Meet the Guerrilla Skeptics, the "fact checkers" rewriting thousands of UFO wikipedia articles

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, they are not science deniers. Therein lies the issue for some of you.

Nobody is a science denier. It’s what’s been called “scienctism” that people are rightly sceptical of. That is the attempt to use science to back up your claims when it does know such thing.

You should have a read of Bill Bryson A Short History of Nearly Everything. You will be surprised at what has been claimed in the name of science.

Where is the science, where is anything or nearly everything in relation to UFOs and woo woo?

I’ll go with the military pilots who recently presented very hi tech data and records of sightings.

Kinda science-like, eh ?

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, they are not science deniers. Therein lies the issue for some of you.

Nobody is a science denier. It’s what’s been called “scienctism” that people are rightly sceptical of. That is the attempt to use science to back up your claims when it does know such thing.

You should have a read of Bill Bryson A Short History of Nearly Everything. You will be surprised at what has been claimed in the name of science.

Where is the science, where is anything or nearly everything in relation to UFOs and woo woo?

I’ll go with the military pilots who recently presented very hi tech data and records of sightings.

Kinda science-like, eh ?

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, they are not science deniers. Therein lies the issue for some of you.

Nobody is a science denier. It’s what’s been called “scienctism” that people are rightly sceptical of. That is the attempt to use science to back up your claims when it does know such thing.

You should have a read of Bill Bryson A Short History of Nearly Everything. You will be surprised at what has been claimed in the name of science.

Where is the science, where is anything or nearly everything in relation to UFOs and woo woo?

I’ll go with the military pilots who recently presented very hi tech data and records of sightings.

Kinda science-like, eh ?

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

It had nothing to do with balloons, and the radar and other technologies had a lot of astounding data on speeds, altitudes, turning, accelerating, and so on.

I say sciency enough, by a country mile.

You can say no, if you don’t care how bad that looks.

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: arcticshuffle

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: AllisVibration
a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, they are not science deniers. Therein lies the issue for some of you.

Nobody is a science denier. It’s what’s been called “scienctism” that people are rightly sceptical of. That is the attempt to use science to back up your claims when it does know such thing.

You should have a read of Bill Bryson A Short History of Nearly Everything. You will be surprised at what has been claimed in the name of science.

Where is the science, where is anything or nearly everything in relation to UFOs and woo woo?

I’ll go with the military pilots who recently presented very hi tech data and records of sightings.

Kinda science-like, eh ?

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

It had nothing to do with balloons, and the radar and other technologies had a lot of astounding data on speeds, altitudes, turning, accelerating, and so on.

I say sciency enough, by a country mile.

You can say no, if you don’t care how bad that looks.

U - Unidentified F - Flying O - Object....unidentified is what UFO's are and the same with UAPs - so your sciency speeds, altitudes, turning, accelerating and so on mean nothing without identifying the object.

What looks bad again?

a reply to: quintessentone

U - Unidentified F - Flying O - Object....unidentified is what UFO's are and the same with UAPs -

That's not very useful either.

"UAP" was a term coined by the UKADR for a report (Condign). They hired a research scientist (yes, one (1)) and asked something like "These things, we are calling them UAP, what do you think, Mr. Scientist, is the cause of them?". The guy provided a list consisting of an executive report detailing his findings.

Do you think that "UAPs" are something or all of the things suggested by Project Condign's executive report? I do in many respects.

I dunno, call it splitting hairs on the diff between "Phenomenon" and Object" but I'm a hair splitter. Being fibbed to repeatedly makes one a hair splitter.

originally posted by: quintessentone
These skeptical "volunteers" have nothing to do with government.

Please provide a link with some proof of your statement.

Wikipedia went of the rails on political topics a long time ago. Looks like those that are motivated to hide something are better at it than those just trying to share what they know.

a reply to: quintessentone

I am supportive of science not pseudoscience and I am supportive of questioning everything and doing your own research.

I do not see anyone making any scientific progress under that delete button. Debunk is to retreat to ones bunker of ignorance rather than deal with an ugly can of worms of many more problems.

How flexible some of these human minds have become to avoid a topic is one of many amazing anomalies this world contains.

