# Cecil a UFO debunker? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 28, 2004, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694 "2004-10-28T17:34:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/81 "2004-11-03T12:15:09Z")
> [@north](#): > > Well see the thing is Tele-baby, you’re talking to an eyewitness. It was a UFO sighting that got me interested in all of this stuff in the first place. What I saw certainly defied the laws of physics as we know them. > … > I know that saucers are real. > … > Flying saucers are real. > … > Unfortunately the majority of the scientific community acts as though the tabloids are the only possible sources of UFO data. There are at least six large scale scientific studies, more than ten PhD Theses, and many dozens of published professional papers by professional scientists. > … > Someday however, I believe we will feel foolish for thinking that we were alone in the universe and the only life-form that had the technology to explore it. Ok, so you are an eye-witness. But unfortunately that’s all we have. Lots of sightings of UFOs. Many of these have been explained (aircraft, satellites, space debris, Mars). Whenever we look for physical evidence, we can’t find any. So your conclusion that flying saucers are real has no evidence to back it up. Yes, there are Unidentified Flying Objects. You saw one. But it’s an enormous (and unjustified) leap to assume that aliens have visited Earth. Incidentally, why do you say we think we are alone in the Universe? Haven’t you read the posts? Most agree that mathematically it is likely aliens exist somewhere. It’s this sort of mistaken assumption that undermines your case! ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/82 "2004-11-03T12:21:24Z")
> [@north](#): > > Well see the thing is Tele-baby, you’re talking to an eyewitness. It was a UFO sighting that got me interested in all of this stuff in the first place. What I saw certainly defied the laws of physics as we know them. **Which laws of physics? Name them.** > [@](#): > > Now I can’t be 100% sure that that craft was powered by aliens or alien technology, nobody waved at me from saucer portholes, and as far as I know I don’t have any probes in any unmentionable places or anything but the best way I can describe it is that it was a pretty “alien” experience Define “alien experience”, please? 😕 > [@](#): > > (also, a very competent friend sitting beside me saw the same object so I know I’m not completely bonkers). “Competent” how? And just what _was_ seen? Did you even discuss alternatives? > [@](#): > > It was no known aircraft that we have today (and trust me I know aircraft very, very well), although it is possible it could have been some ultra-advanced military flying saucer-shaped thingy. Whatever it was, we couldn’t come up with any other explanation for it (and sure maybe we have been biased by media to think of aliens from outer space, I mean, who hasn’t seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind?). > I tell you this not because I expect you to conclude that saucers are real and aliens are visiting earth based on my story, I tell you simply so that you may understand where I’m coming from on the subject. I know that saucers are real. I don’t know what they are, and I don’t know that aliens are visiting earth in them for sure, but if I tend to lean in that direction I am completely comfortable with that based on my experience and subsequent years of studies on the subject. I also respect the opinion of anyone else that examines the available evidence and concludes that there is no proof to suggest that aliens from another planet are visiting earth, without of course, resorting to mocking those that happen to believe the opposite. My, my, my–how nice of you to spare them the trouble of speaking. 😃 > [@](#): > > Flying saucers are real. Unfortunately the majority of the scientific community acts as though the tabloids are the only possible sources of UFO data. There are at least six large scale scientific studies, more than ten PhD Theses, and many dozens of published professional papers by professional scientists. These are all almost always ignored and even worse, the tabloid stink has stuck to the subject like ultra-superglue. Unfortunately, this is probably not going to change anytime soon. Someday however, I believe we will feel foolish for thinking that we were alone in the universe and the only life-form that had the technology to explore it. We’ll feel foolish for being naïve enough to think that our knowledge of the laws that govern our universe was absolute too. > > Sorry for the hand-waving, but that’s just the way I feel. > > North > > Ps: I do have some missing time by the way, but it involves Mexico, a bottle or two of tequila, and a strip joint (not the time I saw the UFO either). Regretably, how somebody _feels_ doesn’t mean a thing. All of the “evidence” produced by UFO-oids consists of: [ul] [li]Blurry photos[/li][li]faked photos[/li][li]And personal testimony, which any cop will tell you is unreliable at best.[/li][/ul] One _single_ small item; a tool, a wrapper, a piece of metal, or plastic, or ceramic, that couldn’t be made here on Earth would be proof enough to convince me. But after 50+ years of “sightings”, not one item has appeared. And now, silly Conspiracy theories are used to rationalize away the failure. Nuts to this. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/83 "2004-11-03T12:24:36Z")
