What are the most commonly used excuses to debunk UFO's?

Originally posted by 0rbital

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Ice crystals
Mass Hallucinations
Venus
Weather Balloons
Thermal Inversions
Meteorites
RC Toy Airplane with LED's
Photoshop
Jupiter
Satellites
Aurora Borealis
Chinese Lanterns
CGI
Rockets
Airplanes
Birds
Ball Lightning


Are there any more absurd and ridiculous debunk excuses that I've missed so far?

Seeing as everything in that list is actually proven to exist and alien visitation is not......isn't it ridiculous for you to suggest that most of these likely explanations.......which do actually account for 99 percent of sightings.......are absurd and ridiculous? Yep, I'm convinced it is.

You make the post sound like you automatically believe that everything you see that you can't explain must therefore be an alien craft which is as closed minded as the ultra hardcore sceptics can be.

I tried to explain already that I don't automatically believe everything is a alien craft. What I am convinced of is that some of the sightings in the past seem likely to be "alien craft", for sure something out of this world. particularly the ones that have been documented on radar doing maneuvers beyond any technological capability of any nation on Earth, I definitely subscribe to the ETI hypothesis that Earth is under some sort of neutral observation. I also subscribe to the black project/secret military technology hypothesis too, those two seem to be the most likely in regards to a percentage of the GENUINE unexplained objects in the sky. But by god OF COURSE not every single sighting will fit into those 2 categories, I'm not so closed minded and oblivious that I'm not aware that there are hoaxes and forgeries going on.

I'm not a die-hard believer that believes every sighting must be an alien craft and I stay away from the fringe side of UFOLOGY that deals with things like reptillians and grays that are supposedly infiltrating and undermining the U.S. Government. The truth is I don't know how anyone would come to obtain such knowledge and there's certainly nothing I've seen that would logically suggest that those things could be true. I understand there's a lot of people on here that believe those things but not me.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
I'm not a die-hard believer that believes every sighting must be an alien craft and I stay away from the fringe side of UFOLOGY that deals with things like reptillians and grays that are supposedly infiltrating and undermining the U.S. Government. I understand there's a lot of people on here that believe those things but not me.

See, I can accept the post you've made above (the whole post, I shortened the quote for tidiness) as although I don't agree with some of it I understand your reasoning. It's just that your opening post seemed designed to mock sceptics who would offer alternative explanations to alien visitation.

Is it possible that alien crafts have visited earth? Yes. Stating otherwise, would be purely subjective & not scientific. I happen to think there's enough doubt and circumstantial evidence to at last entertain the idea.

Does clear, tangible proof or testable evidence of alien crafts exist? None that I've seen. Pointing that out, should not be stigmatized or ridiculed. The day you quit asking for evidence and believe based on faith or your gut feeling, is the day you trade logic and critical thinking for religion.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
They are not "excuses" if the objects are in fact, unidentified

If they, by all intents and purposes, are unidentified (and on a video/photo) how is it people can agree what it is? Like lanterns? Planes? Rockets go awry?

The guesses are just as enigmatic as the subject matter! But because we're left brained creatures, there's comfort in familiarity. Because after all, you can't apply logic without having had experienced it first, right?

reply to post by RadioactiveRob


shills, bots and trolls



not all UFO's are extraterrestrial craft
the ones that shut down nuclear bases and plants are Air Elemental or Sylphs

the air force will send trolls your way and start with the "there are no such things as aliens..." meme-trope

to cover up their efforts to exterminate beings that have inhabited the planet far longer than we have
and are only interfering in our affairs where they threatan all life on the planet.

then there is the Elusive Companion Hypothesis
Church and State work arm in arm to keep you from looking in too deeply at the ECH

just like when Church spreads the aliens are demons trope for the State in the case of the sylphs

ignore the trolls and their pugnacity

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


I've given you a star, even though I disagree with your full analysis however, the use of the word pugnacity deserves reward in these days of lol txtspk

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective
They are not "excuses" if the objects are in fact, unidentified

If they, by all intents and purposes, are unidentified (and on a video/photo) how is it people can agree what it is? Like lanterns? Planes? Rockets go awry?

The guesses are just as enigmatic as the subject matter! But because we're left brained creatures, there's comfort in familiarity. Because after all, you can't apply logic without having had experienced it first, right?

In cases where the logical conclusion is obvious, then one should be willing to accept the possibility that it is in fact...the simplest answer. Ergo, if we know that at 9PM someone had a party on hollywood blvd and released chinese lanterns, then it's safe to assume that someone claiming they saw a UFO (And the UFO happens to be a light slowly drifting/rising in the horizon) at 9:07PM in the Los Angeles sky, witnessed nothing more than chinese lanterns.

It's ruling out these simple explanations that is outrageous and ludicrous.

