only the weirdos who don't have much to lose, report that. Survivorship fallacy... You don't know any of the reports non-weirdos would make if they could do it without harming their own reputations But this is again a non-argument. It proves nothing and adds nothing of value. "Of course you are only hearing from bullshitters, reasonable people are afraid to speak" is indistinguishable from "reasonable people don't believe in this stuff". CEOs believe in all sort of bizarre stuff and fads, what sort of evidence is that? And in any case you (someone I don't know writing on the internet) claiming a CEO he/she knows that claims to have a funny story about UFOs is meaningless. I hope you understand why. > it's amazing what people will tell you when they feel you will not judge or shame them! But that's anecdote. It's the job of science and scientists to judge claims. Especially contentious, extraordinary claims must be examined more closely. Since UFOlogy is a religion that attracts quacks, it must be judged extra super carefully and all non-alien explanations must be carefully considered first. But UFOlogists react defensively to this, they want their claims to be taken at face value, "with an open mind", another telltale sign of conspiracies ("don't be narrow minded!"). > The footage seems to be getting better and there's such a long list of reliable witnesses at this point that to claim otherwise is extremely willfully ignorant. The footage of the Ghost of Kyiv was convincing, and it turned out to be DCS (a realistic flightsim). What you want is solid scientific evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence visiting us, of which there is none. Not that there is realistic footage of extraterrestrial life either. There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims.

pmarreck 5y ago
> There is no long list of reliable witnesses nor solid scientific evidence, contrary to your claims. Alright, I'll call your bluff for the sake of falsification: What is the reasonable number, and quality, of witnesses that you would accept as sufficiently persuasive?
- the_af 5y ago
  It's not a bluff. Trust me, if there was scientific evidence of ET intelligent life visiting us, it would be all over the news. More than zero reliable witnesses for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligent life visiting us would be a good starting point. Vetoed by the scientific community, not associated to UFOlogist conspiracy groups, who understand the scientific method and who understand unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained, and who are not trying to sell a book or a story for a made-for-TV movie. Example template of unreliable and unscientific witnesses: experimental jet pilot who claims to have seen/recorded footage of a strange flying object that, according to his proven experience, cannot be flying according to known physics, and he has never seen anything like this. Also, one of his friends is an astronomer and told him what he saw is likely ET life. Also, his commanding officers told him to drop the issue. Someone made a documentary out of this and it's now on Netflix. Why this isn't good evidence by a solid witness: - Experienced pilots are not scientists nor physicists nor biologists. They are in no position to judge what is or is not possible, or what is a hint of ET life. - Experienced pilots also lie and exaggerate. - Unexplained phenomena is just that: unexplained. It can be equipment malfunction OR a genuine interesting physics phenomenon that is not easily explained... yet. An interesting puzzle, sure. Evidence of ET life? Very unlikely. - Commanding officers dismissing him may be due to this being classified intel, them being annoyed at the UFO weirdo, or simply not having the time for that nonsense. The least likely explanation is that they are suppressing evidence of ET visitations. - Random astronomer/scientist friends are not evidence when they assert things in isolation. _Doubly_ so if it's outside their area of expertise. - Vetoing by the wider scientific community is necessary. - Documentaries on Netflix or articles on magazines or websites are not evidence. - Occam's Razor must be wielded before deciding this was indeed a UFO piloted by extraterrestrial beings instead of simply a natural occurrence on Earth. Your turn.