> [@north](#): > > Well see the thing is Tele-baby, you’re talking to an eyewitness. It was a UFO sighting that got me interested in all of this stuff in the first place. What I saw certainly defied the laws of physics as we know them. > > Etc etc. I was waiting for the bit where you gave precise details of exactly what you saw, under exactly what conditions, precisely where, who you reported it to, exactly what your friend saw etc, what his name is But it never came. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/84 "2004-11-03T12:53:32Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > I was waiting for the bit where you gave precise details of exactly what you saw, under exactly what conditions, precisely where, who you reported it to, exactly what your friend saw etc, what his name is > > But it never came. Yeah well, I’ve never discussed that in a public forum. I’m a little wary of hanging it all out there in a public space if that’s ok with you. If somebody wanted to sit down and have a beer with me and talk about what I saw, I’d be more than happy to do that. There are thousands of well documented sightings similar to mine out there though. Have at them. North ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/85 "2004-11-03T13:00:42Z")
> [@north](#): > > There are thousands of well documented sightings similar to mine out there though. Have at them. Tell us which one you think is best and point us to a place where we can read about it. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/86 "2004-11-03T16:33:50Z")
North writes: \> Well see the thing is Tele-baby, you’re talking to an eyewitness. Calling people by cutesy nicknames doesn’t tend to make them easier to persuade. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/87 "2004-11-03T16:50:46Z")
> [@Wendell Wagner](#): > > North writes: > > \> Well see the thing is Tele-baby, you’re talking to an eyewitness. > > Calling people by cutesy nicknames doesn’t tend to make them easier to persuade. Yes I do take some humoristic license at times. If that weakens my position then so be it. To be honest, I didn’t mind when someone called me “Ace” sarcastically and it didn’t overshadow their arguments from my standpoint. Telemark seems to be willing to at least investigate and if I have caused offense I hope he or she knows that it was not my intention. I did think it was a little unfair to be called “snippy” and then have the same person be snippy to me (twice) after I apologized for it. I’ll get over it though. Eventually. North. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/88 "2004-11-03T17:50:56Z")
> [@north](#): > > you’re talking to an eyewitness In his very informative and entertaining book _Bad Astronomy_, Phil Plait (who used to be a Doper) tells of a night in which he looked up in the dark sky and saw something exceedingly strange. He’s an experienced astronomer, used to looking up and knowing what he’s looking at, and he describes the hairs raising on the back of his neck as he stared at this weird phenomenon. He says it looked like a large, slow object, dotted with lights. The longer he looked at it, he says, the weirder it seemed, and the more creeped out he got. And then, finally, he recognized it: a flock of white-bellied birds, like ducks or geese, flying in formation, closer to him than he had estimated. Their white feathers were reflecting ground lights and making them stand out against the darkness; their formation made them seem like a coherent object. The lack of any reference points in the sky caused him to misinterpret their distance. And he’s a trained expert. If anybody is going to know what they’re looking at when they stare up into the heavens, it’s an astronomer. And yet he was confused and perplexed for several minutes by a completely ordinary phenomenon that manifested in such a way as to mislead his very human, and therefore very fallible, senses. You will forgive me if I fail to take your inexperienced eyewitness report at its claimed face value. ---
**Author:** ![RiverRunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/977dab/32.png) [@RiverRunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RiverRunner)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/89 "2004-11-03T18:08:27Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > In his very informative and entertaining book _Bad Astronomy_, Phil Plait (who used to be a Doper) . . . He’s not a Doper any more? I knew I hadn’t seen anything from him in a while, but I just assumed I was missing him in all the traffic. Did he run out of time for the SDMB? RR ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/90 "2004-11-03T18:14:36Z")
> [@north](#): > > Telemark seems to be willing to at least investigate and if I have caused offense I hope he or she knows that it was not my intention. I didn’t take offense, I just didn’t care for it. It’s pretty hard to engage in a conversation with someone when you don’t think they are taking you seriously, and that’s how it came off. No biggie. [/QUOTE] As to the evidence, your personal observation is a data point, and that is a good place to start. But you’ve lept way beyond a reasonable