UFO Hoaxing 101

[Safe-Keeper]

But how funny would it be to fake someone's grandmother's violent rape and murder, all in the name of being skeptical, or building skepticism for police investigations? Would it be acceptable to fake photos of a bloody mangled corpse?

Wow.

What, exactly, is your point? That the subject of UFOs is so important to some believers that we shouldn't be able to joke or make hoaxes about them?

And yes, if people believed violent rapes and murders were happening when none took place, then yes, it would perhaps be acceptable to fake one by producing hoax photographies or witness accounts. As a matter of fact, even in our world such a project might be an idea, to remind people that one is innocent until proven guilty, that not everyone accused of rape has committed rape, and so on. If a society went into a Salem witch-style hysteria where all the children were accusing adults of rape left and right without basis in reality, then yes, it would be a good idea to hoax a rape, having a child come forward to say she'd been assaulted for then to come forward and tell everyone it was a hoax to get people to think.

 

[Fnord]

Wow.

What, exactly, is your point? That the subject of UFOs is so important to some believers that we shouldn't be able to joke or make hoaxes about them?

For some people, UFOlogy has become their obsession ... their compulsion ... their religion!

Haven't you noticed the similarities between KotC's rants and those made by religionists and other delusionaries?

 

[King of the Americas]

Wow.

What, exactly, is your point? That the subject of UFOs is so important to some believers that we shouldn't be able to joke or make hoaxes about them?

Making jokes 'about' things is fine.

Perpetrating jokes/hoaxes 'upon' people that cause them to waste time and resources is WRONG.

 

[Stray Cat]

Making jokes 'about' things is fine.

Perpetrating jokes/hoaxes 'upon' people that cause them to waste time and resources is WRONG.

'experts' in Ufology waste people's time and resources with their misguided analysis on UFO footage, photos and eye witness accounts, is there a difference?

Again I ask: Is it really unscientific to test those who claim to be experts, to check they have the expertise they claim to have?

In mainstream science all these checks are usually in place in a conventional manner, but in quackery and pseudo-science no mechanism to expose fakes exists except the perpetrating a hoax method.

 

[King of the Americas]

'experts' in Ufology waste people's time and resources with their misguided analysis on UFO footage, photos and eye witness accounts, is there a difference?

Again I ask: Is it really unscientific to test those who claim to be experts, to check they have the expertise they claim to have?

In mainstream science all these checks are usually in place in a conventional manner, but in quackery and pseudo-science no mechanism to expose fakes exists except the perpetrating a hoax method.

'Testing' someone's expertise is quite different than orchestrating a fraud upon the public and researchers...

Now, you are suggesting that the mere study and analysis of U.F.O.'s that doesn't match your view is a waste of your time???

Well, I guess it is 'your time', to consider it wasted or not. But, no one told you TO spend time listening to these misguided conclusions. These hoaxers made efforts to draw U.F.O. researchers and media outlets to spend time and resources investigating something they KNEW was a farce.

If they wanted to 'test' something, they should have done so in a controlled environment.

There is/was nothing scientific about these criminal acts.

 

[King of the Americas]

For some people, UFOlogy has become their obsession ... their compulsion ... their religion!

Haven't you noticed the similarities between KotC's rants and those made by religionists and other delusionaries?

Indeed, my search for truth IS an obsession, something I DO feel 'compelled' to pursue.

And I DO hold that those who would attempt to hinder or otherwise interfere with these efforts, to be an enemy of science.

"Interfering with an ongoing investigation" is CRIMINAL.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Now, you are suggesting that the mere study and analysis of U.F.O.'s that doesn't match your view is a waste of your time???

Yes, if "your view" is taken to be an objective, sceptical and scientific approach, then yes, study of analysis of UFOs in a way that doesn't match "our view" is indeed a waste of time.

"Interfering with an ongoing investigation" is CRIMINAL.

Talk about stretching definitions.

 

[King of the Americas]

And yes, if people believed violent rapes and murders were happening when none took place, then yes, it would perhaps be acceptable to fake one by producing hoax photographies or witness accounts. As a matter of fact, even in our world such a project might be an idea, to remind people that one is innocent until proven guilty, that not everyone accused of rape has committed rape, and so on. If a society went into a Salem witch-style hysteria where all the children were accusing adults of rape left and right without basis in reality, then yes, it would be a good idea to hoax a rape, having a child come forward to say she'd been assaulted for then to come forward and tell everyone it was a hoax to get people to think.

I can't conceive of a WORSE idea to get to the truth behind a set of alleged rapes, than to create a hoax involving rape.