Originally posted by Unidentified_Objective


In cases where the logical conclusion is obvious, then one should be willing to accept the possibility that it is in fact...the simplest answer. Ergo, if we know that at 9PM someone had a party on hollywood blvd and released chinese lanterns, then it's safe to assume that someone claiming they saw a UFO (And the UFO happens to be a light slowly drifting/rising in the horizon) at 9:07PM in the Los Angeles sky, witnessed nothing more than chinese lanterns.

It's ruling out these simple explanations that is outrageous and ludicrous.

If alien intelligence can travel faster than the speed of light and manifest themselves through solid objects I highly doubt our Earthly logic applies to their Universal science. Ya know?

Originally posted by Human_Alien

If alien intelligence can travel faster than the speed of light and manifest themselves through solid objects

Therein lies the problem, Watson. There's no proof there are aliens...much less evidence they have achieved interstellar travel at speeds exceeding light. Know what I mean?

Military Aircraft / drones
Reflections
Camera lens flares/anomalies
Flares

reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

Originally posted by SoymilkAlaska

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by SoymilkAlaska

 

Just when was the last time you EVER saw anyone [color=BEFF7D]seriously put forward the explanation of swap gas for a UFO sighting.

honestly i was just using swamp gas as an example, sorry for not being more clear.

but really, every time someone comes up with a video "hey look at these strange lights in the sky, ufo maybe?"

someone always says "swamp gas" (for example)

There is one very important word, that PhoenixOD used in that question, which you may have overlooked. That word is [color=BEFF7D]Seriously.

You are correct about 'Swamp Gas' being used frequently. However, it is never used in a serious manner. It is an extremely weak joke, and also a weak attempt at discrediting any logical explanation, which will likely come later.




Such as: "[color=FFCFEF]Yup. mmhmmm. Someone will be here soon to tell us this is just Swamp Gas. Yeah, sure it is. mmmhmm, it always is. Yup. Swamp Gas. "

There are several other terms that could be used in place of Swamp Gas, and that ↑ would still hold true.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
Let's get a list going. I'll start with what I'm aware of.


Ice crystals
Mass Hallucinations
Venus
Weather Balloons
Thermal Inversions
Meteorites
RC Toy Airplane with LED's
Photoshop
Jupiter
Satellites
Aurora Borealis
Chinese Lanterns
CGI
Rockets
Airplanes
Birds
Ball Lightning
Lens Flares

Are there any more absurd and ridiculous debunk excuses that I've missed so far? If anyone else can think of more please post it and I'll update the list.

Actually, that is a fairly good list of the most common explanations for reported UFOs - with the exception of "mass hallucinations".

I should say that "lens flares, birds and bugs" are most commonly found in the photos that people take and then submit them as UFO photos, when they actually never saw a UFO.

The most common UFOs with prosaic explanations, would be:
-planets - especially Venus
-stars - especially ones that twinkle with varying colors
-airplanes - like ones off in the distance that seem to hover with their landing lights on
-Chinese lanterns/fire lanterns - for some reason, lots of people still are unfamiliar with them and they account for lots of sightings around Canada Day, Independence Day and Halloween.

In the many years of reading UFO reports, I note that most major meteorite sightings actually generate relatively few (if any) UFO reports.

CGI is mostly found in "UFO" video posted to You Tube.

You missed mentioning drones. We haven't had many reports that we have found to be drones but for sure they are being seen more often.

So I think your thread title is wrong. If you look at the bulk of UFO reports, they are basically just "lights in the sky", so I'm sure that satellites and ISS are often reported along with airplanes, planets and even stars.

I think one way to get rid of all the crappy sightings that make up the bulk of UFO reports, would be to simply eliminate all reports which are basically just point source lights at night. That would perhaps assist in trying to focus on the reports which potentially represent genuine anomalies.

Satellites
They can easily be mistaken for a UFO, I didn't see them listed. I have seen people mistaken the ISS fly by and people think it was a UFO.

Wow. Great thread OP. Seems whenever the skeptics are mocked they get all butthurt.

Every thread made about ufos generally has Chinese Lanterns, Rocket/Missile launch with a condescending comment about how stupid it is to thinks its anything other than easily explainable mundane stuff on the first two pages. Lots of folks on here are self proclaimed experts in video analysis. It's ridiculous.

One I haven't seen yet is,

Space Junk

Lenticular cloud
Whirlwind carrying lots of dust, trash, etc
Concrete playground fixture lowered by crane then quickly hoisted away when the crew realized they were at the wrong school (wild theory for Ruwa, Zimbabwe case)
Bug on camera lens
Dust on camera lens or between ISS porthole panes with camera gain at max.
Fiber on film at factory that causes flaw during process handling, leading to realistic false disc image upon development (Costa Rica photo, Lockheed photo)
Makeshift hot-air or helium balloon designed to look like flying saucer (Balloon Boy case)
Frisbee
Button in photo
Hoax model
Blurd (motion-blurred bird in side view, somewhat convincing)
Jet with lights on in daytime
One jet at night turns off lights as crisscrossing jet turns them on, faking 90-degree turn
Earth-grazing meteor moving away from viewer (easy to mistake for hovering off-world tourist)
Hat or metal roof of similar shape captured and carried by wind
Hoaxers’ kites, small planes in formation, etc.
Light fixture, street lamp with post not visible in photo, power-cable connectors (cables don’t show up on photos in certain weather conditions)
Moon through rainy window
Landing airplane photographed at low shutter speed (ordinary flashing lights look like row of lights on disc rim)
Falling booster rocket with fuel remaining (Norway spiral, China UFO photos)
Skyhook balloon
Searchlight
Many more, some already mentioned, some not