conclusion with the statement that you’re sure they are aliens. What you have is something that can’t be explained yet by you. Other folks who have studied UFO sightings seem to find explainations that don’t require aliens for the _vast_ majority of sightings. If you don’t describe your sighting to us in detail most folks will be likely to dismiss your observation out of hand since they rarely pan out to anything interesting. Again, if there is something physical (a piece of metal, a tool, trash, a crashed ship, a body) then you have something on which to base a belief in aliens. Right now we have very few sightings that cannot be explained (and may never be) and some people leaping to conclusions that are unsupported by the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/91 "2004-11-03T18:48:36Z")
> [@north](#): > > There are thousands of well documented sightings similar to mine out there though. I need to comment on this as well, because it seems you have an erroneous understanding about how science works. Specifically, if it were true that there are thousands of well-documented sightings, then science would accept them. Period. The fact that science has not accepted them means the proof is lacking. Again, period. See, here’s the thing. People who argue with science seem to come at it from a philosophical point of view comparing science to religion: a set of received truths that cannot be questioned. And that just isn’t how science works. In science, _all truths are provisional._ Every explanation we have is a _tentative_ explanation _unless and until better evidence comes along._ There are no exceptions to this. None. Read this and read it carefully: _ **The history of science is the history of people changing their mind when confronted with compelling arguments and compelling evidence to the contrary of their current position.** _ Look at any scientific discipline and you’ll find example after example. My favorite is plate tectonics. A hundred years ago, a guy named Alfred Wegener was trying to convince people that the continents moved across the surface of the globe, while conventional wisdom held the planet was essentially static and unchanging. As recently as the 1950s, the older view still held overwhelming sway. And then, in the space of about a decade, a whole pile of evidence came together: magnetic readings in Greenland, geologic formations in South America and Africa, satellite observations, seafloor measurements from U.S. Navy submarine expeditions, and more. Result: the field changed virtually overnight. In a metaphorical eyeblink, the slate of conventional wisdom was wiped almost completely clean, and rewritten from scratch. It’s very simple, really. If the evidence for UFO visitations were as solid and well-documented as you say it is, scientists would acknowledge it. The fact that they haven’t means the evidence doesn’t measure up. There is no conspiracy, and there is no organized denial, because science doesn’t work that way. Only somebody who doesn’t understand the scientific method could assert the contrary. I have another book recommendation: _Captured by Aliens_ by Joel Achenbach. It’s essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. Achenbach (a reporter for National Geographic and other media) talks both to hardcore believers and to scientists who, like me, _want_ to believe but know the evidence is insufficient. It becomes clear fairly quickly through Achenbach’s survey that for believers, UFOlogy is basically a religion. The aliens are essentially proxies for either angels or demons: they either have all the answers and want to save us from ourselves, or they’re here to do us harm and enslave us for all time. The only people who treat the question responsibly are the scientists, and they’re telling us that no matter how hard they look, they can’t find anything worth reporting. Read the book, **north.** Please. And read some Sagan while you’re at it. You seem like a smart guy, but some additional intellectual rigor would serve you well. On preview: **RiverRunner** , **The Bad Astronomer** for whatever reason was lost when the board went to paid memberships. Definitely a sad loss, but it wasn’t unexpected that we lost a few long-timers to that transition. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/92 "2004-11-03T22:29:05Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > I need to comment on this as well, because it seems you have an erroneous understanding about how science works. Specifically, if it were true that there are thousands of well-documented sightings, then science would accept them. Period. The fact that science has not accepted them means the proof is lacking. Again, period. > > See, here’s the thing. People who argue with science seem to come at it from a philosophical point of view comparing science to religion: a set of received truths that cannot be questioned. And that just isn’t how science works. In science, _all truths are provisional._ Every explanation we have is a _tentative_ explanation _unless and until better evidence comes along._ There are no exceptions to this. None. > > Read this and read it carefully: _ **The history of science is the history of people changing their mind when confronted with compelling arguments and compelling evidence to the contrary of their current position.