With all due respect, that's beyond moronic.

 

[King of the Americas]

Yes, if "your view" is taken to be an objective, sceptical and scientific approach, then yes, study of analysis of UFOs in a way that doesn't match "our view" is indeed a waste of time.

Talk about stretching definitions.

This manner of thinking, the notions you put forth, and the arrogance you demonstrate are truly mind boggling to me.

---

*Imagine a guy looking for evidence of microbial life in a soil sample with a microscope. He steps away to use the bathroom. While he's away, a 'hoaxer' inserts something to create a false positive, then sits back and 'laughs' as the researcher finds the thing he was looking for and reports it to news agencies...

This isn't funny.

I think it is the work of ignorant dopes and science hating dullards.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I can't conceive of a WORSE idea to get to the truth behind a set of alleged rapes, than to create a hoax involving rape.

But this wasn't done to "get to the truth behind a set of alleged {alien spaceship sightings}", but to demonstrate to people that just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. Sorry, but you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this hoax.

*Imagine a guy looking for evidence of microbial life in a soil sample with a microscope. He steps away to use the bathroom. While he's away, a 'hoaxer' inserts something to create a false positive, then sits back and 'laughs' as the researcher finds the thing he was looking for and reports it to news agencies...

This isn't funny.

It also isn't even remotely a good analogy of what's going on here. Here's a better analogy:

A pseudo-science popular science magazine uncritically publishes every single picture of a petri dish with goo in it as a potential cancer cure. Every time it receives a petri dish picture, both the picture and the people submitting it are hailed as saviours of mankind and applauded. Then some hoaxer sends in a fake picture, is given fame and kudos, and then reveals the picture was a hoax. People who previously unquestioningly believed the uncritical hype of the science mag now realize how stupid they've been and now start to question the magazine's claims.

This manner of thinking, the notions you put forth, and the arrogance you demonstrate is truly mind boggling to me.

How is it "mind-boggling" that I believe UFO research should be carried out in a scientific and sceptical manner? As for arrogance, you are the one stating that the hoaxers should be put in jail.

 

[Stray Cat]

*Imagine a guy looking for evidence of microbial life in a soil sample with a microscope. He steps away to use the bathroom. While he's away, a 'hoaxer' inserts something to create a false positive, then sits back and 'laughs' as the researcher finds the thing he was looking for and reports it to news agencies...

The difference being that microbial life EXISTS!

That would be a practical joke not a way to determine if an 'expert' in something that has no scientific credibility had any 'expertise'.

 

[King of the Americas]

But this wasn't done to "get to the truth behind a set of alleged {alien spaceship sightings}", but to demonstrate to people that just because someone says something, doesn't mean it's true. Sorry, but you've completely misunderstood the purpose of this hoax.

It also isn't even remotely a good analogy of what's going on here.

This may have been their intended purpose... But the actual result was to create a false positive within a sincere scientific study. When there is a scientific investigation taking place, if 'you' aren't a researcher, you should stay clear of the field.

Your problem is that you dismiss the validity of the study. So, skewing results is nothing more than knocking over random test tubes in a lab.

It's not your life's work, so who cares!

Are YOU a scientist? Is there any field of study, in which you've spent time?

Have you ever looked for something for a long time, and then have someone say, "Hey, look it's right here!" So, you stop where you were looking, go over to where the person pointed, only to have them laugh at you, for listening and trusting them?

I despise people like that. Time is precious to me, and to have it 'wasted', just for someone else's kicks, really pisses me off. Childish pranks should stop, at the door step of scientific discovery.

 

[Stray Cat]

'Testing' someone's expertise is quite different than orchestrating a fraud upon the public and researchers...

If a UFO expert claims his/her expertise is in determining reports from the public of UFO's it is a necessary step in the test to have a controlled sighting by the public so that those 'experts' can be informed.

Now, you are suggesting that the mere study and analysis of U.F.O.'s that doesn't match your view is a waste of your time???

No, I happen to enjoy looking objectively into UFO sightings, and if someone wished to test my ability to make an objective analysis, I would like to think that I would come out of it smelling of roses. I always expect to be challenged in my findings and see no reason why anyone should object to my claims being challenged in what ever way was most effective.

Well, I guess it is 'your time', to consider it wasted or not. But, no one told you TO spend time listening to these misguided conclusions. These hoaxers made efforts to draw U.F.O. researchers and media outlets to spend time and resources investigating something they KNEW was a farce.

Much like all the time and resources WASTED by those same media outlets and researchers in the thousands of hoaxes promoted by the 'experts' such as the Phoenix Lights, Alien Autopsy footage and Roswell etc. etc. etc.?