Their only claim is to not be in favor of woo woo without empirical evidence.

de de do do

originally posted by: kwaka
Wikipedia went of the rails on political topics a long time ago. Looks like those that are motivated to hide something are better at it than those just trying to share what they know.

a reply to: quintessentone

I am supportive of science not pseudoscience and I am supportive of questioning everything and doing your own research.

I do not see anyone making any scientific progress under that delete button. Debunk is to retreat to ones bunker of ignorance rather than deal with an ugly can of worms of many more problems.

How flexible some of these human minds have become to avoid a topic is one of many amazing anomalies this world contains.

Their only claim is to not be in favor of woo woo without empirical evidence.

de de do do

These guerilla skeptic volunteers have nothing to do with political science, so you are off topic. They deal with UFO, aliens and woo woo.

a reply to: TheDiscoKing

I split hairs on whether it can be identified or not.

originally posted by: Station27

originally posted by: quintessentone
These skeptical "volunteers" have nothing to do with government.

Please provide a link with some proof of your statement.

I'd suggest you start reading from page 1 and if you still have questions, google is the next go to.

originally posted by: quintessentone

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

Nope. Just a bunch of woo woo.

a reply to: quintessentone

These guerilla skeptic volunteers have nothing to do with political science, so you are off topic. They deal with UFO, aliens and woo woo.

Your claim of the UFO topic not being political is ridiculous. I don't see you making in progress in this information war going on while you stay in your bunker on the politics around UFOs.

The problem is that people like this regard Mainstream media sources as the gospel. The end all, be all. As if nothing in the world happens without it being reported on by the MSM. If the MSM doesn't report on it, it's consider bunk or psuedoscience or a conspiracy theory.

WIth virtually all MSM outlets owned by 6 companies/individuals, it becomes very easy to ignore stories or even selectively report certain facts while ignoring others to "debunk" them.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: TheDiscoKing

I split hairs on whether it can be identified or not.

Okay. Considering the contents of PC's exec. report (Have you been through it?) identify what?

Sincerely? Identify what?

Identify what people are experiencing?

Anyhow. Regarding the "debunkers"?

They are cracking me up a little because it reminds me of Robert A. Wilson's Quarter Experiment.

There's some inevitable blowback when it comes to sticking their collective noses in this mess. I can't wait until some portion of their constituency starts seeing gremlins. That'll be cool. Sort of like a Full Pasulka Suplex with a Pile Driver finish. They won't last long before they begin to devour one another.

Yay.

originally posted by: 5thHead

originally posted by: quintessentone

Radar artifacts, balloons, is that sciency enough?

Nope. Just a bunch of woo woo.

Only one person has used a silly infantile insult like woo woo, or claimed that the UAP -tic tac experience “had no science”.

The rest of us haven’t even tried to announce that either side of the topic is right or wrong. Only two points -

-Wiki censorship and whitewash / filibuster is wrong.

-A lot of UFO - UAP observations are rife with strong scientific data and analysis.

These are pretty basic and obvious realities for any rational person. But not everyone, obviously, lol.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: TheDiscoKing

I split hairs on whether it can be identified or not.

Even hopeful UFO enthusiasts don’t think anything is “proven” or “identified” yet.

You’re the only even arguing this point.

The topic and investigation is a very linear, cumulative, incremental exercise. Saying that it has to be something, or that it can’t be something….. are equally silly.

originally posted by: Mulder11
The problem is that people like this regard Mainstream media sources as the gospel. The end all, be all. As if nothing in the world happens without it being reported on by the MSM. If the MSM doesn't report on it, it's consider bunk or psuedoscience or a conspiracy theory.

WIth virtually all MSM outlets owned by 6 companies/individuals, it becomes very easy to ignore stories or even selectively report certain facts while ignoring others to "debunk" them.

For me, I don't rely on mainstream anything, I'm in the trenches with the Ufologists trying to find real, concrete evidence and so far nadda. So I'll remain on the fence keeping my mind open.

originally posted by: quintessentone

with the Ufologists

A group that has no desire or capability to police itself of charlatans? With a large percentage of “researchers” caught in blatant fraud.

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: quintessentone

with the Ufologists

A group that has no desire or capability to police itself of charlatans? With a large percentage of “researchers” caught in blatant fraud.

Some yes, some no. I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole barrel of apples.