** _ > > Look at any scientific discipline and you’ll find example after example. My favorite is plate tectonics. A hundred years ago, a guy named Alfred Wegener was trying to convince people that the continents moved across the surface of the globe, while conventional wisdom held the planet was essentially static and unchanging. As recently as the 1950s, the older view still held overwhelming sway. And then, in the space of about a decade, a whole pile of evidence came together: magnetic readings in Greenland, geologic formations in South America and Africa, satellite observations, seafloor measurements from U.S. Navy submarine expeditions, and more. Result: the field changed virtually overnight. In a metaphorical eyeblink, the slate of conventional wisdom was wiped almost completely clean, and rewritten from scratch. > > It’s very simple, really. If the evidence for UFO visitations were as solid and well-documented as you say it is, scientists would acknowledge it. The fact that they haven’t means the evidence doesn’t measure up. There is no conspiracy, and there is no organized denial, because science doesn’t work that way. Only somebody who doesn’t understand the scientific method could assert the contrary. > > I have another book recommendation: _Captured by Aliens_ by Joel Achenbach. It’s essential reading for anyone interested in the subject. Achenbach (a reporter for National Geographic and other media) talks both to hardcore believers and to scientists who, like me, _want_ to believe but know the evidence is insufficient. It becomes clear fairly quickly through Achenbach’s survey that for believers, UFOlogy is basically a religion. The aliens are essentially proxies for either angels or demons: they either have all the answers and want to save us from ourselves, or they’re here to do us harm and enslave us for all time. The only people who treat the question responsibly are the scientists, and they’re telling us that no matter how hard they look, they can’t find anything worth reporting. > > Read the book, **north.** Please. And read some Sagan while you’re at it. You seem like a smart guy, but some additional intellectual rigor would serve you well. > > On preview: **RiverRunner** , **The Bad Astronomer** for whatever reason was lost when the board went to paid memberships. Definitely a sad loss, but it wasn’t unexpected that we lost a few long-timers to that transition. It’s very simple, really. If the evidence for UFO visitations were as solid and well-documented as you say it is, scientists would acknowledge it.\* First of all no, it’s not that simple. At all. Scientists are human. Anyone knowing anything about human organizations including those that are scientific knows that any organized group of humans will be inherently political. I’ve found this in my own experience and you probably have too. The world of science is no exception. There are careers to be considered, grant money, funding, individual and institutional reputations etc. The study of UFO’s seems to get the hands off approach for many reasons not the least of which it has been driven into the realm of the paranormal (by both scientists and believers). Many scientists and their institutions are afraid of ridicule which could put their “serious” funding at stake. Science today is a collective enterprise. Much of the work is done in groups and even an individual scientist is dependent upon the good will and support of his fellow scientists and institutions to continue his (or her) work. _The only people who treat the question responsibly are the scientists, and they’re telling us that no matter how hard they look, they can’t find anything worth reporting._ Wrong. Not only are they not looking very hard, very few of them are looking at all. The UFO phenomenon is real. Unexplained aerial phenomena have been observed in the skies of the world by trained observers (pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts, radar operators, military personnel, and so on) for over 55 years. Yet despite intense public interest there has been no publicly funded research into the UFO phenomena since the Condon report of 1969. Answer me one question **Cervaise** : Why not? You state the lack of scientific acknowledgment is proof of the lack of proof (interesting theory that). I ask you this: how do you find proof if you’re not looking for it? If no public research is being conducted into this obviously very real and occurring phenomenon how will proof, or even the absence of it, ever be found? It is the duty of scientists to identify the unidentified so why are they standing silent? You say it is the absence of proof. I say it is their duty to find it. Sure, most of the thousands and thousands of UFO reports submitted each year from all over the world can be explained. But approximately 5% to10% represent solid objects capable of speeds, maneuverability and luminosity far beyond current known technology. As far as we know, these are not natural and they are not man-made. How will we ever know what it is or is not unless respected scientists step up to the plate? Very few have done so on both sides of the issue. I quoted one Peter A. Sturrock who has (in another post). Dr. Sturrock is perhaps one of the most eminent scientists ever to apply the conventional