If they wanted to 'test' something, they should have done so in a controlled environment.

They did... my only problem with the test are the safety issues already mentioned by others. Unless you can suggest a more effective way of testing the UFO experts?

There is/was nothing scientific about these criminal acts.

Technically speaking you're right, there was nothing scientific about the hoax, I don't think anyone is claiming it's science. Unlike the snake oil salesmen who engage in pseudo-science to promote alien artifacts, abductions and the suchlike!

You don't have to be a doctor to expose a quack.

 

[King of the Americas]

The difference being that microbial life EXISTS!

That would be a practical joke not a way to determine if an 'expert' in something that has no scientific credibility had any 'expertise'.

So, you're a "Static Knowledge Thinker"...

"THIS is what we 'know' now, research beyond these limits/boundaries should be discouraged and even ridiculed."

With that line of thinking, the world would still be flat.

Thank goodness, people like you AREN'T leading the course of scientific study!

 

[Stray Cat]

So, you're a "Static Knowledge Thinker"...
"THIS is what we 'know' now, research beyond these limits/boundaries should be discouraged and even ridiculed."
With that line of thinking, the world would still be flat.
Thank goodness, people like you AREN'T leading the course of scientific study!

Misrepresenting my viewpoint isn't going to win any argument you think you have. You provided a specific example which I responded to.

If you meant the scientists assistant added some previously UNKNOWN microbial life to the sample, that would be a different thing all together.

 

[King of the Americas]

Misrepresenting my viewpoint isn't going to win any argument you think you have. You provided a specific example which I responded to.

If you meant the scientists assistant added some previously UNKNOWN microbial life to the sample, that would be a different thing all together.

Do you consider "Ufology" to be a sincere scientific study/pursuit, that deserves to have it's observations/tests remain free of outside interference?

Or are these hoaxers doing good work, in attempting to insert these false positives?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

This may have been their intended purpose... But the actual result was to create a false positive within a sincere scientific study. When there is a scientific investigation taking place, if 'you' aren't a researcher, you should stay clear of the field.

You've hit the nail upon the head. Why was it a "false positive"? It was a bunch of lights in the sky. Surely to a serious researcher those shouldn't be noteworthy at all, since there are lights in the sky all the time.

To believe that a bunch of lights in the sky that may have been anything is a "positive" is like a doctor believing he's found a miracle cure for cancer every single time someone's tumour goes into remission.

If I didn't misunderstand you and you placed special significance on these lights, then I regret to inform you that the fault lies with you for attributing random lights in the sky a significance they did not deserve.

Have you ever looked for something for a long time, and then have someone say, "Hey, look it's right here!" So, you stop where you were looking, go over to where the person pointed, only to have them laugh at you, for listening and trusting them?

I understand your pain, but I still don't think you understand the purpose of this hoax.

Do you consider "Ufology" to be a sincere scientific study/pursuit, that deserves to have it's observations/tests remain free of outside interference?

Or are these hoaxers doing good work, in attempting to insert these false positives?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You'll notice no one, to my knowledge at least, has tried to hoax SETI yet. Why not? Because SETI is a serious agency, while all too many UFO believers are anything but critical about what they see in the sky.

 

[imjohn]

Do you consider "Ufology" to be a sincere scientific study/pursuit, that deserves to have it's observations/tests remain free of outside interference?

No.

 

[I Ratant]

Do you consider "Ufology" to be a sincere scientific study/pursuit, that deserves to have it's observations/tests remain free of outside interference?

Or are these hoaxers doing good work, in attempting to insert these false positives?

.
Read the sad story of the N-Ray.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
.
The UFO "hoaxers" provide the same service as Professor Wood did, by showing the "experts" in the field can't distinguish fact from their sincerely believed fictions.
Cerealogists, ghost hunters, any of the psychic fields are fair game for demonstrating the poverty of evidence for the phenomena and lack of genuine expertise by any of the claimants of such expertise.
That such demonstrations of poverty in the fields disturbs you should wake you up to your biases.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The UFO "hoaxers" provide the same service as Professor Wood did, by showing the "experts" in the field can't distinguish fact from their sincerely believed fictions.

Also, far more importantly, they teach people to not unquestioningly believe that anything in the sky that they can't explain must be extraterrestrial. Additionally, it shows them how unquestioning the media often is in reporting these events - all too often when ghosts or UFOs or whatever is the subject, they interview only believers, laymen, and people who are admittedly experts, but in irrelevant fields. When they do interview experts and sceptics, all too often they give them little air time.