Originally posted by FireMoon
.... The recent "debunk" of the 1957 B47 incident is a classic I have already mentioned on another thread. Erudite knowledgeable about Radar.... just happens to completely neglect to mention when announcing, it was a radar "Ghost", the object was clearly seen visually by at least 2 members of the crew and say so in their discussion with the ground controllers.

Bingo. Nailed it!

It's not the identity of the supposed explanation that's so concerning or needs to be guarded against, but the debunking tactic of selective exclusion of solid and reliable information. This is often the easiest way of separating the debunkers (the bad guys) from the true skeptics (the good guys!).

(Yes, some UFO hucksters use that same tactic, of course. But it's somehow just a little more cringe-worthy when you find such a thing being done by someone 'mainstream', with real credentials, and who never hesitates to remind the audience of his obvious intellectual superiority, that the establishment defaults and "true skepticism" are on his side, etc., etc....)

As to that recent RB47 'debunking'... yep, it takes a special kind of skeptic to think that Tim Printy -- using Microsoft Flight Simulator, and interviewing exactly 0 witnesses -- actually solved or even added anything significant (other than purposeful ambiguity?) to the case. I'm all for honest attempts at finding explanations, and I believe he's done that well in the past, but I see in that recent paper too many examples of selective quoting, misuse of Klass's or McDonald's notes, and what I can only assume are purposeful omissions (because he doesn't seem to be the careless type?), that my trust in his word is compromised. The way he hyper-analyzed and then twisted and tangled the one radar-operator's words (to create more uncertainty than can reasonably be said to exist, I assume?)... holy moly! An average lawyer could accomplish the same thing by asking any one of us, three times within an hour, what we had for breakfast that morning. (Doesn't matter if you're certain it was eggs and bacon; he'll just hammer on the slightest inconsistency regarding the darkness of the toast until credibility appears weakened., and... ta-da! He wins. Good times....)

And to see the guys over at "Bad UFOs" congratulating and verbally high-fiving each other for such a convincing explanation as that... well, my face got a little red. In fact, I'd say that Sheaffer is guilty of more shades of subtle debunking dishonesty than most any other 'skeptic' I can think of... save a few. (The type that, if you can get them to engage, can be picked apart line-by-loathsome-line, but it's a tedious task to do so, and they know it, and you have to continually keep them focused. Very tiresome!)

Okay, I guess I'm done griping about debunkers now....
;-)

Here is the trend I have been observing....
Post is made about some orb type object with pictures or you tube
someone comes on and says its a balloon, bird, cgi, lens flare,,,yada yada yada
it turns out to be one of those.

I honestly have not seen anything turn out to be anything unexplained or remotetly interesting...there are the clasic cases....maybe.

it is borderline delusional.....no, it is delusional to be ascribing any random light in the sky to be alien in nature. To mock people for identifying something for what it is ....is ....delusional.

Polaroid taken with a police camera by an officer dispatched to the scene in response to about 30 calls, with total number of witnesses estimated at 300. Nine more were snapped as the object darted away. This photo was examined by German MUFON. So which debunk story applies?

Fallacies:

• You DO NOT TEST aircraft above a populated city, any real case of an aircraft above a city cannot be a test craft
• You DO NOT THROW flares above a populated city
• Changing the story or throwing up real flares later to cover something up
• A bunch of F- fighters flying and no one from the military knowing they have done excercises and above a city - THE DUMBEST EXCUSE

Any excuses of that kind are wrong

Originally posted by TheIrishJihad
Wow. Great thread OP. Seems whenever the skeptics are mocked they get all butthurt.

Every thread made about ufos generally has Chinese Lanterns, Rocket/Missile launch with a condescending comment about how stupid it is to thinks its anything other than easily explainable mundane stuff on the first two pages. Lots of folks on here are self proclaimed experts in video analysis. It's ridiculous.

One I haven't seen yet is,

Space Junk

that is what happens when the believers all call anyone who disagree with them idiots and liars.
lol and don't talk about butthurt when the believers get butthurt over people not just swallowing the crap found on youtube.
at least we know chinese lanterns, missiles and other things exist and plenty of times people have misidentified them as something else.

whats ridiculous is the idea that people are so blind to what they are doing that they viciously attack those trying to inject some level of objectivity into the conversation.