scientific method to the UFO phenomenon. (He won the 1986 Hale Prize in Solar Physics from the American Astronomical Society, the Arctowski medal in 1990 from the National Academy of Sciences, and the 1992 Space Sciences Award from the 40,000 member American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics for his “major contribution to the fields of geophysics, solar physics and astrophysics, leadership in the space science community, and dedication to the pursuit of knowledge.”)” I’ll quote him again in case you missed it: “The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in universities.” Stanford University Report SUIPR 68IR, 1977. This Scientific disregard has been going on a long time: “On July 29, 1968 the House Science and Astronautics Committee heard the testimony of Dr. James E. McDonald, senior physicist of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and Professor of Meteorology at the University of Arizona. A respected authority and leader in the field of atmospheric physics, McDonald had authored highly technical papers for professional journals. He spent two years examining formerly classified official file material and radar tracking data on UFOs; interviewing several hundred witnesses; and conducting in-depth case investigations, details of which were provided to the Committee. McDonald told the Committee that, “no other problem within your jurisdiction is of comparable scientific and national importance…the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”” I could go on and on but I think you get the point by now. So why do formal scientific institutions ignore the UFO phenomena? According to Dr. Sturrock, scientists face a lack of sustained funding for research; harbor a false assumption that there is no data or evidence; have a perception that the topic is “not respectable;” and believe that the Condon report settled the question. Despite overwhelming public demand – which often drives scientific research – scientists simply aren’t motivated. Sturrock says that the single biggest obstacle to the study of UFOs has been the paucity of available physical evidence. To remedy this situation, he proposes improving techniques for the retrieval of physical evidence through field investigations and its laboratory analysis; planned experiments in the lab testing physical effects; systematic cataloguing of case reports and a search for patterns in the data; and the development of theories based on the facts using scientific inference. “In principle, we can prove a hypothesis not only by finding strong evidence in its favor, but also by finding strong evidence against every other possibility,” he says. As you stated “The history of science is the history of people changing their mind when confronted with compelling arguments and compelling evidence to the contrary of their current position.” Indeed. Maybe someday if formal scientific research is responsibly and comprehensively applied to the continuing UFO phenomena (possibly for the first time) what you say will occur. Until then however, apathy rules the day in the hallowed halls of science when it comes to the very real UFO phenomenon. North. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/93 "2004-11-04T01:00:23Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > It’s very simple, really. If the evidence for UFO visitations were as solid and well-documented as you say it is, scientists would acknowledge it. > [@north](#): > > First of all no, it’s not that simple. At all. Scientists are human. Anyone knowing anything about human organizations including those that are scientific knows that any organized group of humans will be inherently political. I’ve found this in my own experience and you probably have too. The world of science is no exception. There are careers to be considered, grant money, funding, individual and institutional reputations etc. So you think the \*\*biggest scientific discovery of all time \*\* is going to be ignored by researchers? Surely Nobel prizes, fame and fortune await the first scientific analysis of alien contact! > [@north](#): > > The study of UFO’s seems to get the hands off approach for many reasons not the least of which it has been driven into the realm of the paranormal (by both scientists and believers). No. **There is only one reason - there is no evidence at all to study.** You, for example, are a witness and clearly believe in aliens. Yet you won’t even tell us anything about your experience. And all we have to go on are similar experiences. > [@north](#): > > The UFO phenomenon is real. Unexplained aerial phenomena have been observed in the skies of the world by trained observers (pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts, radar operators, military personnel, and so on) for over 55 years. Yet despite intense public interest there has been no publicly funded research into the UFO phenomena since the Condon report of 1969. Answer me one question **Cervaise** : Why not? Well I can answer that! **Because there is nothing to research.** Yes, there are many UFO reports. No doubt you saw something yourself. But that’s it. Just a bunch of people saying they saw something in the sky, and they are not sure what it was. No debris, no spaceships, no contact, nothing. (And many reports turn out to be genuine mistakes.) But it gets more unscientific than that. Apparently every US Government since 1947 is in a gigantic conspiracy. The US military, US intelligence and US scientists are secretly analysing an alien spaceship, while denying it’s existence. You assure us that aliens are flying overhead. You state that Cecil has a closed mind. You claim that posters here don’t believe there are aliens anywhere in the Universe. And the evidence for all this is…those UFO sightings. It’s circular logic. Because there is no evidence, somebody must be ‘suppressing it all’. Because a researching journalist says the evidence isn’t good enough, he must ‘have a closed mind’. > [@north](#): > > It is the duty of scientists to identify the unidentified so why are they standing silent? Because they have nothing to identify. After you’ve asked a UFO witness what he saw, what do you do next? There’s no evidence to analyse. > [@north](#): > > But approximately 5% to10% represent solid objects capable of speeds, maneuverability and luminosity far beyond current known technology. As far as we know, these are not natural and they are not man-made. Now here is another claim by you. **How do you know these things are solid?** Nothing ever impacts with them. **How do you know these sightings are not natural and they are not man-made?** You just believe they are - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/94 "2004-11-04T01:34:47Z")
> [@north](#): > > Dig a little deeper and you’ll find reports of this “delusion” throughout history, long before the advant of filmed media (such as The Great Airship mystery of 1865). It’s up to you to put the pieces of the puzzle together, I’ve been trying to do that for a long time. No one picked up on this. The Great Airship Mystery (which was from the 1890s, not 1860s by the way) is a fascinating example. It consisted of many sightings of airships throughout the United States, including some that involved talking with the (human) pilots. No aliens, oddly enough. There were eyewitness accounts, sightings by large groups of people, sightings by those well respected in their communities, all the stuff that UFOs have. The general idea was that the airship was being build and tested by an inventor in the Northeast, and would be revealed to the public soon. If **North** had lived then, and if there was an SDMB, he’d be making a similar post about them. One problem. There was obviously no such inventor and no airship. Fraud, mass illusion, who knows, but we do know that there was nothing to it. So the Great Airship Mystery proves that a lot of people claim to see things that aren’t there. BTW, **North** have you ever considered that the aliens and their ships change appearance over time, following trends in popular culture? Have you read the provided link from Skeptical Inquirer? Did you know that they traced the strange alien pictographs on the Roswell debris to a fabric manufacturer on Long Island? 40 years ago I read a lot of UFO books, and really wished that there was something to them. There isn’t. If and when aliens arrive, we’ll know. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/95 "2004-11-04T03:57:02Z")
> [@north](#): > > Yeah well, I’ve never discussed that in a public forum. I’m a little wary of hanging it all out there in a public space if that’s ok with you. Well, it depends whether you want to have any chance at all of having your story taken seriously or not, at least by this Doper. “I saw something totally inexplicable. No details, just trust me. I have a lame excuse for not providing details namely that this is a public message board on which no one knows who I am” Pull the other one, it has small green aliens on, that jangle. ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/96 "2004-11-04T04:55:08Z")
> [@](#): > > There are at least six large scale scientific studies, more than ten PhD Theses, and many dozens of published professional papers by professional scientists. Can’t \*wait \*to see the cites for these assertions! ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/97 "2004-11-04T12:08:45Z")
> [@glee](#): > > So you think the \*\*biggest scientific discovery of all time \*\* is going to be ignored by researchers? > Surely Nobel prizes, fame and fortune await the first scientific analysis of alien contact! > > No. **There is only one reason - there is no evidence at all to study.** > You, for example, are a witness and clearly believe in aliens. Yet you won’t even tell us anything about your experience. And all we have to go on are similar experiences. > > Well I can answer that! > **Because there is nothing to research.** > Yes, there are many UFO reports. No doubt you saw something yourself. > But that’s it. Just a bunch of people saying they saw something in the sky, and they are not sure what it was. No debris, no spaceships, no contact, nothing. > (And many reports turn out to be genuine mistakes.) > > But it gets more unscientific than that. > Apparently every US Government since 1947 is in a gigantic conspiracy. The US military, US intelligence and US scientists are secretly analysing an alien spaceship, while denying it’s existence. > You assure us that aliens are flying overhead. > You state that Cecil has a closed mind. > You claim that posters here don’t believe there are aliens anywhere in the Universe. > > And the evidence for all this is…those UFO sightings. > It’s circular logic. > Because there is no evidence, somebody must be ‘suppressing it all’. > Because a researching journalist says the evidence isn’t good enough, he must ‘have a closed mind’. > > Because they have nothing to identify. After you’ve asked a UFO witness what he saw, what do you do next? > There’s no evidence to analyse. > > Now here is another claim by you. > **How do you know these things are solid?** > Nothing ever impacts with them. > **How do you know these sightings are not natural and they are not man-made?** > You just believe they are - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! _So you think the biggest scientific discovery of all time is going to be ignored by researchers? Surely Nobel prizes, fame and fortune await the first scientific analysis of alien contact!_ The UFO Phenomenon is not being studied by any official public research program. I propose that it be studied in this manner. Whether or not this leads to the conclusion that there has been ongoing alien contact or not would remain to be seen. No official study, no official conclusions, no nobel prizes. _Because there is nothing to research._ **There is only one reason - there is no evidence at all to study.** Wrong. Completely wrong. Irresponsibly wrong. There is data to research. There is evidence of evidence. This is kind of a non-linear downward spiral. Scientists are both very busy and put off by the appearance of much of ufology and I don’t necessarily blame them for that. As a result however, most scientists never look at UFO evidence, which leads to their conclusion that there is no evidence. This is a self fulfilling prophecy. Given the proper environment this could possibly be turned into a favorable upward non-linearity: Given “evidence of evidence”, credibly, soberly presented, the interest of scientists can be stirred, which would presumably lead to the “discovery” by scientists that there is evidence. I’ve quoted a couple of respected scientists like Dr. Sturrock stating as much, yet you and the others seem firmly entrenched in the opposite view. This seriously boarders on the close-minded. There is data to study. There is evidence of evidence. _Apparently every US Government since 1947 is in a gigantic conspiracy. The US military, US intelligence and US scientists are secretly analysing an alien spaceship, while denying it’s existence._ Possibly. If there really is a cover-up an open research program would perhaps point to valuable indicators of opposition, if any were there. _It’s circular logic._ The only circular logic here seems to be your own and others like you: We have decided there is no evidence therefore we will not seek any. \*You assure us that aliens are flying overhead.[/I} I’ve never assured you that aliens are flying overhead. Where did I say that? _You state that Cecil has a closed mind._ It’s more than possible that he has on the subject of UFO’s. He apparently places the subject of UFO’s in the same arena as thinking blacks are inferior to whites and Jewish conspiracies. (This is second hand information contributed by CK Dexter Haven’s post on the first page of this debate which is why I say “apparently”). _You claim that posters here don’t believe there are aliens anywhere in the Universe_ Really did I say that? Where did I claim that exactly? I’ve never said that here or anywhere else. \*Because they have nothing to identify. After you’ve asked a UFO witness what he saw, what do you do next? There’s no evidence to analyse. \* Wrong. There are radar reports (both military and civilian) corresponding to naked eye sightings, holes in the ground, soil compression, depressions in sod or disturbed vegetation patterns have been described as well as physical traces, magnetic patterns in the soil and biochemical changes in vegetation at the location of reported landings. A limited number of instances of residues left behind are on record as well, people have burns in relation to sightings, car stopping cases, ignition failures, radio interference, electrical interference, electromagnetic effects on aircraft in the presence of UFO’s or AAP’s (anomalous aerial phenomena), traces of powders, burned circles, strange odors, liquid traces, abrasion traces, flattened, swirled areas in grasses, withered vegetation, dead grass that lasts for years, possible radiation effects, physical and physiological effects on humans have been observed in connection with UFO sightings… There is evidence to analyze. Why can’t you see that? **How do you know these things are solid?** Nothing ever impacts with them. **How do you know these sightings are not natural and they are not man-made?** You just believe they are - YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE! [/QUOTE] I don’t know really. I know one thing though, if the majority of scientists don’t look for evidence to study, or study what is available, they will never find out what these things are, or are not. Again it’s that simple. North. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/98 "2004-11-04T12:20:15Z")
> [@north](#): > > There are radar reports (both military and civilian) corresponding to naked eye sightings, holes in the ground, soil compression, depressions in sod or disturbed vegetation patterns have been described as well as physical traces, magnetic patterns in the soil and biochemical changes in vegetation at the location of reported landings. A limited number of instances of residues left behind are on record as well, people have burns in relation to sightings, car stopping cases, ignition failures, radio interference, electrical interference, electromagnetic effects on aircraft in the presence of UFO’s or AAP’s (anomalous aerial phenomena), traces of powders, burned circles, strange odors, liquid traces, abrasion traces, flattened, swirled areas in grasses, withered vegetation, dead grass that lasts for years, possible radiation effects, physical and physiological effects on humans have been observed in connection with UFO sightings… Can we see it? > [@](#): > > I know one thing though, if the majority of scientists don’t look for evidence to study, or study what is available, they will never find out what these things are, or are not. Refer back to my goatpeople comment. You can’t go around looking for evidence of anything you might think of. You’d never get anything done. When evidence turns up, you examine it. Until then, it’s a waste of time to go “looking”, which you apparently agree with as you are not looking for evidence of a race of goatpeople living underneath the Stonehenge. ---
**Author:** ![north](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ea924/32.png) [@north](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/north)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/99 "2004-11-04T12:25:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > No one picked up on this. The Great Airship Mystery (which was from the 1890s, not 1860s by the way) is a fascinating example. It consisted of many sightings of airships throughout the United States, including some that involved talking with the (human) pilots. No aliens, oddly enough. There were eyewitness accounts, sightings by large groups of people, sightings by those well respected in their communities, all the stuff that UFOs have. The general idea was that the airship was being build and tested by an inventor in the Northeast, and would be revealed to the public soon. If **North** had lived then, and if there was an SDMB, he’d be making a similar post about them. > > One problem. There was obviously no such inventor and no airship. Fraud, mass illusion, who knows, but we do know that there was nothing to it. So the Great Airship Mystery proves that a lot of people claim to see things that aren’t there. > BTW, **North** have you ever considered that the aliens and their ships change appearance over time, following trends in popular culture? Have you read the provided link from Skeptical Inquirer? Did you know that they traced the strange alien pictographs on the Roswell debris to a fabric manufacturer on Long Island? 40 years ago I read a lot of UFO books, and really wished that there was something to them. There isn’t. If and when aliens arrive, we’ll know. \*One problem. There was obviously no such inventor and no airship. Fraud, mass illusion, who knows, but we do know that there was nothing to it. So the Great Airship Mystery proves that a lot of people claim to see things that aren’t there. \* Well actually it’s not obvious at all. We don’t know if there was anything to it or not. That’s why it’s still a mystery. _BTW, **North** have you ever considered that the aliens and their ships change appearance over time, following trends in popular culture?_ Yes I have. That doesn’t necessarily discount that fact that they are seeing something unusual in the sky. These people were obviously interpreting what they saw within the context of the times they lived in. The pattern throughout history is interesting though, even if it turned out to be merely psychological as you suggest. North. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2004, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694/100 "2004-11-04T12:35:50Z")
> [@north](#): > > Wrong. There are radar reports (both military and civilian) corresponding to naked eye sightings, holes in the ground, soil compression, depressions in sod or disturbed vegetation patterns have been described as well as physical traces, magnetic patterns in the soil and biochemical changes in vegetation at the location of reported landings. A limited number of instances of residues left behind are on record as well, people have burns in relation to sightings, car stopping cases, ignition failures, radio interference, electrical interference, electromagnetic effects on aircraft in the presence of UFO’s or AAP’s (anomalous aerial phenomena), traces of powders, burned circles, strange odors, liquid traces, abrasion traces, flattened, swirled areas in grasses, withered vegetation, dead grass that lasts for years, possible radiation effects, physical and physiological effects on humans have been observed in connection with UFO sightings… None of this is evidence of aliens. It’s just (even assuming it’s all true) evidence of weird stuff. None of it points to beings from outer space. Not a jot. In years past, people explained stuff they didn’t understand by reference to gods, now (in your case at least) to aliens. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cecil-a-ufo-debunker/271694.md?page=6)